“Whether it’s repro rights, violence against women, or just plain old vanilla sexism, most issues affecting women have one thing in common – they exist to keep women ‘in their place.’ To make sure that we’re acting ‘appropriately,’ whatever that means.” – Jessica Valenti
The liberal philosophy is a tangled mess of contradictions, and meaningless filler. That’s to be expected, though. When your entire viewpoint is based not in logic, but in everything else, inconsistency is king. Once one steps outside of logical thought processes, philosophy becomes entirely relative, and relativity ultimately leads to contradictions.
A beautiful example of liberal philosophical relativism is sexism. One would like to believe—if they followed logic—that a sexist remark is the same, whether it’s said to a conservative woman, or a liberal woman. Calling Sarah Palin the C word should be just as wrong as calling Hillary Clinton the C word. But that’s just not the case. To a liberal, it’s ok to call Sarah Palin “Caribou Barbie,” but if you criticize Hillary Clinton’s handling of Benghazi, you’re a sexist. To a liberal, any criticism of a female Democrat is sexist.
Once again, one would like to believe that even in their inconsistent approach to sexism, liberals would at least remain consistent within some kind of internal logic of their own devising. But that’s not even the case. It appears that sexism is simply whatever liberals need it to be at the time. For example, recently, The Huffington Post held a discussion in which several feminists endorsed the idea of giving women monthly menstrual leave from work.
Skepchick.com founder Rebecca Watson had this to say: “Just by asking the question, ‘Should women get paid menstruation leave?’ biases the listener into saying, ‘Oh, of course not,’ because you’re talking about special treatment. But if you were to say, should men get paid time off if they were kicked in the testicles, yes, like if you have a medical problem, you should get to take time off…”
Editor at hoodfeminism.com Mikki Kendall said: “Just give us all more paid leave. Most people, for one reason or another, probably need a couple days off in a given month because of illness, because of family emergencies, because they woke up that day and they don’t feel great and they’re just overwrought and overtired, whatever.”
In essence, these two allegedly feminist women are endorsing special treatment for women based solely on the fact that they have uteruses. Now, I have no stake in the issue of menstrual leave, but what intrigues me here is the hypocrisy of these women. I can guarantee that if someone were to ask either of them if women are unfit for the presidency because of their menstrual cycles, they would be outraged—and rightfully so. We all know that a woman’s period is no indicator of her competency. We all know that a woman’s period shouldn’t have any effect on whether or not she attains a position of power. Given that, though, why should it then allow her to receive special treatment in the workforce?
Imagine for a second that a male Fox News host suggested that women receive menstrual leave. The nation would descend into chaos. Every news network would be covering the story, demanding an apology, and calling for his resignation. Comedians would skewer him, and liberals would be telling us that he wants to turn back the clock. He would be labeled as sexist. So, if he would be called sexist, why aren’t these women being called sexists? Oh, that’s right. They’re liberal women, so sexism is whatever they need it to be. Sexism is a tool to be used when an agenda needs to be advanced. Outside of that, it’s unnecessary.
Remember this story when Hillary runs for president.