The Myth Behind Women’s Lib OR Why I See Hillary Clinton’s Face and Think “Birth Control”

Personally, I think of Hillary Clinton the same way I think of the birth control pill—as something ostensibly representing the liberation of womanhood but which, in actuality, does just the opposite. Just bear with me for a moment, will you?



To begin, I’d like to employ the assistance of my friends Merriam and Webster:

Word: irony
Pronunciation: \ˈī-rə-nē also ˈī(-ə)r-nē\
(1): the use of words to express something other than and especially the opposite of the literal meaning (2): incongruity between the actual result of a sequence of events and the normal or expected result (3): an event or result marked by such incongruity


When The Pill was introduced, it was revolutionary and revered…I mean, there were country-western songs written about this thing. All of a sudden, women everywhere were like “Yea! FINALLY we don’t have to be pregnant any more!” True enough, but at what price? Look how many health problems (including weight gain, atherosclerosis, and possible links to cervical cancer) have now been associated with use of b/c pills. (After 12 years in pharmacy, I’ve heard all the sad tales.) So now, in this day and age when we demand hormone-free milk and free range chicken, we STILL have a bunch of hormone-infused women reveling in the false notion they are liberated and free from outside influence? Puh!

I guess I never understood why women didn’t demand more. Why, when the Pill was introduced, didn’t women say, “Ummm, no thanks. I’m not willing to shove chemicals down my throat on a daily basis, month after month, year after year. I’ll wait until you come up with some pharmaceutical concoction that renders men temporarily infertile, and THEN I’ll resume giving out the good stuff.” Had that indeed been the case (and had all women been serious and willing to hold out), you can bet your sweet you-know-what the pharmaceutical industry would have answered that demand!



Alas, women (thinking they were oh, so clever) single-handedly shouldered the entire medical responsibility for family planning, in fact, they acquiesced in droves. I’d argue the Pill did more to liberate men and make women more dependent. (Note to my fellow females: The only thing worse than going along with a bad idea like a bunch of sheep, is going along with a bad idea like a bunch of super-enthusiastic sheep, insisting the idea was yours!)

And in what way does Hillary Clinton resemble the Pill? I’ll tell ya’: Women (for whatever reason) look at her and think she is the picture of feminism. Newsflash, girlies: It ain’t the case.

First of all, she’s obviously suffering a serious identity crisis—what’s with the schizophrenic nomenclature? Senator Hillary Clinton was formerly known as Arkansas First Lady Hillary Rodham until husband Bill’s first national election, at which time she became Hillary Clinton. She remained Hillary Clinton until such time as husband Bill assumed the Presidency, when she became Hillary Rodham Clinton. Again, she stayed HRC until such time as she herself sought a Senate seat and, seeking to bank on her husband’s success, once again, re-monikered as Hillary Clinton. (I’m betting money that some time within the next year we will see Hillary Washington Lincoln Roosevelt Susan B. Anthony Sacagawea Jane Roe Rodham Clinton as the Democratic front runner. Anybody giving odds on that?)

Second, the Clinton formerly known as Rodham was also formerly known as a Republican…and not just “a” Republican—she was a Goldwater girl—a diehard right-winger. So what was the impetus for the big change? Opportunity knocked! That’s right, she met Bill (a Dem) and (to her credit) recognized he was going places generally considered off limits for a girl like her. (And by “like her” I mean “generally unimpressive and annoying to the nth degree.”)



No, no, Hillary Clinton is not a feminist—in fact, she is quite the opposite. She is a prime example of a woman who couldn’t succeed on her own merits, and instead rode her husband’s coattails and claimed it as her personal victory. She is what we in the biz call an “opportunist.”

So, there you have it, folks. THAT is why I see Hillary and I am instantly reminded of The Pill. They share several characteristics—both appeal to women, neither represent the true best interest of women, and most especially, they resemble one another in method, as they both employ the mechanism of farce.

Whew! NOW who feels liberated?