Former first lady Michelle Obama said at a recent event that the US isn’t ready for a woman president, pointing to former Vice President Kamala Harris’ unsuccessful bid for the White House last year.
Or the people who had to work, or couldn’t wait for 3h at their neighborhood polling place, or have disengaged from politics for any number of reasons, or were educated here and earnestly didnt know how important this last election was.
Low voter turnout is an inevitable symptom of a corrupt system.
Black people’s mail in ballots were rejected at a rate nine times greater than white people’s. You can’t tell me there wasn’t a ton of ratfuckery in play.
Yeah no shit - for half of our voters, those things are all selling points. If we run a man who’s an absolute piece of shit against a woman who’s less so, but still very much a piece of shit, the man will win every time. As I said, sexism is definitely a factor.
If we run a man who’s an absolute piece of shit against a woman who isn’t a piece of shit… who fuckin knows: we haven’t tried that. But Harris’s odds seemed pretty solid until she started publicly supporting Israel’s genocide on Gaza: so she lost a hefty chunk of support from the half of voters who are turned off by evil behavior; meanwhile the bigot’s popularity with bigoted voters remained unsurprisingly steady.
My point is that the people who try to justify not voting for Harris due to her support of genocide achieved nothing.
Do you seriously think Trump gave less weapons to Israel? Do you think he did a better job of keeping a muzzle on Bibi?
They might think they didn’t sully their soul, but they did. Refusing to choose the lesser of two evils isn’t a moral win. It’s just allowing the worse evil to win.
That’s not the point I’m making - the people who chose not to vote over Harris’s comments are fucking morons. They share responsibility for Trump’s victory and everything he’s done since.
But the time to look past Harris’s comments, shut our mouths, and vote strategically for her was during the general. The election is over, and there is no longer reason to defend her, or contrast her against Trump. She isn’t a lesser evil anymore.
And there’s the core of my point: looking at her objectively, she is evil. She stands right alongside the voters who opted out in culpability for Trump’s victory and enabling the current dismal state of our country.
That’s why I think the whole “America isn’t ready for a women” spiel is BS. Both of the women we’ve run recently were fucking horrible candidates: but even so they lost by a narrow enough margin that blaming the outcome on the contents of their pants is a failure to consider the other variables at play.
If we ran a woman who was actually likeable, doesn’t have a history full of scandals, and doesn’t come out in the 11th hour of the general to say something detrimental like support for genocide… then that woman will win.
Also a majority of Americans are fucking straight up dumb and not engaged in politics or news at all. Last study I saw Americans average a 6th grade reading level. What this looks like in practice though is:
Can read: Straightforward, informational text like food labels, bills, and basic news articles.
Can understand: Stories with plots, character changes, and a clear point of view.
Likely needs help with: Texts that use a high degree of academic vocabulary, complex sentence structures, or highly abstract concepts, as found in high school or college-level material.
So until the Dems can also narrow and dumb down their messaging they won’t gain ground. It’s why when Walz called them weird it worked so well because everyone understands that.
So until the Dems can also narrow and dumb down their messaging they won’t gain ground
That would require them to have a concrete program that can be stated plainly. Democrats don’t do what you said not because they don’t know how, but because it’d be pretty clear that their program offers nothing of substance to the working class.
I kinda want to see Trump go on a Twitter rant explaining why the Weak Force is part of a Democrat plot to destroy the entire universe:
Particles all support the radical left, or me, you know? And then there’s that weak force. You know, they call it weak because only the radical left will give it the time of day. Only the radical left. All particles that vote for Trump wouldn’t bother. That’s why those particle collider people can’t find neutrinos that vote for Trump. They always try to use the weak force to find neutrinos, but good people know that only radical left neutrinos would let themselves be seen, because they like weak things.
Holy mother of all strawmen what the heck are you talking about? Are you intentionally being disingenuous or do you not understand the meaning of the word “likeable” in this context?
Must be a culture difference thing. They’re certainly not, in the UK, at least in my experience.
I’ve just searched it up and you’re right, I was wrong; if I search ‘“likeable” misogynist term’ or ‘“aggressive” misogynist term’, I do find a study that references “aggressive” being used more for women, which is honestly surprising to me, I apologise!
I didn’t quite find the same for “likeable”, the results seemed more about how women report having to be more amenable in the workplace to avoid being seen as “difficult”, which I totally agree is a problem but isn’t really what we’re talking about re the terms.
@hotdogcharmer@leadore I absolutely assure you likeability is an issue for women in the workplace in the UK. Signed, a British woman.
Look up “likeability trap”, though - it’s the name of a campaign tactic used against women in politics. It’s an ongoing problem.
@hotdogcharmer It’s not that they’re not used about men, it’s that people don’t consider likeability in men as an important factor when determining their competence as a leader. And in terms of aggression: men who are “aggressive” are “strong leaders”. Women who are “aggressive” are “unlikeable”. These terms work together. Aggressive can be used about both but it is only a pejorative for one.
Thanks. Did you try searching for “unlikeable” instead of “likeable”? Here’s one about that. I suspect the UK isn’t much different.
(edit to add a quote from AOC in that article:)
When you call Elizabeth Warren or Kamala Harris ‘unlikeable’, that’s an unsubstantial, unsubstantive, fluff, bulls**t, misogynistic word to use. Unlikeable? What is that? It’s not a policy critique.” --AOC
I didn’t, I focused on “likeable”. Thanks for the link, I do clearly have a lot to learn and would like to. There’s just so much I don’t see, whether that’s that I just don’t pay attention, or don’t experience it as a man, or that I don’t want to recognise what I do see.
I appreciate your time, and I’ll work to educate myself 👍
I agree with the general premise, that this country is not ready to elect a woman President. Lots of people in it are, but not enough in the right zip codes to make it in our system.
But, if you ask these people why they are not voting for a candidate, they will not say “it’s because she has a vagina”. They are too self aware to know that they can’t say it out loud. So, they say things like “I just don’t like her enough” or “she’s too shrill and bossy”.
My actual favorite excuse from the last election was the guy who said “she reminds me of my ex-wife”. At least he’s being honest.
Yes, I agree with you, using words like “shrill” or “bossy” is a great example of a sort of masked misogyny, which is why you used them in your example.
Those two words, among others, are words that are used almost exclusively about women. It can be helpful to point their usage out and call out latent misogyny.
“Aggressive” and “likeable” are not words that this works for. The commenter we’re talking about is tone policing words that aren’t even debatably used the same way, and it’s the kind of weird, fussy, oversensitive nonsense that is aggravating and distracting.
It’s also massively rude to imply somebody is a misogynist without any grounding at all, simply because they did not like a candidate who - incidentally - is a woman.
Women, because they’re humans just like men, have the capacity to be disliked for their actions and words.
Oh, hard disagree there. There is a certain class of misogynist who likes their women docile. They “dislike” anyone woman who they dont find “agreeable”, and view women who express their own opinions as “aggressive”.
Is it an overly broad generalization? Maybe. But it tracks!
My point is that they are all self aware enough to know they can’t just say “I just won’t vote for any woman”, so they will give you any other reason if asked. It doesn’t have to make sense to us, as long as they can justify it in their head.
And that, in our current political climate, there are just enough of these losers, in the right zip codes, to make a difference.
This is part of the reason I so strongly want AOC to take over Schumer’s Senate seat for a term or three. If she runs for President in 2028, she will probably lose. But if she moves to the Senate and is as effective there as she has been in the House, maybe the country will be ready by 2040.
Well, so far the women we’ve run are 1) one of the most hated politicians of all time, and 2) a cop who repeatedly stated her support for genocide.
So… idk if ‘women’ is the issue here. Maybe we should try running one that doesn’t come with decades of baggage / isn’t an overtly horrible person?
I mean, sexism is definitely a factor, but one that has thus far only become insurmountable in combination with a mountain other barriers.
And yet everyone voted for a rich, racist, rapist, pedophile who can barely speak and also supports genocide anyway.
~30% of the adult population voted for said rapist
You need to add the people who couldn’t be arsed opposing him.
Or the people who had to work, or couldn’t wait for 3h at their neighborhood polling place, or have disengaged from politics for any number of reasons, or were educated here and earnestly didnt know how important this last election was.
Low voter turnout is an inevitable symptom of a corrupt system.
Or maybe whose vote didn’t get counted. I think the jury is still out on that right now.
Black people’s mail in ballots were rejected at a rate nine times greater than white people’s. You can’t tell me there wasn’t a ton of ratfuckery in play.
That part is not because of the white rapist, but because of the bad candidate that were forced on them as an alternative.
Yeah no shit - for half of our voters, those things are all selling points. If we run a man who’s an absolute piece of shit against a woman who’s less so, but still very much a piece of shit, the man will win every time. As I said, sexism is definitely a factor.
If we run a man who’s an absolute piece of shit against a woman who isn’t a piece of shit… who fuckin knows: we haven’t tried that. But Harris’s odds seemed pretty solid until she started publicly supporting Israel’s genocide on Gaza: so she lost a hefty chunk of support from the half of voters who are turned off by evil behavior; meanwhile the bigot’s popularity with bigoted voters remained unsurprisingly steady.
My point is that the people who try to justify not voting for Harris due to her support of genocide achieved nothing.
Do you seriously think Trump gave less weapons to Israel? Do you think he did a better job of keeping a muzzle on Bibi?
They might think they didn’t sully their soul, but they did. Refusing to choose the lesser of two evils isn’t a moral win. It’s just allowing the worse evil to win.
That’s not the point I’m making - the people who chose not to vote over Harris’s comments are fucking morons. They share responsibility for Trump’s victory and everything he’s done since.
But the time to look past Harris’s comments, shut our mouths, and vote strategically for her was during the general. The election is over, and there is no longer reason to defend her, or contrast her against Trump. She isn’t a lesser evil anymore.
And there’s the core of my point: looking at her objectively, she is evil. She stands right alongside the voters who opted out in culpability for Trump’s victory and enabling the current dismal state of our country.
That’s why I think the whole “America isn’t ready for a women” spiel is BS. Both of the women we’ve run recently were fucking horrible candidates: but even so they lost by a narrow enough margin that blaming the outcome on the contents of their pants is a failure to consider the other variables at play.
If we ran a woman who was actually likeable, doesn’t have a history full of scandals, and doesn’t come out in the 11th hour of the general to say something detrimental like support for genocide… then that woman will win.
Well… K? You can keep getting mad about an overwhelming and likely irrelevant minority, but can you keep it for when it’s actually relevant?
I think you nailed it here. Give the people a choice to vote for AOC and I think it will happen.
I’d rather she stay in Congress a while, either side, and gain a leadership role. Lot more power there.
She needs to take Chuck’s Senate seat when he (hopefully) retires.
They both lost to an obese rapist who can’t form cohetebt sentences.
Also a majority of Americans are fucking straight up dumb and not engaged in politics or news at all. Last study I saw Americans average a 6th grade reading level. What this looks like in practice though is:
So until the Dems can also narrow and dumb down their messaging they won’t gain ground. It’s why when Walz called them weird it worked so well because everyone understands that.
That would require them to have a concrete program that can be stated plainly. Democrats don’t do what you said not because they don’t know how, but because it’d be pretty clear that their program offers nothing of substance to the working class.
I kinda want to see Trump go on a Twitter rant explaining why the Weak Force is part of a Democrat plot to destroy the entire universe:
Particles all support the radical left, or me, you know? And then there’s that weak force. You know, they call it weak because only the radical left will give it the time of day. Only the radical left. All particles that vote for Trump wouldn’t bother. That’s why those particle collider people can’t find neutrinos that vote for Trump. They always try to use the weak force to find neutrinos, but good people know that only radical left neutrinos would let themselves be seen, because they like weak things.
And both of them were so close that changing any one variable - such as having an actually likeable candidate - would’ve changed the outcome.
Ah, so the problem is the women weren’t “likeable” enough, got it. I heard they were too bossy, too. And too aggressive. Yeah.
Holy mother of all strawmen what the heck are you talking about? Are you intentionally being disingenuous or do you not understand the meaning of the word “likeable” in this context?
Are you trying to suggest that Hillary was the best possible candidate we could’ve chosen?
“bossy” is one of those words people use pretty much solely to describe women.
“Aggressive” and “likeable” are not. I don’t even understand why you’re trying to spin this
Oh, they definitely are.
Must be a culture difference thing. They’re certainly not, in the UK, at least in my experience.
I’ve just searched it up and you’re right, I was wrong; if I search ‘“likeable” misogynist term’ or ‘“aggressive” misogynist term’, I do find a study that references “aggressive” being used more for women, which is honestly surprising to me, I apologise!
I didn’t quite find the same for “likeable”, the results seemed more about how women report having to be more amenable in the workplace to avoid being seen as “difficult”, which I totally agree is a problem but isn’t really what we’re talking about re the terms.
@hotdogcharmer @leadore I absolutely assure you likeability is an issue for women in the workplace in the UK. Signed, a British woman.
Look up “likeability trap”, though - it’s the name of a campaign tactic used against women in politics. It’s an ongoing problem.
You’re right, I am aware of that as an issue, but I wasn’t aware that the actual terms “likeable” or “unlikeable” were loaded like that
@hotdogcharmer It’s not that they’re not used about men, it’s that people don’t consider likeability in men as an important factor when determining their competence as a leader. And in terms of aggression: men who are “aggressive” are “strong leaders”. Women who are “aggressive” are “unlikeable”. These terms work together. Aggressive can be used about both but it is only a pejorative for one.
Thanks. Did you try searching for “unlikeable” instead of “likeable”? Here’s one about that. I suspect the UK isn’t much different.
(edit to add a quote from AOC in that article:)
I didn’t, I focused on “likeable”. Thanks for the link, I do clearly have a lot to learn and would like to. There’s just so much I don’t see, whether that’s that I just don’t pay attention, or don’t experience it as a man, or that I don’t want to recognise what I do see.
I appreciate your time, and I’ll work to educate myself 👍
I get what that poster is doing.
I agree with the general premise, that this country is not ready to elect a woman President. Lots of people in it are, but not enough in the right zip codes to make it in our system.
But, if you ask these people why they are not voting for a candidate, they will not say “it’s because she has a vagina”. They are too self aware to know that they can’t say it out loud. So, they say things like “I just don’t like her enough” or “she’s too shrill and bossy”.
My actual favorite excuse from the last election was the guy who said “she reminds me of my ex-wife”. At least he’s being honest.
Yes, I agree with you, using words like “shrill” or “bossy” is a great example of a sort of masked misogyny, which is why you used them in your example.
Those two words, among others, are words that are used almost exclusively about women. It can be helpful to point their usage out and call out latent misogyny.
“Aggressive” and “likeable” are not words that this works for. The commenter we’re talking about is tone policing words that aren’t even debatably used the same way, and it’s the kind of weird, fussy, oversensitive nonsense that is aggravating and distracting.
It’s also massively rude to imply somebody is a misogynist without any grounding at all, simply because they did not like a candidate who - incidentally - is a woman.
Women, because they’re humans just like men, have the capacity to be disliked for their actions and words.
Oh, hard disagree there. There is a certain class of misogynist who likes their women docile. They “dislike” anyone woman who they dont find “agreeable”, and view women who express their own opinions as “aggressive”.
Is it an overly broad generalization? Maybe. But it tracks!
I think I’d take it a step further and say all misogynists like their women docile. That’s why “bossy” is such a loaded word.
But “dislike”? “Agreeable”? “Aggressive”? I can’t agree that those three are misogynistic terms, or even signifiers of misogyny.
I guess we just disagree on terms though. 🤷♂️ No ill will towards you or anything! It seems like we’re on board with misogyny being bad 😂
My point is that they are all self aware enough to know they can’t just say “I just won’t vote for any woman”, so they will give you any other reason if asked. It doesn’t have to make sense to us, as long as they can justify it in their head.
And that, in our current political climate, there are just enough of these losers, in the right zip codes, to make a difference.
This is part of the reason I so strongly want AOC to take over Schumer’s Senate seat for a term or three. If she runs for President in 2028, she will probably lose. But if she moves to the Senate and is as effective there as she has been in the House, maybe the country will be ready by 2040.