Hillary returns to her “we must not tolerate UnGood Thoughts” theme, this time on abortion
NEW YORK — Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton took a feminist tone on Thursday. She told attendees at the sixth annual Women in The World Summit that “deep-seated cultural codes, religious beliefs and structural biases have to be changed” for the sake of giving women access to “reproductive health care and safe childbirth.”
“Far too many women are denied access to reproductive health care and safe childbirth, and laws don’t count for much if they’re not enforced. Rights have to exist in practice — not just on paper,” Clinton said.
“Laws have to be backed up with resources and political will,” she explained. “And deep-seated cultural codes, religious beliefs and structural biases have to be changed. As I have said and as I believe, the advancement of the full participation of women and girls in every aspect of their societies is the great unfinished business of the 21st century and not just for women but for everyone — and not just in far away countries but right here in the United States.”
That which we call “fundamental transformation,” by any other name, would smell as rank.
Just a reminder: culture is a hoax — an earlier age’s fundamental transformation. We should notice that we play at our own risk, and that just like the state lottery, we only have to play to lose.
sdferr
I’m wondering at Hillary and the Leftists who have no issue with changing, by judicial fiat if necessary, MY cultural traditions but scream to high heaven if someone “culturally appropriates” or “culturally offends” one of their fetishized cultures
(wearing the “wrong” Halloween costumes or serving Mexican food at a Sci-Fi event)
Were there ever mere traditions before they became cultural traditions? Is there really any value added, as the smart kids say nowadays, by appending cultural to the earlier concept? Do the traditions change by such appending? Or are they more or less the same? (I’d suggest that — funny thing! — the traditions do change by means of such a device — and not for the better, but for the worse).
sdferr
IMHO the word “tradition” became a negative term — one could easily dismiss any practice by just sneering
“Tradition? Bah!
Sorta like “ewww…that’s so old-fashioned!”
Sticking the word “cultural” into the mix allowed the usual nannies to carve off certain peoples as sacrosanct and make any review or criticism of their practices & traditions the Mark of The H8r.
Culture talk is splendid talk about an emptiness which can be filled with all manner of nonsense. That’s its peculiar virtue. Time was people could more or less easily recognize such stuff as sophistry. Time is when the idea of sophistry got lost in culture.
Not to turn the subject from culture, but to inject a (hopefully) rational background to the question, I’ll attempt to recapitulate a sketch of an account I heard from Leo Strauss about the development of Historicism as one of the two modern guiding lights of political thought — so here goes (wish me luck):
People noticed that serious thinkers differed, had conflicting answers to the question “what is the best human life?”. This was upsetting, somehow. How to reconcile these fundamentally opposed views, and where should we stand (since that particular question “what is the best human life?” remains active in ourselves) with a firm (i.e. rational) answer to that nagging question?
Then someone noticed: time! It’s just a matter of time! One fellow — Aristotle, say — lived in Athens during such and such a period saying what those people would say, and another fellow, Hobbes let’s say, lived in England (when he wasn’t fleeing) at a much later period saying what those people would say. It was their times that made their answers, for they were the sons of their times: it was their times and their places which explained their conflicts.
What unifies, rationalize and reconciles these oppositional phenomena? Why, history! That is, our understanding of history as History — life in development, toward an answer to the best human life.
What is the answer? History! But in order that some finality comes, our understanding of this passage of History must have an absolute moment. Never-ending change, after all, is utterly irrational, incomprehensible. The resolution, as it happens, is this moment in which we realize that History is the answer to these various and differing answers. So Hegel. (And so the “end” of History as telos, the arrival)
This, it seems to me, reflects the role of culture here. To put in (unintelligible) boxes all these differing answers to the one question which constantly nags at us, and to which answers are in never-ending (as it seems) conflict.
In the front door slips this unifier — this key. Marx knew just what to do with it. Out the back door and onto the trash heap we eliminate nature and voila!: Paradise!
History, mistory herstory.
“Time keeps on turning, turning, into the future” and the old dead past shall forever stay dead and past. Utopia is nigh.
Oh, buzz off, you amoral, money-grubbing, crony-cuddling, tax-evading, abuse-enabling, classless harridan.
What about her past unGood thoughts? I mean, it was a mere eight years ago she was talking about how “traditional” marriage was a bedrock institution of civilization and ought not be tinkered with, you know?
dammit geoff! You know better than to make my point before me!
grifters united
The Sting | Soundtrack Suite (Scott Joplin & Marvin Hamlisch)
as bitches go she’s more profound than some but less so than others
old white wymens – 2016!!!1!!!
we need a fresh face in the demonrat party like castro from texas. viva la clownage!!1!!
The Democrats consider Botox Nancy a fresh face.
Sorta OT: Suicide watch will be needed for someone[s].
That’s the only thing Jenner’s said that doesn’t stink of teh crazee.
And speaking of suicide watches. Michael Walsh says Hillary is a dead candidate walking.
I sez, never underestimate will to power.
Or the need to bow and scrape before it.
I hope for his sake he’s not making an irreversible decision based on a condition that isn’t.
Sdferr, being as you reject “culture” as a hoax, what do you replace it with?
I mean if someone says “Japan has a unique culture which leaves them better prepared for a united response”, I know what is being said, and I don’t see where the word is misleading or improper.
Sorry to be dense, but I just don’t get your objection.
I’m not certain it’s necessary to replace it with anything, save perhaps better understanding of the peoples subtended. On the other hand I ask myself, what replaced phlogiston? Was it actually replaced at all? Or merely generally dropped into the erasure bin?
I don’t see “culture” (or another of your bugaboo’s, “values”) as non-existent. Intangible maybe, but it does describe something that is. I just don’t get your hang-up, and now have lost interest in figuring it out. Never mind.
Here’s a good read, fresh off Instapundit.
Read the whole thing, as they say.
Projection. Hillary is assuming because SHE has evolved, everyone else will have to also, or otherwise HER evolution is not mainstream. Further, because she believes herself to be, despite every detail to the contrary, mainstream, that those that disagree have to be, must be, couldn’t be anything but, a minority. She’s wrong, as she is with damn near everything else. But….
What Obama proposes, Hillary supposes? A fundamental transformation of the United States.
I hope everyone here is standing up for their beliefs in their REAL life, I’ll be doing it in front of City Hall on May 2nd…. San Diego, Noon.
tracy
As long as Progressives use The State to punish … either Swatting families ala John Doe or financial ruin as this $135,000 “fine”, it will be hard for people to stand firm.
Most will just shut down and withdraw.
BTW…what’s happening 5/2 in San Diego?
Slacker May Day.
guinspen wins the thread
(soooo stolen)
I will make my announcement with regard to a Presidential Run. It’ll be fun!
guispen….a day late and a dollar short? :)
UPDATE: GoFundMe Page for Christian ‘Sweet Cakes’ Bakery Goes Dark
HILL-ARIOUS: Bill Clinton’s Wife Condemns ‘Scourge Of Sexual Assault’ In First Big Speech