A Feminist's Argument Against Hillary For President

If “full-body cringing” counts as “exercise,” then I got quite a workout last weekend after Madeleine Albright implied that women who won't vote for Hillary Clinton will go to hell, and Gloria Steinem sneeringly suggested that the only reason any young Democratic women might prefer Bernie Sanders over Clinton was so those women could meet boys. (Advice for young women choosing their political affiliations solely in hopes of meeting a single man: start going to libertarian meetups.)

Although I voted libertarian in the last presidential election, I'll almost certainly be voting for the Democrat (whoever it is) this time around – or, more specifically, I'll be voting against the Republican. And if voting for the Dem means voting for Hillary then I'll do so, but that doesn't mean I'll like it. Speaking strictly as a feminist: I hope Hillary Clinton does not win the title of “America's first woman president,” because I would much prefer to see that honor go to someone, left or right wing, who built her political career entirely on her own merits, rather than one whose entire political career is based on being married to a former president. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with being a woman who married well; I'm just saying that rewarding a woman for doing so does not count as a feminist victory.

A Sincere Question For Marco Rubio

I've joked for years now that the national GOP leadership must've been infiltrated by deep-cover Democratic operatives whose mission is to ensure that no matter how bad a Democratic candidate is, the Republican opponent will be even worse. Sometime during the 2012 presidential election, that Democratic mole earned his salary and then some, by convincing the GOP “You know what America's real problem is? Pregnant rape victims are not legally forced to bear their rapists' offspring! We should totally use the power of the state to change that.”

But that was four years ago. Today, in 2016, I can't say for certain whether Marco Rubio is a sincere Republican or one of the aforementioned deep-cover Dem operatives, but Rubio still says that, if elected president, he will try to ban abortion even in cases of rape and incest. 

“Abortion to me is not a political issue. It's a human rights issue,” Rubio said.

(For what it's worth, I actually agree with him there. Only difference is, I believe “human rights” apply to human women even if they're pregnant, whereas Rubio clearly does not.)

So Rubio says that forcing a woman to give birth against her will is a just, righteous and moral use of government power, and even if I could have a personal conversation with him I wouldn't waste my time trying to convince him otherwise. But there is one question I'd genuinely like to ask Rubio and other forced-birth advocates: if you want to use state power to force pregnant rape victims to bear their attackers' offspring, would you at least be willing to let tax dollars cover said rape victims' full hospital and birthing costs plus lost wages? Or is that too much like “socialism” for your tastes?