Women have the same set of feathers. Well, not generally, but metaphorically--since all women have a distinctive personality, like men of course. But one cannot take away the categorical representation of gender in the society. My main issue here tackles the candidacy of Hillary Clinton--as she is battling her way to the Democratic nomination against Barack Obama--and the endless ouster rallies fired towards Gloria Macapagal Arroyo. It just came to me, will the issue on "gender" hit two birds with one stone? Will Clinton's candidacy be directly or indirectly affected by what Arroyo has digged her image? I mean, they are both women. And that alone, is a common denominator.
Moving on to this blab I want to share, well, it is apparently evident that the number of Filipinos migrating to United States of America rising each year. And in contemporary evaluation, around 4,000 or 1.5 percent of the U.S. population comprise Filipino Americans. Now here's the case, I have seen the rallies performed by New Yorkers at Queens last week. I suppose they are also raged by the controversy the first family is entangled with. I remember the No Remittance Day commenced by Hong Kong OFWs. Which of course alarmed Malacañang, which I believe is a good sign. It goes to show that they also have their own so-called "fears."
Alright, going back to Clinton and Arroyo. And that they are women. And they both want to rule their respective nation--Philippines for GMA and USA for Clinton. Influential and powerful 'companion' or husband. They are pretty much the same in almost all fields in the context of politics and fame. Only that, Gloria can now be taken as a "model" to women presidentiables. And Clinton is the "hopeful one." I just hope she's not hoping to be like PGMA.
We've seen powerful and successful women presidents all over the world. But I guess our country is too unfortunate to have bumped on the sort of "Most Corrupt" president among the 5. Thus, a salute to former woman president Aquino for being the cleanest. However, women partylists have been rallying for the ouster of GMA, someone I would like to call "President by Cheat." I bet Fil-Ams are aware of that.
My question is, would they risk placing Hillary (who is a woman) on white house although they have seen the mess the 'woman president' of the Philippines has done? Allow me to collaborate the idea of "husband participation." Bill Clinton has topped the stories. Mike Arroyo has wiped their reputation. Anomalies. Mud-slinging. Are Americans prepared for a woman president? Good, if she won't make a mess out of it. Daym(!) if she also becomes "the luckiest b*tch in town."
Clinton Equals Arroyo?
Posted by Sheena Pimentel at 3/10/2008 12:37:00 PM
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
for voip comments
for blog updates
8 comments:
there's a check and balance system in the US that almost makes it hard for presidents to corrupt. last week both Hillary and Obama (and McCain) released their tax returns to the public which is a clear indication of this.
comparing it to the philippines, i think it's the fact that it's easy to corrupt that makes the lure stronger. I think America is ready for a woman president although, I would personally vote Obama. If Hillary wins, I'm sure she'll do a good job. (that's also partly due to the current American president)
Should Clinton do an Arroyo (lie, cheat, steal, and kill), my sympathies then.
Any president who succeeds Bush at this time would definitely be a better one. Look how Bush made Americans the global villains - how he thrashed the US Constitution, how he handles the economy, how he lied about Iraq.
Whoa! Didn't I just say "Bush Equals Arroyo"?
For Paolo: We also have the check and balance system in the country. However, those who "checks" are balanced with bribery and so their evaluation are already tainted with evil. =p Why do you think it's easy to corrupt here compared to U.S.? :)
For Tongue's Wrath: You are right with "Bush = Arroyo" in the current political schema. But what I fear about Clinton winning is the "Husband Factor." As Mike Arroyo is the one dragging her wife because of his anomalies. I dunno, let's just hope that if Clinton becomes President, that her decisions will be hers, and not of her husband's.
i would rather see Obama get elected in public office. =)
by the way, i added you to my blogroll already.
thanks and happy monday!
For Raft3r: I am also amazed with Obama. :) As a matter of fact, this is the first time I actually wanted to stay informed with international elections. I mean like, his influence is intoxicating.
Thanks for dropping by my blog.
You mentioned that there were women presidents who have successfully run countries, could you please enumerate them. I can't really think of any, other than Cleopatra, who may or may not count.
Clinton is not equal to GMA. For one thing that's the US and not the Philippines. The sad reality is, it is easier to get away with many sorts of things here in the Philippines than in America.
"My question is, would they risk placing Hillary (who is a woman) on white house although they have seen the mess the 'woman president' of the Philippines has done?"
The implications of this question is horrible. For one thing, you are demeaning her stature as a woman. People in government aren't weighed by gender, we live in a different time. It is a matter of capability and oftentimes popularity. Another note to ponder is if these people have even heard of what GMA has done.
Peace.
@Ozy
To begin with, the title of the post says it all. It is a question, indicated in no small way by that glaring question mark at the end of the phrase.
Having said that, I think the author is trying to probe the similarities between the two women, i.e. Arroyo and Clinton. That, of course, does not necessarily imply in any way that they are entire equals although one may be tempted to parse the matter in that manner.
More to probing their similarities, I think the author also gives us her two cents on the matter. Which goes without saying that her views may be subject to counter-arguments in much the same way as your arguments and my arguments are subject to the rebuttal of other people.
But more importantly, implications in any piece of literature has a lot to do with the interpretation of the reader. Which is probably why you understood the question of the author as something "horrible". I for one do not. Apart from the fact that the question itself seeks to extract our personal views on the topic, it also compels us to say what we want to say. Which you did. Which the author did. And which I did, too.
Thus, if you interpret the question as something which has a "horrible" implication, that is how you may see it. Which I do not. And which, I think, the author does not, too.
Peace.
Post a Comment