True. My counter-argument is that this election was powered by nastiness. And when dispensing nastiness people will grab for whatever’s the most obvious thing about you. It’s like people harping about Trump being Orange. It’d be daft to say that they were bodyshaming Trump, because they really couldn’t care less what color he is or what the strange life-form atop his head is, but have a pressing urge to yell at him and that’s what’s most apparent. I think that the insults regarding Hilary are more that and less systemic misogyny. Or rather, they are deep systemic misogyny, i.e. the misogyny baked into language &c.
If I saw talk about a vote for her being a vote for her husband, however, I would react differently as much as I dislike her personally. That is different. That’s subtle discrediting based on a very familiar pattern while calling her an old hag is just insulting her in patterns that are bad, but run deeper than the person making them.
If it did (which is a point of disagreement) then ignoring it would rob us of the lesson that people are misogynists and will not vote for a female candidate they would have voted for were they a man.
It’s a lesson worth learning (because then it would be true) but it would be a dispiriting one. Hilary had the establishment pushing her 110% and every celebrity endorsement one could hope for. If this is not enough to overcome the misogyny then this is grim news with no obvious solution.
Obviously, I’m not trying to make an argument from consequences here: what’s true is true. I’m just saying that this path is not a happy one. And in the absence of data (which isn’t true since I think Silver’s analysis is quite important as is the result among white women) if we have to pick, I’d rather pick the one that leads to an obvious solution and makes a female candidate a possibility.
Well, yeah, but this very site spent ages posting Trump with bleeding, disfigured &c eyes dehumanizing and making monstrous him. It’s just an unisex tactic when demonizing your political opponent.
Goodness no. My group of friends is quite atypical.
I assume, like myself, you only have intimate knowledge of how a few people voted, right?
Even less, probably. No more than a dozen.
The standard 77 cents on the dollar figure doesn’t differentiate between types of work so you can’t say that it indicates unequal pay for equal work. Also it doesn’t take into account the slow propagation of social change and so weighs the results the wrong way 'round when it comes to trends in how women are paid, i.e. if you account for age and the time off to raise a family, the results change a lot in the hopeful direction. Apparently. I’ve not crunched the numbers myself, but he’s generally trustworthy when it comes to numbers.
I’ve made an argument in the first part that female-dominated careers tend to be underpaid to which he fired back that highly-paid jobs as a doctor are more and more female dominated. I can’t really make an argument re: the second thing.
Anyway, he’s annoyed because using the 77 cents figure is poor statistics and thinks that the hill to die on is the publication of everyone’s salary as a matter of course, strengthening labor’s negotiating position. I live in a culture where that’s socially acceptable and can report that there’s no pay gap where I work because I can look up what everyone makes, so that doesn’t seem like a bad idea to me.
No problem. I likewise appreciate not being called instantly deplorable.
