How misogyny shaped the election

[anon61221983]

@LapsedPacifist

Further, I think a woman can be president in America and that nearly any other female democrat could have won this election.

I think it would be rather useful to try and see if other women were attacked in similar ways to Clinton. But, as this is a counterfactual, we can’t know if it’s true or not until another woman runs for the presidency. [quote=“LapsedPacifist, post:178, topic:92409”]
You can still be unjust to terrible people, but it is harder to defend them to useful effect.
[/quote]

I didn’t think gendered attacks on women that I disgree with like Carly Fiorina or Sarah Palin was a good thing. I do think their policy positions are pretty terrible, but gendered attacks wouldn’t be what I’d want to see. It helps no one and it moves nothing forward, and functions as an attack on all women. [quote=“LapsedPacifist, post:178, topic:92409”]
Were Hillary male it would still be done, while there would be no posters insulting her merely for being male.
[/quote]

Again, I think that’s a counterfactual. If we assume that bill and hillary hold similar political positions, are the attacks on them similar? [quote=“LapsedPacifist, post:178, topic:92409”]
Do you think that pretty much every place in Europe values its women to an enormously increased degree?
[/quote]

I don’t know if I can answer that, only to say that I do think that having those laws on the books does show a stronger degree of wanting to legal support women. But that doesn’t mean I believe that misogyny doesn’t exist in Western European countries… I’m sure it does. But the legal structures exists to support women and families, while here they do not.

[LapsedPacifist]

Regarding counterfactuals, we’ve the makings here of an excellent empirical test of our respective propositions. Or less pretentiously put: let’s wait and see.

I stand ready to change my position if what I predict turns out to be false.

@anon61221983

I don’t know if I can answer that, only to say that I do think that having those laws on the books does show a stronger degree of wanting to legal support women. But that doesn’t mean I believe that misogyny doesn’t exist in Western European countries… I’m sure it does. But the legal structures exists to support women and families, while here they do not.

See, that’s my wonder, too. The cultures really aren’t that different—if anything the culture is more traditionalist and less open-minded[1]—but the outcomes are drastically different. I guess a huge problem is the fact that in America ‘socialism’ is still a dirty word, and worker’s rights are women’s rights. But I can’t be certain. I’m just curious to know what causes old-fashioned attitudes that aren’t dissimilar to, in one place, produce some infelicitous jokes, and in another a brutal exploitative regime towards, say, female workers.

[1] In places like, say, Italy.

[LearnedCoward]

@anon61221983

Do you think that none of those people might have been loathed to vote for her, in part because she’s a woman?

@anon61221983

Another thing - if we compare her to other politicians - is she as bad or worse than other democratic hawks?

I voted for Jill Stein in 2012, so no, I’m not loathe to vote for Clinton because she’s a woman, and it doesn’t matter if she’s only as bad as the rest of the establishment Democrats, because I don’t like them either.

The people who don’t like Hillary Clinton because she’s a woman aren’t the progressives that the establishment Democrats have marginalized.

Sexism, racism, etc played a role, but it’s not fair to say that they were solely to blame, and it’s certainly not fair to use bigotry as an excuse to avoid a come-to-Jesus moment in the Democratic Party.

[Wanderfound]

[quote=“Melizmatic, post:179, topic:92409”]Sounds great in theory, but I’m basically asking for practical, detailed steps.
[/quote]

Steps for winning elections, or steps for ending misogyny?

[Brainspore]

@LapsedPacifist

It is possible to be a woman in America onto whom the effects of this malady weigh as light as a feather, and it is equally possible that they can be a crushing burden—possible and vastly more likely.

I think Hilary Clinton is one of the small group who can cheerfully ignore misogyny unlike very nearly everyone else.

I don’t believe this is true at all. One of Hillary Clinton’s primary reasons for getting involved in politics in the first place was to fight for women’s rights. She often tells the story* of how she wrote to NASA at age 13 to ask how to become an astronaut and received a response explaining that they weren’t accepting girls into the program. So if she really lived in a world where she could “cheerfully ignore misogyny” then she might have ended up working on the International Space Station instead of becoming Secretary of State.

*I am aware that some people doubt the authenticity of the story but there’s never been any evidence to contradict it.

[Nightflyer]

@anon61221983

I’ve tried to be polite but firm, and try to speak directly to the questions that have been put to me, and I’m being accused of attacking people for standing up for what I think is the right thing here.

It’s never good enough. I’m just tired of never being good enough.

You are more than good enough. You are more articulate, knowledgeable and passionate on this issue than I could possibly manage. And of course you don’t have the answer-- I don’t think anyone does. Misogyny is a highly complex problem with a tangled knot of causes and complications. The best any of us can do is keep talking about it and keep looking for what small gains we can make in our own lives. If we keep fighting, we’ll get there eventually, even if you or I might not see the promised land. And you are more tenacious than so many people I know… you’re doing fine.

Back to topic: I think most of us agree that misogyny played some part in Hillary’s loss. The part many of us disagree on is just how much of a part it played. But I can’t possibly believe it played no part. I cannot believe any male politician would be so blatantly disrespected in such a gendered manner as Hillary was (like those KFC badges that @anon61221983 posted before I could.)^[1] So dealing with misogyny will have to form some part of the solution. Not all of it, maybe not most of it, but it will need to be addressed… or we’ll never make any progress at all.

^[1]Before I finished typing this I (unfortunately) remembered the Naked Trump statue with… the really short fingers. (Please don’t make me go there, the day’s been rough enough as it is.) So a certain level of gender-based insults could happen to any candidate. But, it’s my perception that Hillary was targeted for far more of it than Trump. YMMV.

[Melizmatic]

@Wanderfound

Steps for winning elections, or steps for ending misogyny?

Obligatory:

[anon61221983]

@LearnedCoward

I voted for Jill Stein in 2012, so no, I’m not loathe to vote for Clinton because she’s a woman

Again, I never made that assumption about you or anyone here. I’m not discussing you or any individual here or making assumptions. [quote=“LearnedCoward, post:183, topic:92409”]
The people who don’t like Hillary Clinton because she’s a woman aren’t the progressives that the establishment Democrats have marginalized.
[/quote]

Aren’t you assuming that people who vote progressive can’t be sexist or misogynistic? [quote=“LearnedCoward, post:183, topic:92409”]
Sexism, racism, etc played a role, but it’s not fair to say that they were solely to blame, and it’s certainly not fair to use bigotry as an excuse to avoid a come-to-Jesus moment in the Democratic Party.
[/quote]

Do you honestly think I’m doing that? Have I said that this is the only reason she’s lost or that we shouldn’t talk about other aspects of the election and what happened?

[anon61221983]

Once again, thanks for not putting words in my mouth. I like that we can disagree and not be told we’re attacking each other.

@LapsedPacifist

we’ve the makings here of an excellent empirical test of our respective propositions.

Indeed! If a woman runs on the democratic ticket in 2020, I suggest we talk about it then!

@LapsedPacifist

The cultures really aren’t that different—if anything the culture is more traditionalist and less open-minded[1]—but the outcomes are drastically different.

I think that’s likely. [quote=“LapsedPacifist, post:182, topic:92409”]
I guess a huge problem is the fact that in America ‘socialism’ is still a dirty word
[/quote]

This is also very true.

@LapsedPacifist

and worker’s rights are women’s rights.

Do you mean this is true in Europe? I’m assuming that’s what you mean. There are some patriarchal attitudes in both places. I agree that women’s rights in some of these things are indeed workers rights - In some places all workers get family leave, correct? But there are still some places where reproductive rights are still a major problem (Ireland).

[Wanderfound]

@anon61221983

Do you honestly think I’m doing that? Have I said that this is the only reason she’s lost or that we shouldn’t talk about other aspects of the election and what happened?

No, no and no. You ain’t doing that, and we should talk about this.

(inevitable “but” approaching…)

But I do think that the Clintonian/establishment Dems are keen to focus on the misogyny angle as a distraction from dealing with their own failings. It will be used by some as a convenient excuse to maintain the plutocracy and corruption that is, IMO, at the heart of the Dem’s failure.

[anon61221983]

I feel like I’m attempting to be diplomatic and that I keep sort of getting accused of doing things I’m not actually doing, so thanks for that. [quote=“Wanderfound, post:191, topic:92409”]
But I do think that the Clintonian/establishment Dems are keen to focus on the misogyny angle as a distraction from dealing with their own failings. It will be used by some as a convenient excuse to maintain the plutocracy and corruption that is, IMO, at the heart of the Dem’s failure.
[/quote]

And I can see that being an issue. But it could also be true AND they could be using it as a distraction from other issues. Again, I don’t want to say that this was the sole issue at play here, but that doesn’t mean it wasn’t an issue. Nor does it mean that I think that anyone who voted for Clinton did so out of misogyny.

[Melizmatic]

@AlexandraKitty

But I am a feminist, meaning I am fully aware I am free to think and to speak whatever I wish.

Uh…

Whoever said or even implied that you are not?

O_o

@AlexandraKitty

I am not looking for validation. I do not have respect for people who think being manipulative makes them smarter or stronger-willed than I am.

@AlexandraKitty

I don’t care what other people think about me. It’s a perk of being one. Liberation means breaking the chains of worrying about what some conniving sorehead thinks about you as you live life on your own terms. If they want to hate their betters, let them expend their emotions because they won’t be controlling mine.

@Wanderfound

It will be used by some as a convenient excuse to maintain the plutocracy and corruption that is, IMO, at the heart of the Dem’s failure.

Reform within the Dems is a definite necessity; they’ve been ineffectual for far too long.

[nungesser]

@AlexandraKitty

The left have already squandered two months with their tantrums and useless little not-my-president protests

To be clear, the vast number of protests weren’t whiny foot-stamping over Someone Else Winning, they were protesting the fact that he’d clearly won on a technicality through widespread vote tampering and, as it turns out, the interference of a foreign power whose aid he requested. They were protests to appeal to the Electorate, hoping to influence them to switch their votes before they cast them, hoping to inform them that the man they weren’t technically required to vote for had won that vote falsely.

[Melizmatic]

@nungesser

Don’t call us kids.

Don’t take the obvious bait.

[anon15383236]

I find it ironic that you so grandiosely declare yourself a feminist, all while dismissing the basic (and rather obvious) feminist assertion that misogyny was a significant factor in Clinton’s loss.

I’m wondering how you’d square those two things, but I’m also doubting I’d get much in the way of a straightforward answer.

[nungesser]

Noted. Edited.

[Melizmatic]

I wasn’t quite sure at first but then it became clear as the conversation went on.

[LearnedCoward]

@anon61221983

I’m not discussing you or any individual here or making assumptions.

Assuming that people who don’t like Clinton are okay with Obama or with the Democratic establishment is a pretty big assumption. They might be, they might not be. However, ideological consistency shouldn’t be a big shocking thing. Some people are reaching for non-sexist reasons to not like Clinton, but many others actually believe those reasons.

@anon61221983

Aren’t you assuming that people who vote progressive can’t be sexist or misogynistic?

I shouldn’t be. They can be sexist or misogynistic, but I was thinking about your examples from earlier (KFC Hillary Special: Two small breasts, two fat thighs, and a left wing hurr durr). I’m guessing those weren’t marketed with the Green Party in mind. Progressives can attack her on the issues. Pick an issue, any issue except probably women’s rights, and she is either flat out wrong or not doing enough. Republicans can’t attack her on the issues, because everything she’s doing wrong they love and want more of, so they have to resort to misogyny.

@anon61221983

Do you honestly think I’m doing that? Have I said that this is the only reason she’s lost or that we shouldn’t talk about other aspects of the election and what happened?

I honestly don’t think you’re doing that, but it is something I’ve been hearing.

[anon61221983]

@LearnedCoward

Assuming that people who don’t like Clinton are okay with Obama or with the Democratic establishment is a pretty big assumption.

Again, I didn’t think I had said that.[quote=“LearnedCoward, post:199, topic:92409”]
However, ideological consistency shouldn’t be a big shocking thing.
[/quote]

I do think lots of people are generally inconsistent, largely, because we are human and are often irrational or ACT in ways that can be seen as irrational to an outside observer. [quote=“LearnedCoward, post:199, topic:92409”]
I’m guessing those weren’t marketed with the Green Party in mind.
[/quote]

True. But misogyny doesn’t just manifest in obvious ways like that. It can be more deeply rooted and not as obvious as well, even to the person in question (by which I don’t mean you, of course). And of course, people can both lie to themselves or to others about why they dislike Clinton. I do share your concerns with you about her positions, but I also don’t think she’s more radical or neoliberal than the mainstream of the democratic party and that’s been true since the 1990s.

@LearnedCoward

but it is something I’ve been hearing.

Honestly, the way you structured you’re answer to me made it seem like you thought I was personally attacking you as misogynistic. I don’t think that or didn’t think I had implied it in anyway. I’m glad you don’t think I’m making a personal attack, because I’m really not.

[AlexandraKitty]

No, she flat-out lost the election, meaning she did not cut it. It is not about a popular vote, it is about gaining electoral seats. It is not the same thing. Most times, if you get one, you get the other, but that is a quiet rig, and that rig is in place for two reasons: one, to ensure populous states do not completely trample over smaller ones, and two, to see which candidate gets the purpose of the rig. A good contender can get both at the same time; the cageier one knows he can use a shortcut to get the maximum electoral seats without bothering to win redundant votes. If you are efficient, you don’t waste time with popular votes. It’s the same reason why C students do better in life than A students: the former know how to maximize their resources to get what they need using minimum amount of effort, while the latter spend too much resources achieving more than what is required.

That is the precise weakness that Clinton did not get, for whatever reason, and it cost her the war. She neglected previous blue states that went to Trump who saw a chance to take them, and he did.

No able strategist would do what Clinton did, and I knew it was coming. Trump is a businessman and one knows how to cut corners to get what he wants, and whenever I said that, I would get people downloading their temper tantrums on me. The fact that three million more people voted for her is not only unimportant to the contest; it is proof misogyny did not keep her back, and I have repeatedly stated that she won the popular vote, but the popular vote is not the bottom line. The electoral college outcome is the bottom line. Trump seized on the bottom line and she did not. That is her fault. No misogynist made her do that — or could make her do that. I am certain she had advisors warning her, but she did not take it seriously, and given she did not have a concession speech prepared, tells me she misread her situation badly. He got the nuance that she didn’t get, and that is something the next female candidate needs to keep in mind, and to me, the most mind-blowing part of that singular election was that Trump used a strategy I would have expected a feminist to take as a symbolic political statement: winning by making do with less, being hated, insulted, dismissed, and maligned, but still plugging it as a one-woman army, going from small place to small place, and winning electoral seats, but not the popular vote as she made her case independent of the Establishment and even the party who reluctantly got her as their candidate. The subtext of that contest was far more subversive than most people realize.

After any competition, you do a postmortem: what did you do right, but also what you did wrong. She did a big wrong. Trump had obstacles and far more of them than Clinton, but he overcame them, meaning his supporters feel very confident about him, more so than they did on Election Day. You can’t make excuses when you lose a battle because then you don’t learn, change, and you are doomed to make the same mistakes again, ensuring another defeat.

I would think that people would take the opportunity to analyze the campaign, admit where it was faulty because it was faulty, and then begin to try new things and create all sorts of exciting and effective new strategies, especially feminists who really need their own Art of War or Rules for Radicals. For a generation of over-thinkers, you would think that would be their contribution to society. But what you are getting is denial and very immature and petty defensive behaviours, wasting time the left doesn’t have.