I will never forget the dread I felt as the results came in from the 2016 election. Sitting next to my daughter, like many Americans at the time, I fully believed we were about to share a long-awaited moment: the election of our first female president. I was proud to have voted in an election that would finally achieve one of the most important and most visible milestones of female equality. It would create a future in which women were taken seriously and not an afterthought, unlike the world in which I grew up. My daughter would have the confidence and respect that was often denied to the women of my generation (who had it far better than women of prior generations).
Watching the electoral college results come in one after another, not only not for the woman, but for the man whose record of misogyny and sexual assault was well established, was a gut punch, over and over. I felt physically sick.
Here we go again.
There are currently 5 women candidates in the running for the 2020 presidential election, each with impressive qualifications on par (or better in some cases) with their male peers. There are many women leaders of top nations, worldwide, including Angela Merkel, the highly regarded German chancellor for the last 13 years, who leads the European Union. New Zealand’s Prime Minister has even given birth while in office! Is the US so different from these other developed, world-leading nations? Yes and no.
As I used to explain to my (die-hard conservative) former business colleague, in US politics, we have a right and a left. Then there’s the rest of the world, over here, to the left of our left. I know she liked that simplistic explanation, because she quoted it often. However, she wasn’t happy about it, whereas I had lived and traveled extensively abroad and was more impressed than she was by the socialism-lite approach to democracy.
But conservatives, generally speaking, are pretty harsh on women candidates while giving men a pass on misogynist behaviors. Despite her status as a high-ranking female executive, she also had some religious-based prejudices about women in leadership. She was an Evangelical and felt that women preachers just “didn’t work.” She enthusiastically supported Trump in 2016 when he became the nominee.
A recent debate between Susan Madrak and Kathleen Grier revealed some of the key arguments why the country is or is not ready to elect a woman to the highest office.
“Sexism is sneaky, usually tolerated, and mostly unexamined.” Susan Madrak
Here are some statements identified as masked sexism:
“I’d gladly vote for a woman, just not this one!” This one is particularly insidious because there’s always some theoretical woman who is acceptable, but who is not in fact running.
“Hillary Clinton was just too deeply flawed to win.” (While ignoring the contrast to Trump’s far deeper flaws).
“She’s just not likable” or its near cousin “I find her cold.”
“She’s too shrill!” (The narrow band of acceptable tone available to women is well documented, and almost impossible to maintain as a woman).
These are arguments I know very well as a former high level business executive. I was coached once to show vulnerability, even though I didn’t know what that meant and nobody could explain it in a business context. “Men just like to think you have weaknesses. They find you intimidating.” Really? So weaknesses won’t be used against me? I’ll believe that when I see it. Also, I have never in my decades of experience heard of a man being criticized for being intimidating. Others were always told they just needed to be well prepared for a rigorous discussion.
While many like to consider the US the “best” country in the world, it ranks 51st when it comes to gender parity, lagging behind most of Europe, Canada, Australia, several African nations and former Soviet states, and even Mexico beats us (just barely). Four elements were evaluated in this ranking: Economic Participation & Opportunity (our best ranking–19th), Educational Attainment (ranked 46th), Health and Survival (ranked 71st), and dead last, Political Empowerment (ranked 98th). We’ve still got a long way to go, and it’s no wonder women’s health and reproductive rights are under siege with so little female representation in the legislature. Several of our male legislators don’t seem to even understand how women’s bodies work (e.g. “you can’t get pregnant from rape”) and don’t know that birth control pills are very commonly prescribed for non-reproductive reasons.
We have a consistent track record of choosing misogynists for office, and while neither party is immune, the right seems to have more misogynists to choose from.
“There was such a chasm between Hillary’s perceived flaws and Trump’s utter unsuitability for the office of President that I have to wonder what could breach that kind of image abyss—and what created it. That voters happily selected the pussy-grabber, the open sexist and racist, convinces me there’s something powerful working in the Jungian shadows.” Susan Madrak
Misogyny is just one way the right stirs up controversy against their political opponents. Whataboutism doesn’t work in this particular scenario because voters on the left don’t respond as well to open misogyny. Attacks on the First Lady (if her POTUS husband is a Dem) have been fair game:
- Claiming Hillary was a lesbian who had her lover Vince Foster offed
- Making racist disparaging comments about Michelle Obama’s appearance
- Claiming Elizabeth Warren had an affair with a 24 year old Marine
Regardless this history of disparaging women in the political limelight, at some point, the US is bound to catch up to other developed nations in electing a woman to the highest office, right? Please, please say I’m right.
The best evidence cited is that Hillary Clinton won the popular vote by almost 3 million votes in 2016. That’s all good and well, but given the electoral college, Dems could win the popular by up to 5 million votes in 2020 and still lose the election. The popular vote is not enough in the US. You also have to win in the flyover states. Republicans have been very successful at causing a fear of cultural loss among these voters, and in many cases, progressive platforms aren’t as beneficial to them as they are to urban and suburban voters.
From Kathleen Geier’s rebuttal to Susan Madrak:
“Clinton actually did pretty well, given what she was up against. That said, she was also, as many have pointed out already, a weak candidate. Like Al Gore and John Kerry, she lacked charisma and had been in politics for approximately 1,000 years, which tends to create undesirable baggage. . . And then there’s Clinton’s campaign, which frankly stunk on ice. To her credit, Clinton did support a host of progressive policies. But because she never made them central to her messaging, many voters remained unaware of them. Ultimately, Clinton failed to perform that most basic task of telling voters how she was going to make their lives better.” Kathleen Geier
She notes that sexism and misogyny, while they were factors that hobbled Clinton, could have been defused by a stronger candidate with less baggage.
“Now let’s be real: Clinton faced a tsunami of sexism. Some of the misogyny came from the left and from the mainstream media, but the ugliest attacks came from the Republicans and the right. And yes, those attacks were brutal and debilitating. But does anyone doubt that any Democratic presidential candidate would also have faced vicious smears by the right? Bill Clinton, Al Gore, John Kerry, and Barack Obama were also put through the GOP shredder. The contemporary GOP has made it clear that it will use any means necessary to destroy any Democrat. Strong candidates can weather these attempts at character assassination, even when they deploy hateful ideologies and stereotypes. . . A more talented female candidate than Clinton would similarly have been able to, at least partially, defuse the sexism.”
She goes on to decry just how far behind other nations the US lags in female political representation:
“Pakistan, Morocco, and even Saudi Arabia have a higher proportion of women in their national parliaments than we do. Yet according to a study by the World Economic Forum, those nations rank among the countries with the least gender equality in the world.”
Often in these more oppressive countries, women rise to power on the basis of relationships with powerful, politically connected families. I didn’t fail to notice that Hillary Clinton also fit that bill.
She adds that according to the political science literature, voter sexism in the United States is not the likely reason that women are not being elected to political office! Fewer American women are running, and there are many causes:
- Fewer women in professional career tracks that usually link to political roles (e.g. lawyers are only 34% female and still experience serious glass ceiling problems and exit-ramping due to employment policies that make them less likely to put in the long hours and travel required to get ahead in our system). This is a pipeline problem.
- Less parental encouragement
- Less access to mostly male political social groups
- Lower self-confidence in assessing personal qualifications vs. overconfident male candidates
- Social attitudes that discourage women from running
There was a study done with blind auditions for orchestras that demonstrated these points very well. When the auditions were held behind a screen so that the judges couldn’t see who was playing, they hired more women. Why? Because under these conditions, a LOT more women were willing to audition. Given the onslaught of misogyny and personal attacks any woman candidate will face if she runs, it takes a special breed to be willing to put herself and her family through that. Which is just what her political opponents want and why they do it.
Both Susan Madrak and Kathleen Meier caution us against spending too much time wringing our hands over whether a woman can win, simply because that very act itself dampers enthusiasm among potential women candidates. And the biggest predictor of whom someone will vote for is not the sex of the candidate, but the party.
“The concept of electability is deeply troubling because it’s rooted in the belief that only a man can beat another man, when in fact, women across the country have a record of defeating male opponents at every level of government.” Na’ilah Amaru, national trainer for VoteRunLead quoted here
As one Forbes opinion writer put it:
“The only thing standing in the way of running a woman against Trump is our fear that a woman cannot beat Trump. The evidence does not support this, however.” Melanie Fine
What do you think?
- When will we elect our first woman President in the US?
- What is holding us back from more female representation in politics in the US?
- Would you vote for a woman for POTUS? Why or why not?
- Do you think Mormons are less likely to vote for a woman or would they vote for a woman if she ran under their party? Explain your answer.
Discuss.
Wheat & Tares 
First, Thank you for this informative and yet sad post.I hope 2020 we do elect our first woman president. I think sexism was one cause that led to Hillary losing to Trump in 2016. I certainly heard many sexist comments regarding her while Trump was given a pass. I will be watching the Impeachment Hearings today but think he will survive with McConnell protecting him in the Senate and then on to 2020.
I am concerned that W&T seems to be turning into a political site. Just saying…..
I almost never comment on political posts, but here goes. I voted for the female presidential candidate in 2016. My favorite candidate for 2020 is also female but not the frontrunner. That being said I think many Americans vote with their wallets so to speak – in other words they vote for the candidate that they see will bring them financial prosperity. After all, you can buy anything in this world with money.
As a father of two college aged women studying in male dominated fields, I find myself trying to be balanced and fair but bias is difficult to see and even more difficult to change. I recently heard a millennial aged woman remark that she thought we were collectively over sexism in politics and my response was “not everybody.”
As an institution I think the church is guilty of benevolent sexism and therefore most current LDS in are biased against women in politics.
Thanks, Angela. Personally, I’d vote for anyone other than Trump, but preferably a woman. We simply need this to happen in America.
Great post, as usual. So I think you make a lot of good points about latent (or not) misogyny and the difficulty that any person who identifies as female faces in America when it comes to achieving and occupying a position of power, whether in the political or the corporate world. I do think that in the particular case of Hillary Clinton, there was, as you note, a lot of baggage and a dearth of just plain old likability that may not have had to do with gender per se. And yes, the Right and conservatives in general usually have a bigger problem with (and hence employ more vehement political strategies against) women in positions of power or potential power. I’d also suggest, though, that the Left does itself no favors when its knee-jerk reaction to any criticism of Hillary or Obama, e.g. is “well, you’re just being a sexist/racist.” If I disagree with a part of Hillary’s economic platform, that doesn’t make me a sexist, it just means I disagree with part of her economic platform. There are times when the Left (which is the way I personally lean politically) isn’t nearly as substantive or as rigorous in its responses to the Right as I would like. I think that hurt Hillary and her supporters as well as the other factors you mention.
I don’t know when we’ll elect a woman president. Hopefully in my lifetime, but I don’t know. To return to your point about disparaging women in the limelight, the difference in the way Katie Hill was treated for her inappropriate relationship vs. how people treated Trump tells me we have a long way to go. And I don’t know about the Mormon question. So many Mormons are culturally conditioned to believe in very well-established and quite harmful stereotypes regarding women and their role both in the home and in the culture at large. I do see your point about party, though. If there was a female candidate who was well-versed in Mormon virtue-signaling and culture who ran as a certain kind of Republican, it would be possible to garner a significant Mormon voting bloc, I suppose. And to Dark Traveler, this particular post is overtly political, I agree, but a lot of what is discussed on this blog is political at least in some sense. Much of the Mormon Church’s structure, history, doctrine and practices have real-world (political) consequences when it comes to impacting specific groups of people. So even though the church claims a kind of political neutrality, that is simply not possible when one considers the effects of its power structures and its beliefs.
It is a bit simplistic to write off Hillary Clinton’s loss to misogyny. I’m sure it played a part with sexists, but take the Utah presidential vote breakdown between 1992 and 2016. In 1992 her husband came in THIRD with 24.55% of the vote, – behind Ross Perot who got 27.34%. George H.W. Bush only got a plurality at 43.36%. Fast forward to 2016. Hillary Clinton beat the share her husband was able to garner with 27.46%. Evan McMullin got 21.54%. Trump got 45.54%, which surprisingly was better than George Bush’s 1992 take.
The two Clinton’s are ideologically very similar, and wound up with similar results in Utah, but Hillary still beat her husband by nearly 3% points. If misogyny was a significant factor, one would expect to see the results reversed between the two Clintons.
I think a woman can win the presidency. Hillary Clinton was just a terrible candidate. She didn’t campaign in certain states (Obama criticized her for that). She had her own party accusing her killing her rivals (watch the DNC Convention when the Bernie supporters changed their signs to Killary).
On top of that, the mood in the world was to burn down the establishment. Brexit had just passed and the prior years had all the “Summers” in the east. Hillary was the embodiment of the establishment vs Trump that was burning it down.
And even at that she still won the popular vote so I think we are ready for a woman presidency. We just wanted a slightly better one.
My lack of enthusiasm for the female candidates in 2019 has nothing to do with sexism. They are all liberal to very liberal and that does not represent my political orientation. And three years ago, I did not feel that Hillary Clinton best represented my point of view. It has very little to do with sexism. Many men like me would be happy to support a conservative or even moderate woman but that’s not who is running. Now, if you want to label the Republican party as sexist for not nominating any conservative women, go ahead and make that case. But don’t attack conservative men for not supporting liberal women. We also don’t support liberal men.
Again with the Political….please not here!!! Do we REALLY need to ruin this site…by taking it political? If so…..I’m done here. Enough political “talking heads” everywher else.
A woman of moderate political views could win the presidency. There is no such woman in the race for 2020.
Thank you Angela. You have restored my faith in “mormon” women. It is hopefully time for a restoration of feminine energy on this planet after so many women were lost over the last couple of centuries..i.e. witch hunts, crusades, and their voice has been dimmed because of these experiences on this planet. Personally I wish we could elect Marianne Williamson. But first we will have to work from the bottom up on the political parties..democrats and republicans..and get our elected officials out of the pockets of BIG money. John Kasich was interesting when he recently said…we need to take back our power as individuals and start at the bottom and build upward. Change comes slowly…but it will come!
Actually I enjoy the political posts. Commenters here are clearly politically diverse, but I feel like we can have fruitful political discussions. I actually wish people in general would talk about politics more but take the discussions to a deeper level.
I believe a female can win the presidency. Hillary was extraordinarily unpopular, and completely wrecked her own campaign. She was completely out of touch with voters in key battleground states. I also agree that we shouldn’t ever support someone or not support someone simply because of their gender and race. Still the whole outcry about “identity politics” on the left is really uninformed, exaggerated, and tends to ignore the fact that much of the Trump campaign was based on white identity politics. Of course not all GOP voters are motivated by racial issues, but a surprisingly large numbers hear those dog whistles ever so frequently sounded by Trump and his supporters and respond to the call.
You know it’s entirely possibly that a majority of people in the United States are SICK TO DEATH of the political sewage we’ve had to swallow 24/7 (from people of every political stripe, party, sex etc.) for the past 10 years; or more. And, we’ve come to the conclusion that EVERY aspect of politics (and the so called Public Servants) has/have been corrupted to one degree or another…with the Washington D.C. basin being the most corrupt of all. THE LAST THING we want to do is to engage in additional, speculative debate – what if this?, and what if that? ! It’s a waste of time and energy. Many of us have simply begun re-building ourselves, our families and our hometown communities; at the local level. National political movements have little to no credibility – and are most likely expediting the ruin of the country. The National Debt alone will someday kill us….
American politics dominates western media. Sometimes I know more about US politics than my own country. But it is often portrayed as a source of entertainment (expect when it effects the economy). Unfortunately the influence of the media and the perceived (or real) influence of right wing politics in the church causes real issues for both members and investigators. I would suggest the biggest hindrance that church faces in terms of growth outside the US is the influence of right wing politics in the church.
Admittedly, Donald Trump is FAR from perfect; and has done some things which are wrong.
However, if we’re going to attempt to hold the:
Clintons’
Pelosis’
Schumars’
Elizabeth Warren
Bernie Sanders
Etc.
As paragons of virtue….and more trustworthy than any other politician…this then becomes an argument of disgusting hypocrisy (and of self delusion). For, anyone who has honestly studied the lives of these people, and how they live – and how wealthy they are (despite their public pronouncments) ….know that they are just as “filthy and corrupt” as anyone else; and in some cases more so.
I do have a modicum of respect for Tulsi Gabbard. I perceive that she has yet to be corrupted by Washington D.C.; and has even stood up to “the establishment” on both sides of the aisle. Yes, I could vote for her.
Love to see lefthandloafer decry political posts, say that they are “done here” and argue that we should focus on the local and then not contain themselves and post about it had hypocritical everyone is. So funny. And sad.
“Post about how hypocritical”
I guess I’m a misogynist, because I’m not very sympathetic to much of this post. But, I sure wish Hilary had won, and I’m (currently) voting for (and donating to) Klobucher. Yes, we’ll have a woman in the White House at some point and everybody can be as excited as they want. Compared to getting the current president out, I just don’t think it’s a big deal.
Two downvotes for Tulsi Gabbard….boy that’s interesting and revealing. Hey Brian: “kiss my what”?! I didn’t start this political post buddy….but, I have an opinion and I’ll share it as I please.
Wow, Lefthandloafer. Just wow. Now we can all see why you should, indeed, follow your own advice and refrain from sharing. You’re welcome, of course, to share. And be a hypocrite. I’ll just call you out for it.
Brian: and in return, I will continue to call you out for being a pretentious prick! I wasn’t posting to offend….or to poke anyone in the eye personally.. you chose to do that.
I see that you have been triggered by my comments, indeed, that you have been triggered by the post, and by the downvotes; that you can’t see your own poking of others in the eyes in these very comments, starting with your first and moving on from there; that you can’t see your own pretentious behavior towards people who supposedly haven’t “studied” the lives of those people you list as thoroughly as you have; that, you resort to middle school name-calling when you feel threatened. Not sure there’s much else to say. I’ll sure you will retort with some predicable quip about what a jerk I am for pointing these things out; or how stupid I am; or something else. But it’s all there for anyone to see. Sorry you took it so hard. Truly, I am. I really don’t care what your political views, anymore than you want W&T to post political stuff. I was just pointing out that maybe, you actually do want them to . . .
I think we’ll see a woman president within the next several election cycles. Hillary’s campaign shows that it’s within reach.
I wouldn’t be at all surprised to see the first female president coming from the Republicans a few terms from now. Nikki Haley stands a good chance, but it will be difficult for her to make it through a Republican primary.
Any Democrat, woman or not, that gets the nomination for 2020 has a reasonable chance against Trump, with his high disapproval rating. But it’s definitely not a sure bet.
To the question of whether members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints will vote for a woman, I think the abortion question is the deciding factor. In a primary, Mormons may be less likely to vote for a woman, just like they seem to prefer male speakers in General Conference. But once a woman of their party managed to get the nomination, I think Mormons would gladly vote for her.
Lets answer the questions first.
When will we elect our first woman President in the US? With Trump winning 2020, almost a sure thing at this point. Pence runs in 2024 stands a good chance of winning if during the election cycle the economy is good. If the economy is bad Pence could have a republican challenger who if it is a women could be the nominee. The democrats will run the same group of losers minus the ones who have died, and Biden who will most likely be the nominee for democrats this time around and will lose, will be out as a “has run” candidate. And the democrats will lose because they will still be the same people as this time around and they are too extreme to be elected. I predict that the first women president will be a republican candidate from the next open primary election cycle on the republican side. I also predict the democrats will call her a “not real women” candidate and not vote for her. They will run an old white guy, who will lose against her and they will not see the irony in the whole thing.
What is holding us back from more female representation in politics in the US? There is a lot of power and graft to be had in American politics, specially at the Fed level, than in most of the other parts of the world parliaments. Places with weak parliaments and strong presidents see larger numbers of women in parliament as the real power and graft is held by the president and the executive branch, where you will see more men. I believe there are just fewer women willing to jump into that pool of sharks than there are men willing to do it.
Would you vote for a woman for POTUS? Yes. Why or why not? If the woman matched my conservative values I would have no problem voting for her. Her being a women has very little to do with the decision process. I feel it is not the case on the liberal/democrat side where it appears gender is a major factor in how people vote.
Do you think Mormons are less likely to vote for a woman or would they vote for a woman if she ran under their party? Explain your answer. A good conservative woman would win the republican nomination and be voted for by the vast majority of the republican/conservative Mormons. The democrat Mormons would still not vote for her because she will be seen as not a “real woman”. They will call her a “tool” or a puppet, mark my words.
Do any of you question what you are being fed? It has been established that russia interfered in the last election in various ways including undermining one candidate in favour of the other.
As the original post notes “As I used to explain to my (die-hard conservative) former business colleague, in US politics, we have a right and a left. Then there’s the rest of the world, over here, to the left of our left.”
There are a number of comments above about how extreme the democrats are. I assume universal health care, limiting financial inequalty, and keeping abortion legal, joining the rest of the world trying to address climate change, would be some of what you see as extreme. The democrats are attempting to bring america up to world standard.
As the other foreign commenter says, the church being associated with what is really extreme, republicanism, limits the appeal greatly.
The abortion one I find particularly disturbing. I’m told many members voted trump to get abortion made illegal. Do you think if it is illegal it will stop? The rates of abortion vary from country to country from about 50/ 1000 women down to 5. The countries with low numbers have respect for women (often women leaders), sex education, affordable birth control, and legal abortion as a last resort. So if you want to reduce abortion to a minimum, this is the way.
When republicans are in they also cut funding to ngos that provide womens services in places like africa. Since trump has been in there has been a 40% increase in abortions in africa. The starting point is about 8 million abortion, and 16000 deaths. Abortion is illegal in most of africa. So because of republican position on abortion resulting on reduced womens services including birtn control, and sex education, an extra 3 million abortions and 6400 deaths.
Does this look like success to you?
Surely rational people can see that making abortion illegal does not make sense. Perhaps someone can explain?
Why do you feel the need to reference your previous career so much? It seems almost every post is “when I lived in …..” and “as a former high level executive”
Mayginnes- real question: what are “moderate views” to you?
Mayginnes- real question: what are “moderate political views” to you?
Brian: Please spare me your faux outrage and dismay. The reality is you took a swipe at me and I slapped you back. However, I think one of the positives coming out of this whole conversation is that much (not all) of this whole post has little to do with looking forward to the day that we have a female POTUS; but rather really looking forward to the day when we have a Liberal, Democratic Socialist, Clintonesque…female POTUS. It’s probably that, and still mourning Hilary Clinton’s loss in 2016. Heaven forbid we EVEN MENTION great female leaders who are not uber Leftist. I’m with Rockwell, in that I think Nikki Haley would be great ; but leftists will never support a Republican. that would be heresy
As for a Hillary Clinton “lookalike”…..I’d rather vote for a rusty fencepost.
Hey Brian: You’re next move is to declare me a Rascist, Misogynistic, Bigot….
To Lefthandloafer,
I’ll take the next move and ask you and Brian to take your playground feud offline and away from this post. You are being obnoxious and offensive. I often read your comments with interest but you’re way out of line this time. Again, please go away from this post.
“Can a Woman Win the Presidency?” Yes. There’s no law against it. How likely it is depends quite a bit on which woman one has in mind. A photo of one sporting a rifle would win over quite a few Republicans.
Geoff-Aus writes “The democrats are attempting to bring america up to world standard.” I would say down to world standards but yes, that does seem to be what Democrats are trying to accomplish. The United States is simply not the rest of the world. Most of its citizens (or their ancestors) escaped from the rest of the world. One need only compare emigration and immigration statistics; how many people are trying to enter the United States versus how many people are leaving the United States.
Copy that, Charlene. Fued Over. I appreciate your counsel.
Would you ever consider voting for a Conservative female leader?
“was more impressed than she was by the socialism-lite approach to democracy.”
It is fairly easy to have socialism in a nation whose geographic dimensions barely qualify as a county in one of the large states of the United States. Hungary is only 60 miles across if I remember right. It is also important to have largely homogeneous ethnic and cultural norms.
Socialism/communism failed in the Soviet Union because it is too big; had around 120 languages and cultural norms in some cases with incompatible religious beliefs that subsequently shape political practices.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Languages_of_the_Soviet_Union
I predict the first woman president of the United States will be a moderate Republican. Nearly all women will vote for her because she’s a woman. Men will vote for her if she possesses certain executive and leadership abilities.
In my opinion Hillary Clinton lost the election when she deprecated a “basket of deplorables” showing contempt for a great many blue-collar Democrats (and all Republicans). Obama expressed contempt saying he would take away the car keys from Republicans. All of this contempt ensured that the least electable candidate ever got elected. Contempt for others is not impressive and yet forms the staple diet of nearly all left wing pundits and comics (Rachel Maddow, Chris Matthews, Keith Olbermann). It is a good strategy for a primary election among your party, but not so good for general elections where you may need some votes from the enemy.
Beautifully narrated M2. My sincere compliments. I personally think you just may be right.
Lefthandloafer, I thought you indicated you didn’t want to talk politics. And then you proceed to go on rant after rant espousing ridiculous views of false equivalence (the left just as corrupt nonsense). Get lost you pathetic conspiracist troll. You and Michael 2. You can’t politics because you’re all emotion and don’t have a rational bone in your body.
John W: Ahhhh….and thus we finally get to the crux of the matter and a perfect example of the tolerance of the Left. Not only are they filled with hate…but they presume to know a person’s life, their loves and desires (and life experiences) – set themselves up as the all wise and knowing – and then show anyone with a differing opinion the door. And, on their way out….they use all the condescension, invective lanquage and terminology which they so despise in (and call out) in others. Well done, John W. Well done. You’ve placed a perfect capstone on this whole ridiculous narrative.
John W: Ahhhhhhh….and so we finally make it to the crux of the matter; with the tolerance and all knowing wisdom of the Left on perfect display. When someone expresses an opinion and view which differs from the incessant socialist drumbeat, they’re shown the door and told to leave. And, when these people are on their way out, they are given a full dose of the condescension, invective lanquage, insulting and degrading terminology……and I’m sure thought to be “righteous indignation” ; which they so despise (and call out) in others. Well done, John. Well done. You’ve placed a perfect capstone on this whole ridiculous narrative.
Did I just hear a little boy crying wolf about free speech and tolerance? My Vulcan powers of telekinesis have led me to sense something in the air. Wait, is that butthurt that I sense?
Mods, time to remove the scum.
I rest my case.
Thanks Angela. I was so aloof to any gender equality issues and it is absolutely embarrassing.
I am glad that my little girl gets to see women lawyers, women doctors, women CEO’s and hopefully some day soon a woman president. I think it will happen in the next 20 years. I would vote for a woman for president.
I hate to speculate on what members of the church would do, because it only reflects the attitudes of the members that I know. I live in a very conservative area in southern Idaho. We do not have a lot of professional women who work outside their homes in my ward or stake. The ones who do are generally school teachers or secretaries, you know jobs “women are made for”, and this environment skews my view of what the general Mormon population would do. If there were a primary and an equally qualified woman and man were running against each other, I have to believe that the majority of my fellow members here would vote for the man. Men are stake presidents, mission presidents, bishops, and according to one man in a recent priesthood lesson discussion, they are just more even keeled and better decision makers in general. We’ve been taught that we were foreordained to preside and it is our eternal destiny is to preside so that has to run over into other aspects of our lives right?
I’ve been here on W&T for the last 5 years. It always cracks me up the way the discussions go on here. I’ve probably been guilty of derailing a good well thought out post in the past. Thanks for the great political post and thanks for helping me pull my head out in regards to gender inequality. My wife appreciates it too.
I see no reason not to discuss something as important as politics. And discussing it within the framework of closely and deeply held core beliefs makes sense to me. After all it was the esteemed conservative Edmund Burke who said “the only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.”
Personally, I think it’s time for good men to examine their consciences and ask if what’s currently happening in American life and politics reflects how they feel about their personal morality and their hopes for the security and endurance of the country — the whole country, not just Red States or White people — into another generation. A little more “what would Jesus do?” and a little less “how do eviscerate my enemy?” perhaps?
Meanwhile, I am NOT a fan of silencing speech and I deeply appreciate being able to speak candidly here knowing I’m out on the fringe and am indulged with great forbearance by the majority here but can I ask if it isn’t time to assess how constructive or on topic certain items in Comments are.
Micheal 2.I had not heard the story that socialism only works in small countries. I guess it depends what you define as socialism. In Aus we don’t think of ourselves as socialists, but to republicans we probably are. Our land area is about the same as the continental US lower 48, though our population is only 30million.
We have a conservative government at present, which claims to be meeting its emmisions targets, has legalised gay marriage, and abortion, but is not helping with financial inequality, but would not dare touch universal health care. Our health care costs the economy less than half what yours costs per person, and results in longer life expectancy. So it works.
The size of the country does not affect whether you can have a caring society, or a socialist one.
No one has tried to explain why you would make abortion illegal, when that is not the way to reduce it?
I wonder to what degree certain elements of feminism actually undermine (albeit inadvertently) the chances of female US presidential candidates.
During Hillary Clinton’s campaign I noticed to a degree I hadn’t seen before, her gender used as a key qualification for the presidency. Even the Mormon feminist blogging community was not immune. To me, however, turning someone’s sex or gender into a fitness test for public office actually seems somewhat sexist and can easily turn self-defeating. I can kind of see the rationale or motivation behind this feminist zeal. Perhaps HRC would’ve have brought a badly needed perspective and put this country in a much better place than it is right about now. But to emphasize the role of her sex or gender per se in that not only obscures the candidate’s true talents, it’s a contradiction in gender equality to believe that one’s gender provides some privileged presidential perspective. Yet oddly, the further the US lags Great Britain (with Margaret Thatcher) or Germany (with Angela Merkel) the worse I can see this self-defeating component of feminism becoming. I wonder: did the logic behind whether Margaret Thatcher or Angela Merkel were most fit for their jobs contain much of a similar vote-for-her-because-she’s-a-woman element?
I suspect that we’ll have a female US President when we find a candidate whose platform is strong enough that her campaign or supporters don’t need to qualify her by her XY chromosome pair.
Geoff-Aus, you’ve asked why no one has tried to explain why abortion should be illegal when that tends to increase abortions. It’s because people make decisions based on emotion and not logic. People’s positions on political issues are based on emotion and not logic and the more controversial the issue or the farther to the left or the right someone stands politically, the greater the emotion and the less the logic. No one is going to give you a logical reason for making abortion illegal because in the U.S. it’s a very controversial issue and pretty much every argument for or against is an emotional argument. The same goes for every hot button issue including immigration, gun control, gay marriage, healthcare, taxes, etc, etc, etc. In the U.S. abortion debate, the two sides usually identify themselves as either Pro-Choice (a euphemism meaning if you don’t support abortions it’s because you want to control women) or Pro-Life (a euphemism meaning if you support abortions it’s because you condone murdering babies). It’s all emotion and very little if any logic. Good luck having a reasonable, logical discussion on american politics with anyone in the U.S. Those of us who are more moderately minded, who you could have a reasonable, logical discussion with, tend to avoid political discussion altogether.
Thanks, DB, for that analysis. I think you are correct. The question, then, is how do we move past the left / right divide? How do we grow up as a political culture? Can we? I know that many have simply resorted to not talking about political issues, but it seems like that is a big part of the problem–like NOT talking about issues in a respectful manner is just as ineffective as shouting at each other.
More specifically, why are Brian, Michael2, John W and Lefthandloafer convinced that posting (and posting, and posting …) their political opinions under pseudonyms on obscure web sites will have any discernible impact on anyone else’s opinion? I agree with certain aspects of what all have said, but I don’t agree in total, nor do I agree with the middle-school bravado saturation.
Now, with my educated opinion and about $2.59, I can get a cup of black coffee at Starbucks. God bless Murica!
I just have to point out something. Since the legalization of abortion in the US, the number of abortions (rate of abortions) is higher than before legalization. So the blanket statement that making abortions illegal will increase abortions or that making abortions legal will lower the rate of abortions is not based on historic real world data. At least in the short term (past 45 years)
BoJB, I think if people were willing to move past the partisan divide, or to let go of their self-serving ideals, or to understand others’ perspectives, we would have already done that. Maybe I’m just too cynical but I don’t think most people are willing to do any of that and that’s why it’s almost impossible to talk about issues in a respectful manner with just about anybody. Plus, if I were honest about what I think about most people’s political opinions, on both sides, I would probably upset a lot of people. But I wouldn’t mind grabbing a cup of hot cocoa and joining you at a table at Starbucks.
S Jones. Suspect something in your first sentence does not correlate with the conclusion.
Are we really saying americans do not make rational decisions when they vote?
I can show you that Australias universal health care costs the economy less than half USAs not universal system, and provides longer life expectantly. Does that not make sense even to an idealogue? Can someone explain why you would not consider that?
I’m told many members voted for trump to get abortion made illegal. Do they realise that making it illegal will not reduce the number of abortions? The rates of abortion vary from country to country from about 50/ 1000 women down to 5. The countries with low numbers have respect for women (often women leaders), sex education, affordable birth control, and legal abortion as a last resort. So there are proven ways to reduce americas abortions by 75%. Making it illegal will not reduce the number of abortions. If you are against abortion which do you choose? Why is this discussion not possible? Why can you not have a rational debate so those who are concerned about abortion can make a decision that actually reduces abortions?
When republicans are in they also cut funding to ngos that provide womens services in places like africa. Since trump has been in there has been a 40% increase in abortions in africa. The starting point is about 8 million abortion, and 16000 deaths. Abortion is illegal in most of africa. So because of republican position on abortion resulting on reduced womens services including birth control, and sex education, an extra 3 million abortions and 6400 deaths in africa.
Surely you can have rational discussions? There is little hope of uniting the country that has united in its name if all you can do is make disparaging comments about those they don’t agree with. Can someone explain why both sides could not agree on the above 2 issues, if they used the facts rather than calling each other names?
If you could select a woman who could unite the country that would be great, but with some of the views expressed above, I can’t see America becoming united at all.
Not sure if someone noticed already, but “Dems could lose by 5 million votes and still lose the election”? Do you mean “could win” or “Republicans could lose”?
I’ll be honest–I didn’t vote in the last election. Thus, I didn’t vote for Clinton. With the possible exception of Harris, I would vote for every woman in the field right now, and that’s because I’m wary of Harris’s record on criminal justice. We should be able to vote based on conscience.
Dylan, who prevents you from voting based on your conscience? Why would you allow anyone to do that?
I was mainly referring to the idea that saying “I’ll vote for a woman president, just not this one” is sexist. So no one’s preventing me, but to say “I’ll vote for a woman no matter what,” or a Republican no matter what, or a Democrat no matter what seems to be a kind of thought-stopping cliche.
Jay: Like a lot of people, my work experience informed many of my opinions, and as a Mormon woman, I have never met another Mormon woman with the same experience I have had. That makes me think some of how I see women’s capabilities for leadership are very different than the other women I befriend at Church. Many of the sisters in Relief Society feel very comfortable steering clear of roles in leadership and deferring to male Church leaders. The majority of women at Church are far more into beating themselves up than they are into being ambitious.
If you look at Church hiring policies, they are very conservative, with a very low glass ceiling for women (until very recently, many committees had no women on them… at all!) and they have policies that demean women. The church only recently quit firing paid female seminary teachers when they have a baby, and benefits for women’s health are really limited.
Politics is frankly something I hear about a lot at church, although it is usually not things I agree with (however, as I don’t live in Utah, the church’s actions are seldom capable of impacting laws that affect my state.
I wasn’t specifically asked whether I would vote for a conservative woman. I probably would, but it’s hard to say now, more than before Trump. I really liked McCain, but Sarah Palin was so unqualified that I could never support her on the ticket. I voted for both Bush and Obama.
The facts that exist under Trump, how he has run his presidency, and the sheer weight of his misogyny are all things that have hurt the Republicans perhaps beyond redemption in my mind. If we want to play whataboutism with Clinton, I do believe that if you sleep with a subordinate, even if it’s consensual, you should not remain in that job. He has also had rape allegations in addition to the Monica Lewinsky scandal. If he were held accountable for his actions the way people are in actual Fortune 500 companies, that would disqualify him. Companies are usually willing to dump a leader who uses the employee roster as his own personal Tinder. Trump, OTOH, claims that any attempt to keep him within the lines is treason.
I am also very confused about the idea of overturning Roe v Wade. There are medically valid reasons allowed in church policy that would be barred, and while I don’t love the idea of elective abortion either, I’m mostly comfortable with the church’s stance that it’s a decision to take seriously. For a bunch of men who repeatedly demonstrate a lack of understanding of female anatomy to be thes ones making these laws is horrific.
Any statistics about the number of abortions performed in the U.S. have a huge asterisks because California stopped reporting their abortion numbers. So we can’t say whether the amount of abortions have gone up or down. I would suppose that California has something to hide in not reporting the numbers.
Hillary lost because she was a terrible campaigner. I remember a play being produced using the transcripts of one of the debates, where they swapped the genders of Trump and Clinton. The female Trump turned out to look better and more sympathetic. And the male Clinton was more annoying. Trump won because he came across as genuine.
I find it fascinating to read these kinds of blog posts. It seems to me that feminism is like a virus that infects some people and literally hijacks the way they see and process everything in the world around them and also blinds them to the fact that they are infected. That Trump’s election would be in hawgrrrls view the result of gender bias and not the fact that Hillary was (in the eyes of many, many credible political experts both male and female and from both sides of the isle) an uninspiring candidate is really quite stunning.
While I’m personally not infected with the feminist virus myself, it gives me pause and makes me wonder about the nature of what I perceive to be reality. It makes me wonder what other types of world view viruses are out there that I may be blindly infected with.
Hopefully this post won’t be read as trolling and deleted. It is offered with genuine respect and curiosity.
Fred, how could any voter set aside the horribly sexist comments Trump made about his assaults of women while he was also accused of sexual assault by 19 actual women? This stuff came out during the election. There is nothing even remotely similar that came out about Hillary Clinton. These election results aren’t merely voters not liking her, or her lack of focus in flyover states (remember that she won the popular vote by 3 million). The sexism is being willing to overlook his utter misogyny to vote for him.
I have no need to delete your comment, but I honestly can’t see a person calling feminism a virus to be in any way acting in good faith.
Angela C wrote “The sexism is being willing to overlook his utter misogyny to vote for him.” Thanks Angela. That’s really a solid point. Hadn’t thought of it quite like that.
And in retrospect, instead of using “virus” I wish I would have used a better analogy. Maybe something like “eye glasses.” But I still maintain my point…that somewhere along the way in life we tend to pick up these world-views and they color everything and strangely, we seem blind to the fact that it is going on.