In countries like France and Belgium, one of the main reasons for denying women their right to vote was the preconceived idea that, while the most militant among them were obviously progressive, all the others would be political vehicles for clergy propaganda : women were simply not rational enough to partake in the affairs of the City (polis). As a result, they had to wait until after WW II to be able to insert their ballot papers into the box and/or run for office. And only at the beginning of this new millennium did most freemasonic lodges welcome and acknowledge female sections.
The late Democratic candidate to the US presidency was not a bigot. She was conservative nonetheless. For instance, it took her many, many years to get used to the idea of gay marriage. But the economy is the field in which her conservatism was most flamboyant.
Last Tuesday, she lost. And she is going to need help. Sadness, delusion, despair, rage, hysteria, desire for revenge : believing she intends to leave it at that would be underestimating the political beast in her. That’s why she is going to need help… quitting.
She needs to understand no means no : the people do not want her ! She is history. She needs to be.
She is going to hold on to the party as if it were her own, which for quite some time it was. She is going to allege the way she has been treated was unfair. And, once more, she is going to try to move her pawns across the chessboard. She is going to want to see a woman ™ at the head of the DNC or as minority leader, because the woman card played out so well during this campaign. She will argue no other angle can ensure a clearer opposition to what has been elected. Otherwise, why would the mass media keep looking for external scapegoats for her – her ! – defeat ?…
She will persist. She will try to maintain. She is wrong.
Once it was clear she would not be the first female US president, her fervent devotee Michael Moore suggested five ways to react to this debacle : leave incredulity behind, take over the party, fire the pundits and pollsters, obstruct Republicans in Congress, and repeat she won the popular vote. She did indeed, but the opposite could have been true, and each candidate knew the rules of engagement. If some of them are antidemocratic, they had the power to do something about it : they could, for instance, have allowed ranked voting in swing states. Repeating she won the popular vote would not only empower those who are picturing her as a sore loser; it would also complicate the party takeover, since she would remain a reference.
For months, no one outside the old lady’s circle of vassals, intriguers and silly supporters has been allowed to voice this simple truth : it is profoundly anti-feminist to consider a woman solely through the prism of her being a woman, regardless of what she thinks and what she does or does not stand for. Saying that meant you were either a pig-supporter or a Bernie-bro. But it’s not the woman who was rejected a few days ago : as such, the woman was an empty shell. It is the politics she holds dear, and her persistent refusal to uphold any code of ethics.
Any woman who renounces the former and sincerely swears to abide by the latter would be enthusiastically welcomed, even at the highest level. Any other would merely be a marketing product. And, whether male or female, whether in the US or elsewhere, we’ve had those for far too long…