I was scrolling my Facebook wall today when a liberal friend of mine posted this article from Mic.com. The article addresses the issue of women running for president. Clearly, the article is using humor to get the author's point across. I wanted to laugh, but couldn't for the anger I felt over the tactics used. The use of humor is great, I think, but the author is making the issue of opposition to a female candidate about sexism, rather than opposition to political policy. This is a similar tactic used by Democrats who claim if you don't approve of Obama then you must be racist. Now, if I don't support Hillary Clinton in her bid for the presidency, I MUST be sexist. That, dear reader, angers me.
I recently watched a decent film I highly recommend. The film was Warrior Queen, released in 2003, originally titled Boudica (source: IMDb). This films is a fictional account of the historical Boudica, a Celtic, warrior queen of the British Iceni tribe. The movie is a bit low budget, but well worth a watch. I would recommend anyone interested to read up on her story, as it is really interesting material. I'm still piecing it all together myself, but eventually may right up an essay on this awesome woman.
(WARNING! Spoiler Alert!)
Based on the telling from the movie, Boudica was Queen of this particular tribe, alongside her husband, King Prasutagus. The Romans were coming through to conquer the Celtics peoples, but in many cases, sought diplomacy rather than conquest. This was the case with the Iceni. After the king dies, however, the original deal made with the Romans goes to shit. There are some tribal girls kidnapped by Roman soldiers. Boudica, with her two daughters and some warriors, go to the Roman authority of the area to confront him. She and her daughters are captured. Her warriors are murdered. They tie up Boudica and her daughters. Her daughters are raped repeatedly and brutally, and Boudica is forced to watch while she herself is being flogged. I must warn you, this was difficult even for me to watch, but I felt they did a good job of portraying the horror of such treatment without going to far over the top. They are released, eventually. So, what does Boudica do about this? She gets up, like a boss, forces her daughters to do the same, and they walk back to their tribe, painfully, but with dignity, and doing their best to show no signs of being broken.
A cool scene comes up after this in which the shaman, a.k.a. Druid Priest, performs an act of magick. He removes the "seeds" from the princesses' wombs, throws these seeds in a lake, and a fucking swords comes rising up out of the water made from the those seeds. Seriously friggin cool! (Also, this reminded me of Excalibur in the tales of King Arthur. I will be researching this to see if there is anything to this, or if it was just the writer of the film indulging.) Boudica then uses this sword for what she is about to do. What does she do next?
Boudica starts a revolt against the Roman Empire. She leads her tribe, and several other tribes, with thousands of Celtic warriors, backed by the Druids, into brutal, bloody battle with the Romans. They have some wins, but they ultimately lose against the Romans. All was not lost, however, because one could easily argue that her revolt was the catalyst for the Emperor deciding to remove the Romans and the Empire completely from Britain.
Now, talk about leadership! What a friggin woman. If I were a Celt in those times, you damn right I'd follow her into battle. She was a sovereign Queen who was reduced to nothing by the Romans, having to watch the horror of what happened to her daughters, and suffered basically all of those things that modern, third wave feminists complain about but never actually experience; yet, she rose up against her aggressors, not only for herself, but for her people. It is truly a great story, inspiring, and I am saddened we don't hear more about her. She is truly an example of what it means to be a leader.
None of the women running for president have any of these qualities. Hell, neither do any of the men running for president. That kind of leaves me a bit empty. We have no heroes, or heroines to lead this country. This is usually how I like to choose first. I look at what I know or can ascertain from the media and other sources just what type of character a candidate has, then I look at their policies. From this I vote. I am usually disappointed.
My choice has nothing to do with whether a candidate is white, black, male, female, homosexual, heterosexual, alien, reptilian, rich, poor, or any of those things. I knew it would turn to this which is illustrated in the linked article above. The Democrats and liberals are going to make it seem as if those of us who oppose Clinton's bid are sexist. And they will all back her 100%, just because. They will back her just because she is a woman, because she is "liberal", because she is a Democrat.
I had hoped by now most people understood that the two party system is bunk. Clinton has a history of politically unethical conduct. I'm not even sure why she has any sort of authority whatsoever. That in itself only proves to me just how corrupt this country has become. But people are still loyal to their given parties. If they only understood that the corruption that is will only continue if we continue to play partisan politics. It is a product of the corruption itself. And as it has been said, "A house divided cannot stand".
Using low ball tactics such as this author has chosen are completely counter productive and only serve to distract from authentic political discourse. I, and all those who also disapprove of Clinton's bid, are already doomed from the start. We can't avoid it. The debate is already over before it began. To them who support her, we are already sexist, and we simply cannot argue our way out of it, regardless of the fallacy of their argument.
Finally, I'd like to point out that while these liberals and Democrats are arguing that those on the right are sexist for not supporting their chosen candidate, they forget that years ago the right had one Sarah Palin running for Vice President. But, I guess that doesn't matter.
It should go without stating that I already knew she would be president. So did several others. She is part of the elite. She was chosen long ago, and no amount of voting will amount to any difference. I, myself, would prefer a Boudica.
 |
| IMDb |
(WARNING! Spoiler Alert!)
Based on the telling from the movie, Boudica was Queen of this particular tribe, alongside her husband, King Prasutagus. The Romans were coming through to conquer the Celtics peoples, but in many cases, sought diplomacy rather than conquest. This was the case with the Iceni. After the king dies, however, the original deal made with the Romans goes to shit. There are some tribal girls kidnapped by Roman soldiers. Boudica, with her two daughters and some warriors, go to the Roman authority of the area to confront him. She and her daughters are captured. Her warriors are murdered. They tie up Boudica and her daughters. Her daughters are raped repeatedly and brutally, and Boudica is forced to watch while she herself is being flogged. I must warn you, this was difficult even for me to watch, but I felt they did a good job of portraying the horror of such treatment without going to far over the top. They are released, eventually. So, what does Boudica do about this? She gets up, like a boss, forces her daughters to do the same, and they walk back to their tribe, painfully, but with dignity, and doing their best to show no signs of being broken.
A cool scene comes up after this in which the shaman, a.k.a. Druid Priest, performs an act of magick. He removes the "seeds" from the princesses' wombs, throws these seeds in a lake, and a fucking swords comes rising up out of the water made from the those seeds. Seriously friggin cool! (Also, this reminded me of Excalibur in the tales of King Arthur. I will be researching this to see if there is anything to this, or if it was just the writer of the film indulging.) Boudica then uses this sword for what she is about to do. What does she do next?
Boudica starts a revolt against the Roman Empire. She leads her tribe, and several other tribes, with thousands of Celtic warriors, backed by the Druids, into brutal, bloody battle with the Romans. They have some wins, but they ultimately lose against the Romans. All was not lost, however, because one could easily argue that her revolt was the catalyst for the Emperor deciding to remove the Romans and the Empire completely from Britain.
Now, talk about leadership! What a friggin woman. If I were a Celt in those times, you damn right I'd follow her into battle. She was a sovereign Queen who was reduced to nothing by the Romans, having to watch the horror of what happened to her daughters, and suffered basically all of those things that modern, third wave feminists complain about but never actually experience; yet, she rose up against her aggressors, not only for herself, but for her people. It is truly a great story, inspiring, and I am saddened we don't hear more about her. She is truly an example of what it means to be a leader.
None of the women running for president have any of these qualities. Hell, neither do any of the men running for president. That kind of leaves me a bit empty. We have no heroes, or heroines to lead this country. This is usually how I like to choose first. I look at what I know or can ascertain from the media and other sources just what type of character a candidate has, then I look at their policies. From this I vote. I am usually disappointed.
My choice has nothing to do with whether a candidate is white, black, male, female, homosexual, heterosexual, alien, reptilian, rich, poor, or any of those things. I knew it would turn to this which is illustrated in the linked article above. The Democrats and liberals are going to make it seem as if those of us who oppose Clinton's bid are sexist. And they will all back her 100%, just because. They will back her just because she is a woman, because she is "liberal", because she is a Democrat.
I had hoped by now most people understood that the two party system is bunk. Clinton has a history of politically unethical conduct. I'm not even sure why she has any sort of authority whatsoever. That in itself only proves to me just how corrupt this country has become. But people are still loyal to their given parties. If they only understood that the corruption that is will only continue if we continue to play partisan politics. It is a product of the corruption itself. And as it has been said, "A house divided cannot stand".
Using low ball tactics such as this author has chosen are completely counter productive and only serve to distract from authentic political discourse. I, and all those who also disapprove of Clinton's bid, are already doomed from the start. We can't avoid it. The debate is already over before it began. To them who support her, we are already sexist, and we simply cannot argue our way out of it, regardless of the fallacy of their argument.
Finally, I'd like to point out that while these liberals and Democrats are arguing that those on the right are sexist for not supporting their chosen candidate, they forget that years ago the right had one Sarah Palin running for Vice President. But, I guess that doesn't matter.
It should go without stating that I already knew she would be president. So did several others. She is part of the elite. She was chosen long ago, and no amount of voting will amount to any difference. I, myself, would prefer a Boudica.
