How misogyny shaped the election

Clinton lost this election. It was hers to lose, and she let it slip away.

I voted for her, but only out of fear of Trump. There was literally no other reason for me to vote for her. She is too far to the right, and doesn’t care about the issues I care about, didn’t even pretend to, didn’t even pander.

Imagine if 2016 was a repeat of 1872, and there was no Democratic nominee, just two Republicans. If the election was between Trump running as Trump and Jeb Bush running as a Republican, how would you vote and why? Would you really vote for the Republican who’s running as a Republican, who cares nothing about Democratic and progressive issues, just to avoid the crazy, because that’s what I did.

It seriously felt like I was voting for a Republican. Clinton was going after the same people who voted for Reagan, and was dismissive toward practically everyone else. Dismissive toward BLM, toward Bernie supporters, toward the entire Rust Belt, and patronizing but not entirely dismissive toward visible minorities. Women are probably the only exception, because I believe she honestly cares about women’s issues, but she was dismissive or bandwagon-hopping to everything else.

3 Likes

Oh. Then, why wasn’t the latter a reason for you to vote for her? I get that it wasn’t enough of a reason, but it’s interesting that you don’t even site it as a reason…

10 Likes

I agree, that other factors played bigger roles in Clinton’s loss, but you’re waaay overstating your case. Saying, as the Vox piece does, that “misogyny is alive and well in the United States, and that it probably helped Trump win” does not infantilize Clinton, nor does it automatically sweep aside all other factors in her loss. It’s to say instead, as you apparently agree, that misogyny is alive and well in the U.S., and thus it was a factor in the election, and here’s some of the ways that factor played out.

17 Likes

[quote=“LearnedCoward, post:81, topic:92409”]
It seriously felt like I was voting for a Republican. Clinton was going after the same people who voted for Reagan
[/quote]Gee, I wonder why?

St Reagan has won 8-9/10 elections, and the candidate claiming to have the most Reagan-like platform carries the EC.

1 Like

Speaking of misogyny, figured this would be a good place for this, as a reminder that Martin Shkrelli is still a misogynist prick and Trump fan. Screenshot taken 5 minutes ago.

15 Likes
24 Likes
22 Likes

Good for her!

And as for him…

“Christ, what an asshole” only starts to cover it.

18 Likes

They hate feminists because they are reality-fearing lost souls who cannot stand up to a dying fly, and the want to take down every person who is an active thinker who doesn’t cower when life gets nasty. If people want to hate me to distract themselves from their miserable existence, I don’t care. I am not their mommy. Let them whine and wallow as they waste their lives.

I will deal with truth and reality as the others just shake in their boots. It is none of my business if they can’t handle my estrogen.

And my life goes on merrily…

Does this fact itself not suggest that either

  1. In 240 years, Hillary Clinton was the first woman who wanted to be President, or
  2. Sexism/misogyny has been a major barrier for women who would seek the Presidency

Me, I’m going with #2.

13 Likes

I hate strawomen because they aggravate my allergies.

11 Likes

No, I am not overstating anything, but I am a Canadian, and because I am one step away from this wound, I have no dignity lost because Clinton lost, and right now, the American left, particularly feminism is veering toward something very treacherous in their thinking that is absolutely going to cost them much more than a bruised ego. The problem is when you are caught up in a vortex, you don’t see the obvious and you start justifying and making excuses, complicating matters until you box yourself in and all your enemies have to do is lock you in as you did all the work for them.

It is time to step back rationally and stop pretending we are in an age where women have no power because that is an insult to every feminist who sacrificed a comfort zone to bring you the right to vote, birth control, freedom, and opportunity. That is a very selfish and destructive thing to do.

Clinton lost because her campaign didn’t cut it. Stop whining about misogynists because there are always opposition and obstacles and you will always have a battle on your hands. I knew from day one she was going to lose even if she won the popular vote. She didn’t get it. This election was not a referendum on feminism. It was about the economy. She needed to have a feminist economic platform and explain why feminism is actually crucial to invigorating the economy for everyone. Showung how pay equity and true equal rights and opportunities would create real jobs and drive down poverty would have been the hook, and that would have made all the difference. If you keep half of your country back, it costs the country billions, but if we give men and women a real chance to prosper unfettered, then we free up resources for other things. She never did this. Her entire campaign was so me-based: I want to be the first female president, but never considered why people should vote for her, and no, the uninspiring threat that she was the lesser of two evils is not a reason: it implies even she doesn’t think she is worthy of the position.

Feminists are using archaic structures and filters and it is starting to impede them. The model has become too static and no longer reflects modern reality. Instead of pulling out the usual go-to bogeymen, they have to step back and scrutinize everything from the bedtime stories they tell their daughters to expanding and weaving feminism to other disciplines. This problem is something I have thought about for years, and then I decided to write fiction and nonfiction that uses a matriarchal storytelling structure rather than the dominate patriarchal one because content of stories is only half the equation. If the structure is latently sexist, you get bogged down. I had a revelation as an author, and I made change. I didn’t throw my hands in the air and blame misogynists for shaping thought, I got in the ring and plotted through.

And I do so even when I have knuckleheads telling me I am the reason people hate feminists – on this very forum, no less. And I bet this is someone who is convinced he or she is a liberal progressive or at least intelligent, and obviously, that is a load of hooey. To quote the fabulous RuPaul: what other people think about me is none of my business. They have no power over me or can dent my peace or self-confidence.

I will keep writing, and I will keep pointing out where all the latent misogyny is hiding as I expose it, and find replacements that are feminist.

But I will not let people go unchallenged when they start to retreat or make logical errors, and that Vox article was toxic dreck that is destructive, and if I were the editor, you can be sure that article would not have gone unchallenged from top to bottom. The confirmation bias is a poisonous seed to thinking. As I said before, if women in more sexist countries can win their nation’s highest office, then Clinton could have won hers. She didn’t because she didn’t have the better strategy.

If this past election had occurred before the right-wing takeover of the Republican party, with its active emphasis on demolishing public education and the voting franchise, the candidate who won would never have made it past the primaries and whichever candidate had in fact won the general election, we wouldn’t be feeling that it was a catastrophe because at least it would have been a fair choice.

8 Likes

Apparently you don’t know that feminists used to be very openly represented in the U.S. Republican party. Actively involved in shaping the party platform, etc. Schlafly was the start of the downward spiral, in which one of two major parties in a major country decided to go medieval on half of the population.

Feminism is not a “liberal” issue. It’s a human rights issue that got kicked to the curb by half of the country, making it that much harder to move any further down the field now.

Unless you have proof that one of the posters here is actually Hillary Clinton, or that someone here is “whining” in her name, I suggest you go do whatever you think will help the cause of feminism in someone else’s country, and leave us do the same.

14 Likes

If she won the popular vote, then by definition, her campaign “cut it”. There was no way to know from day one that she’d underestimate the ground game in key states while Donald Trump’s lawyers prevented the investigation into widespread voter fraud in those states.

That said, her campaign did nothing to excite or invigorate people. It was a wet sandwich. She ran a reactionary campaign rather than stir voters with her own merits, and had a bad habit of reinforcing the image her opponents projected of her and did an awful job of getting her own message out. She ran with a remarkably liberal agenda, but came off as a conservative.

12 Likes

Must be our own fault. We bring it on ourselves, our lack of access to political power. /s

13 Likes

No one thinks that all people who voted against her hate women, just that it was an important motivating factor.

[ETA] A motivating factor that needs to be understood. Not the ONLY factor, though. And no one has ever said so.

10 Likes

None… just none. I wish that weren’t controversial, but apparently, it is.

18 Likes

 #2, assuming that’s even true. Women have made serious runs for President before 2008, and have been in the major party primaries. People have short memories, but yes, institutional sexism held back women in politics by a good 150 years.

7 Likes

He is not an asshole. Assholes are what allow waste to be expelled from the system, they don’t hold it in. Assholes have a purpose. He is more of a necrotizing septic blister than anything else.

8 Likes