Yes, clearly; as noted from your needlessly hostile tone, and the ad hominems laced throughout your long-winded comments.
It’s pretty apparent that you are both blissfully content, and in possession of ALL THE ANSWERS to our problems, so please continue to regale us with your impressive viewpoint.
It’s not at all repellent or off-putting, in any way; I’m sure your message is reaching countless members here who are finally just now ‘seeing the light.’
Is there a workable plan to actually reduce the amount of misogyny in the USA? If there is, by all means let’s proceed with it.
Except that’s not a systemic problem in our society that disproportionately effects one group of people in our society. That’s the difference here. Trump basically admitted to sexual assault ON TAPE and still won.
And that’s the problem. That is a problem for me and other women and I think it did animate some of the voters.
But that was part and parcel of the election. It’s been employed in this very thread - that she only got where she was based on who she married.
How do you think it feels having a daughter in that environment?
But if it’s part of the fabric of our reality, ignore it is a big problem. Ignored problems don’t just vanish, except for people who are lucky enough not to have to deal with them in a daily basis.
Again, I know. I’m well aware how unhappy it is, frustrating, and upsetting. On top of that, to be told, over and again, how it’s not a real problem that we can solve or that it doesn’t have a measurable, real world impact on our society…
I think you can most certainly argue that making fun of Trump and dehumanizing him was not helpful. I wouldn’t necessarily disagree. But he’s also a white man, who has benefited from all kinds of forms of privilege, to the point that he can say he assaulted women and he can still win the American presidency. [quote=“LapsedPacifist, post:159, topic:92409”]
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.
[/quote]
Fields that used to be dominated by women - nursing, for example - got more well paid as more men entered the field. [quote=“LapsedPacifist, post:159, topic:92409”]
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.
[/quote]
Women, historically, tend to be in fields that are paid less - service work, child care, nursing. These are fields which are incredibly undervalued, historically, so I’d say that tells you something valuable. If you think that’s just happenstance, well, I’m not sure what to tell you. Also, you’re forgetting all the unpaid labor women have done historically (and often continue to do today). The fact that we’re struggling to get decent time off after BEARING CHILDREN should tell you how much we’re valued in our society. It’s the one act that only we can do, it can often be dangerous and it’s exhausting, AND WE CAN’T GET 12 WEEKS OF PAID LEAVE… Do you think that’s an accident? Flex time and paid time off, which allows all of us to take time off to take care of children or ill parents, or OURSELVES, for that matter, would be a much more effective way of organizing our society. Not having a society that devalues women is a win for all of us.
And that means we should ignore misogyny as a factor in the election because…?
What does ignore mean to you? What context? Elections? Home life? The workplace? Twitter? You seem to only want validation that misogyny needs talked in a general way without pointing to any specific context or place.
I agree it needs talked about, but for a reason and a purpose. The reason is to change the future, not document bad things for the hell of it. The context of the article is a US presidential election cycle and one particular female candidate. Since it’s unlikely Clinton will run again, the complexities of her candidacy mean that much less. Trump won by such small margins the democrats can probably run any number of female candidates next time and have a good change at winning, misogyny and all.
If the ignoring of misogyny in elections is what you’re worried about, I’m not convinced it’s a problem that can’t be overcome in upcoming cycles. The growing number of women to elected positions in the senate and house, however small, is a reassuring trend in this regard. I remain convinced that Clinton’s problems were well beyond misogyny, and the negative aspects of her candidacy outside of gender must be understood otherwise this nasty cycle will repeat itself.
Keep pointing it out where I see it. Keep promoting the value of women. Keep reminding people that we exist, we’re human, and we bring value to the world. Keep pushing for laws that benefit us all in terms of paid time off, child/elder care, better compensation packages for equal work. There are tons of things we can do to make this world better for all of us. Making respect for women a normal part of our world views is part and parcel of that.
I agree!
Which is why politics is such a tricky business, even among those on the same side 
One example would be to insist “no, misogyny wasn’t a major factor here so let’s stop talking about it and discuss something else instead” in the aftermath of an election where misogyny clearly was a major factor.
So, you’re going to ignore it, unless I bring up specifics - which in the case of Clinton, I DID. Do I need to document to you the very real world specific instances in my life where I experienced misogyny? Men making rape jokes around me, calling me ugly and unfuckable, saying I’m fuckable, speaking over me at conferences, in class, among friends? Or do I need to talk about the women I’ve known who’ve dealt with that stuff and so much worse? Do I need to remind you that my body and the body of all women are constantly being called into question as ours? In laws that are being passed in state legislatures? Do I honestly need to have a documented example of misogyny to be believed here? Do I need to be specific every single time to be believed or to have any valid thing to say about this election and whether or not misogyny played a role? [quote=“generalcommrade, post:164, topic:92409”]
The growing number of women to elected positions in the senate and house, however small, is a reassuring trend in this regard.
[/quote]
Agreed. Do you think that they didn’t experience some kind of misogyny during their campaigns?
Agreed. Do you think that they didn’t experience some kind of misogyny during their campaigns?
If you believe I am denying that misogyny exists then you have not sincerly read my posts or have made an attempt to understand what I am saying. You are taking an ally and turning them into an enemy. I am done talking to you.
Such a wonderful and effective “ally.”
I don’t disagree with that, but I also don’t see how allowing loud, proud and obvious misogyny to proceed unchecked helps us either. I think it’s important to tackle misogyny in every community, but I also think it’s powerful for us all to confront misogyny writ large. I’ve never bought trickle down economics, but I would be surprised if trickle down sexism wasn’t real.
I haven’t said that. What I have said is that I do think there is something to saying that misogyny played a role in this election, and you’ve argued that you don’t think it is, hence it’s not a component that we should discuss. Am I misstating your view point here?[quote=“generalcommrade, post:169, topic:92409”]
I am done talking to you.
[/quote]
I’m sorry to hear that. I never said anything about you being misogynist and I think it’s unfair that you’ve characterized what I’ve said in that way. You asked me for specifics, which, with regards to Clinton, I’ve provided. I’ve given you specifics that I myself experienced, too. I never said that you directed misogyny at me.
Okay, I’ll bite.
You and a few others here have offered tons in the way of speculative analysis of What Went Wrong and Why Hillary Lost; but I’ve seen very little from any such commenters about finding some actual solutions.
Most of the commentary has been reactionary.
You claim you’re an “ally,” so what viable, proactive steps do you propose we take to begin fixing these problematic issues?
Which I’ve been asked to provide. People objected to the article not having specifics to work from and that I, PERSONALLY need to provide examples and solutions to the problem of misogyny… I’ve tried to point out specific ways that this campaign had some misogynistic elements and I’ve talked about the ways that I’ve experienced misogyny in my life.
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.
And a dozen other reasons, including misogyny; her lose was by a hair, and had any one of many factors been a little different, she would have won.
It is easy to point to other countries, as you did upthread, but that is an apples & oranges comparison. Maggie Thatcher, Theresa May, Angela Merkel, and the like only needed to win the popular vote in one constituency.
This is where that whole question of arguing in good faith comes into play:
Are some people engaging in this topic because they actually care and seek some insight into fixing the problem that is the US political system?.. OR are some people just here to stir the shit, reinforce their own beliefs, and/or to hear themselves talk?
It should go without saying that you are more than “good enough;” you’re one of the smartest, most well spoken and patient people here.
That is not negated by the tone deaf attitude that some other people choose to adopt.
The solution is to actually get engaged. The democratic party is in shambles in the rust belt. It is horribly organized and has a dismal political future. The door to door canvasing was appalling. The Clinton campaign spent no time visiting formerly solid blue counties. There were no lawn signs for the democrats anywhere. Next time, all this stuff needs done and then some.
Is that the lesson we will be taking away?
The main fear I have is that a myth with develop that the sexist, racist misogynist people in the ‘rust belt’ and other areas of the country are hopeless degenerates. Only a very tiny bit of political organizing would have made a sizable change in my swing state. You can believe the outcome of the contest was within your control, or out of your control. Coming to Pennsylvania and reminding everybody with TV ads that voting for Clinton is a stand against misogyny is a loosing proposition.
Showing up and being present in peoples lives is the difference.
Let me try to bring this down from the back-and-forth:
I think misogyny is a problem in society but one that does not apply its effects linearly. 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 am prepared to hear about the utility of defending her publicly as a means of fighting it for everyone else, but I weigh against this position on account of the tactical setback of having to defend a terrible person. You can still be unjust to terrible people, but it is harder to defend them to useful effect.
Further, I think a woman can be president in America and that nearly any other female democrat could have won this election. I think that if the lesson learned from these elections is that women can’t be elected that this would lead to injustice and undue suffering. Generally speaking, societal levels of sexism have surprisingly small effects on elections as a cavalcade of female heads of state/government in otherwise patriarchal environments shows.
I’ve no quarrel with this. I’m just saying that this is something that’s always done to everyone. Were Hillary male it would still be done, while there would be no posters insulting her merely for being male.
Do you think that pretty much every place in Europe values its women to an enormously increased degree? Not a rhetorical question. Because every place I can think of in Europe has this as a matter-of-course, and, crucially, has done for ages.
People who operate logically understand that there are no absolutes outside of math, and so even though such a negative stereotype may exist, that doesn’t mean that it’s accurate or that it has to shape our reality.
(Spoken as someone who has always labored under the unfair stereotypes leveled against women and Blacks.)
Sounds great in theory, but I’m basically asking for practical, detailed steps.
Arguing endlessly online is certainly not part of the answer.
I don’t think it’s an either/or thing, though.
