|binary solo said:
I assume feminists would be highly critical of people who make false accusations of rape. Given no one has managed to prove rape beyond a reasonable doubt the presumption of innocence applies to Bill, in terms of rape. Therefore Hillary has every right to go after Bill's false accusers.
If you think Hillary knows Bill is an actual rapist and she's still going after these legit victims then yeah that's bad. But that's all in your mind, because you don't know the truth, you just want it to be the truth so much you've decided it is the truth.
Having an affair is not illegal. And also there is nothing at all wrong or unusual for the scorned wife to have a lot of anger towards the other woman. "Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned." People have heard of that saying right? If the other woman comes out publicly then I see no problem with going after them as long as you don't break any laws in what you do (like paying to get them kneecapped or something). Coming out publicly only serves to give the other woman (or man as the case may be) 15 minutes of fame and serves as fodder to political opponents. If they were willing participants in the affairs at the time then I have no problem with Hillary hounding them for going public.
Clearly Hillary was not going to publicly castigate Bill for his part in it, but I bet behind closed doors some harsh words were spoken, and Bill probably spent a lot of time on the couch.
I do know some feminists who think Hillary played the whole thing wrong and they wish she wasn't in line to be the first woman president. But they certainly think she's a miles better option than ole misogynist Drumpf. And not in a lesser of two evils way, in an actual materially better person, better candidate and better ideology way.
The rape acusation was /is credible but you are right it has not been proven in a court of law because it never made it that far- but the rpae acusatinons are a small part of the history of Bill sleeping w awomen, the news coming out, Hillary going after the "rodeo queens" in every manner that feminists despise including trying to discredit them and the affairs alltogether- but evenutaully they were actualy proven true-
Whichh accussed rapists (other than Bill Clinton) have feminists come to the defense of?
So someone who says they are with the feminissts but whose actions are diametrically appossed is better than a person that does not pander to them?
Jennifer Flowers and Monica Lewensky are 2 of many that she went after that were proven to be telling the truth- in case you are too young to remember or don t know much about the Clintons history-
The rape accusations are not credible. If they were then Bill would have been prosecuted. If prosecutors have found there is insufficient evidence to convict then for all purposes Bill is innocent. Accusations of rape that only lead to trial by media should be ignored. You can't tell me there isn't enough money and political influence on the right to get a rape case going in the courts. Do I believe Bill ever raped anyone? I have no idea, and neither do you.
Ask any feminist what they think about false accusations of rape? False rape accusations are very damaging to women's causes, and they create a cry wolf mindset where actual rape victims are viewed with suspicion among police and prosecutors, especially in cases where there are no obvious signs of violence.
You've failed to demonstrate that Hillary's actions are diametrically opposed to feminism. The rape thing is irrelevant. And how is it that Hillary's actions against women who did her wrong is unfeminist? Feminism does not require you to be all sweetness and light towards women who have wronged you? The way I see it, when there's an affair there are two guilty parties. The married person may arguably share the greater blame, but the other person is not without blame. A morally upstanding person will say no the advances of a married person, and also will not pursue a married person. Where is the solidarity of sisterhood in someone who knowingly has sex with a married man? Surely the first betrayal of feminism was in dishonouring Hillary by having sex with her husband.
But you could say that the mere fact that Hillary entered into marriage with a man is anti-feminist. So feminists whould not vote for a married woman, unless it's a lesbian marriage.
What makes you the appropriate judge of consistency with feminism in Hillary's actions? About the only thing you can reasonably say is a betrayal of feminist principles is that Hillary didn't leave Bill. But does that make her persona non-grata with moderate feminists? And when it comes to the implementation of policy that will actually affect your life I would think voting for somone who panders to you but who's personal life does not live up to the ideal is better than voting for somone who regards you as an irrelevance. The perfect feminist candidate does not exist, therefore you vote for the one who is both realisitcally electable and least imperfect. If they want to vote for Jill Stein as a better feminist candidate that only serves to make trump getting in more likely.
BTW, I imagine radical feminists are largely sitting this election out or voting Stein, since they probably do think Hillary is just another puppet of the patriarchy, who happens to have female plumbing.