Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

On Hillary Clinton as a Model for Young Girls
Townhall.com ^ | August 30, 2016 | Dennis Prager

Posted on 08/30/2016 4:57:11 AM PDT by Kaslin

One of the most oft-heard claims made by supporters of Hillary Clinton is what a positive role model she would be for young girls as president.

They say: "Then, my daughters will know that nothing is to too great for them to aspire to. A woman can indeed be president of the United States."

So goes the argument.

According to the latest Quinnipiac University poll, women will vote for Clinton by 60 percent to 36 percent, a margin of 24 percent. In the last presidential election, the margin was 10 percent.

If the polls are accurate concerning the lopsided female support for Clinton, there are three likely reasons:

--Many women really want a woman president.

--Many women want this model for their daughters and all other girls.

--Some women who might have voted for a Republican male just won't vote for Donald Trump.

In a previous column, I addressed the issue of how morally primitive it is for a woman to vote for a woman because of her gender. I will therefore only address the widespread notion that it will be very good for young girls if Clinton is elected because they will be able to realize that nothing in America is closed to them.

Given that the former secretary of state used her office to enrich herself and her husband; given that she so willfully compromised national security by setting up her own private email server in order to avoid congressional and public oversight; given that she has repeatedly lied about these actions; given that she lied to the mothers and fathers of the men killed by terrorists in Benghazi; and given that she has a long history of lying (a New York Times columnist called her a "congenital liar" in the 1990s), the notion of Clinton as a model for America's girls and young women is nothing, if not depressing.

Parents who think this way must either be willfully fooling themselves about how corrupt a person Clinton is, or they are being honest with themselves, but they nevertheless conclude that all that matters is that their daughter and other girls see a woman in the White House. Of course, even these people are not being fully honest with themselves, because the vast majority of them would never vote for an honest -- let alone dishonest -- woman if she were a Republican.

This obsession with a woman in the White House is a liberal preoccupation. The vast majority of conservatives, in contrast, wouldn't care.

Why is that?

The answer is that conservatives do not think like liberals. People on the left think of themselves as worldly, and with regard to national identity, this is largely true. Viewing themselves as world citizens, liberals value national identity far less than conservatives do. That's why on national holidays you will find so many fewer American flags in liberal neighborhoods than in conservative neighborhoods. What the left has done is trade in national identity and solidarity for race, gender and class identity and solidarity.

Conservatives affirm national identity and solidarity ("e pluribus unum"), but not gender, race or class identity and solidarity. Most conservative women are not impressed with the idea of "female solidarity." They regard it as intellectually and morally foolish. And all conservatives -- male and female -- regard "racial solidarity" as just another term for racism.

Second, more conservative women think that if a woman is going to serve as a model for their daughters, that woman might indeed be a president or a CEO. But she might just as likely be a woman who makes a wonderful home that fosters good people, good Americans and a good marriage. I have to believe that even many liberals would acknowledge that the country now needs more good homes than good astronauts, CEOs, lawyers, professors, etc.

Third, conservative women are far less likely to believe that a corrupt conservative woman could serve as a model for their daughters. We all understand that sometimes we feel compelled to vote for someone we may not admire because the cause is more important than the individual. That is understandable. So, if liberal women were to argue that they support Clinton because they will vote for an unethical Democrat over any Republican, then that would be intellectually honest.

But liberal women do not say that. Instead, they laud Clinton and say that they want a female president as a role model for their daughters.

And that is what is morally troubling about such support of liberal women (and many liberal men as well) for Clinton. Parents who want their daughters to regard Hillary Clinton as a model are telling their daughters that gender solidarity is more important than moral character.

The country will pay a terrible price for this message.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Editorial; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: clinton; female; gender; girls; hillary; hillaryclinton; hillaryrottenclinton; model; president; women
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-23 next last
This is why the voting age should be put back to 21 maybe even later.
1 posted on 08/30/2016 4:57:11 AM PDT by Kaslin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Voting has nothing to do with age.

The founders had it right with property owners.


2 posted on 08/30/2016 5:03:22 AM PDT by Read Write Repeat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Anyone voting for Hellary is an uneducated moron, leftist hack or just a bad person.


3 posted on 08/30/2016 5:03:49 AM PDT by tflabo (Truth or tyranny)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Liberals consider morality the burden of the right. They are liberated from such nonsense. Hillary is the quintessential woman, unfettered by the past and open to an unbridled future. Her legacy is “me first!”


4 posted on 08/30/2016 5:03:53 AM PDT by Louis Foxwell (Stop the Left and save the world.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Yet another very simple and honest difference between how the conservative and liberal minds work. Really fascinating.


5 posted on 08/30/2016 5:04:59 AM PDT by Hodar (A man can fail many times, but he isn't a failure until he begins to blame somebody else.- Burroughs)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

You just have to turn the cultural propaganda off its head back onto its feet. Not “you can never have a career” but “you can have kids and stay home with them” which even hardened abortion feminists aspire to. Women drag down the wage & employment sex ratio with men by voting with their feet. Real “career” slavery means indefinitely deferring childbearing, working overtime and weekends. Women have this inconvenient pattern of voting against that paradigm with their feet.


6 posted on 08/30/2016 5:05:43 AM PDT by CharlesOConnell (CharlesOConnell)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

True, but too many of today’s twenty-somethings are about as mature and thoughtful as yesterday’s toddlers.

A better way to go might be to return us to the days when only landowners could vote, and add to that they must have children as well.

When virtually everyone has this kind of skin in the game, it’s likely the government would be kept in line and held to account.


7 posted on 08/30/2016 5:06:02 AM PDT by Paulie (America without Christ is like a Chemistry book without the periodic table.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
This is why the voting age should be put back to 21 maybe even later.

Why limit voting to older idiots?

Age largely misses the point. We get more big government because people who benefit from big government (but aren't required to pay for it) are allowed to vote.

8 posted on 08/30/2016 5:06:30 AM PDT by NorthMountain (Hillary Clinton: corrupt unreliable negligent traitor)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CharlesOConnell

Black men would be employed if it weren’t for EEO


9 posted on 08/30/2016 5:06:55 AM PDT by bert ((K.E.; N.P.; GOPc;WASP .... We Frack for Peace)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: NorthMountain

This is true, but what do you suggest?


10 posted on 08/30/2016 5:13:22 AM PDT by Kaslin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
They say: "Then, my daughters will know that nothing is to too great for them to aspire to. A woman can indeed be president of the United States."

This is already true. There is no need to elect a corrupt harridan to affirm it.
11 posted on 08/30/2016 5:13:36 AM PDT by needmorePaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tflabo

You got that right.


12 posted on 08/30/2016 5:14:08 AM PDT by Kaslin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Read Write Repeat

Hear! Hear! The Founders knew that voters who paid to keep the country running by paying taxes would watch the federal government’s tendency to spend more than it took in. No democracy can survive when voters can vote themselves money from the nation’s treasury while not paying any taxes! Whoever thought that would work was really stupid, and we see the disastrous results all over the world. The current example is Venezuela.


13 posted on 08/30/2016 5:16:59 AM PDT by txrefugee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
I suggest some combination of real property ownership and prior honorable military service. Since I oppose income taxation, I would rather abolish that instrument of totalitarianism than use it as a voting criterion.

Alternatively, I would offer that anyone receiving 'benefits' from government (or who has received them since the last election) is to be barred from voting.

14 posted on 08/30/2016 5:18:31 AM PDT by NorthMountain (Hillary Clinton: corrupt unreliable negligent traitor)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
Most conservative women are not impressed with the idea of "female solidarity." They regard it as intellectually and morally foolish.

Also notice that if the *****First Female Candidate for U.S. President on a Major-Party Ticket***** were a Republican, we would not hear much about the fact from women--or from men.

Conservatives wouldn't think primarily of "The First Female President!!!"--or at least should try not to think that way--and would mention the fact mainly to show that so-called liberals weren't saying things like "...then, my daughters will know that nothing is to too great for them to aspire to. A woman can indeed be president of the United States." Any of that "female solidarity" would end well before that point.

(The same applies to a "racial" or "ethnic" solidarity, which leftists will never invoke for conservatives who are "people of color.")

15 posted on 08/30/2016 5:23:15 AM PDT by Lonely Bull ("When he is being rude or mean it drives people _away_ from his confession and _towards_ yours.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
I forgot to add this to my last post:

So, if liberal women were to argue that they support Clinton because they will vote for an unethical Democrat over any Republican, then that would be intellectually honest.

But liberal women do not say that. Instead, they laud Clinton and say that they want a female president as a role model for their daughters.

What I just wrote is relevant to this part too, at least for those "liberal" women (and men, too) who actually have thought about this matter and say something like that, even if they know it to be dishonest. I can easily believe that many "liberals" exist who have never thought about the matter and have never realized that they'd never laud a "trailblazing" conservative woman.

16 posted on 08/30/2016 5:30:44 AM PDT by Lonely Bull ("When he is being rude or mean it drives people _away_ from his confession and _towards_ yours.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Lonely Bull

Identity politics is disgusting, and I fault both Dems and Republicans for turning people against each other based on groupings versus promoting individual ideals.


17 posted on 08/30/2016 5:38:01 AM PDT by Read Write Repeat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

WORST....PAPER.....DOLL.....BOOK......EVER!!


18 posted on 08/30/2016 5:59:17 AM PDT by Buckeye McFrog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Political women are far more corrupt and over-compromising than men. Also, few have the stamina for the national election process, much less the pace of elected service. This is NOT to say that women in general are more corrupt, but that their natural gifts don’t work well in that arena. (Please note that I am a woman.)


19 posted on 08/30/2016 6:53:54 AM PDT by Missouri gal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Read Write Repeat

Yep...PROPERTY OWNERS should be the only ones voting.


20 posted on 08/30/2016 7:56:37 AM PDT by goodnesswins (Hillary & Huma SUPPORT those who support CLITORECTOMIES for little girls...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-23 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson