Support NeoGAF

[QuantumZebra]

"I don't know. I mean she's got the experience and the know-how, but she just comes off as so cold and even bitchy sometimes."

shit makes me nauseous

my father in law (who is a laid back, open-minded guy, if a Republican), said she was a lying bitch... I pressed him on it and he admitted he didnt know why he thought that

he doesnt say that anymore, lol

 

[LoserMakesGood]

Saw this a lot from pundits on news coverage last year.

Saw it a lot in Gaf threads too unfortunaltely. The debates in paticular my god.

"God Hillary looks like such a shrill bitch, smile more"
*next post*
"God stop smiliing so much you arrogant ass"

for pages. Even as Hillary was destroying trump on the issues, people were bitching about her smile or lack of one.

 

[TyphoonStruggle]

shit makes me nauseous

my father in law (who is a laid back, open-minded guy, if a Republican), said she was a lying bitch... I pressed him on it and he admitted he didnt know why he thought that

he doesnt say that anymore, lol

Because she flip flopped on issues? Super predators. Healthcare. TPP.

Hillary was not a good candidate.

 

[Eidan]

Saw it a lot in Gaf threads too unfortunaltely. The debates in paticular my god.

"God Hillary looks like such a shrill bitch, smile more"
*next post*
"God stop smiliing so much you arrogant ass"

for pages. Even as Hillary was destroying trump on the issues, people were bitching about her smile or lack of one.

Yeah, it was pretty infuriating. They'd be the same posters who'd say that Clinton's problems were in no way related to sexism, but were unique to her.

 

[BajiBoxer]

Trump seems really unique in his "ability" to somehow spew out crap that just doesn't matter. It's amazing how far people, even those predisposed against supporting him, lowered the bar for his conduct.

"Binders full of women" and "47%" seemed to have a tangible effect on Romney. Trump could say those quotes back to back during a debate and he'd be praised if he managed to spit them out in the form of coherent sentences.

It didn't hurt Trump as much because the media normalized his behaviour. They saw a Clinton stomping coming and wanted a horse race. Then they tend to do a lot of commentary based on their speculation of how people will react to him after they've already set a narritive. It got real stupid.

The cable news networks are a serious problem.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

Yeah, it was pretty infuriating. They'd be the same posters who'd say that Clinton's problems were in no way related to sexism, but were unique to her.

The evidence bears out this is true, though. Or rather: the way in which Clinton was attacked might have been unique to her gender, and she may have received some attacks which a male candidate would not have faced, but the effectiveness of those attacks was not effective because of her gender, and there's no evidence to support that a 'male Hillary Clinton' would have done better.

Again, all the data shows that once they have decided to run, there is no significant difference between the performance of male and female candidates; the institutional sexism is taking place at a much earlier place in the game. Hillary Clinton was just a bad candidate.

And this point is actually really important, since one of the strongest reasons that women are less likely to get involved in politics is because they perceive that they are very unlikely to succeed, even though this factually untrue. I'm going to quote the advice of the Women & Politics Institute:

Second, a substantial barrier to entering politics for many female potential candidates is the perception of a biased and competitive electoral atmosphere. Yet many of these perceptions are not consistent with the reality that women are just as likely as men to succeed in the electoral arena. Spreading the word about women's electoral success and fundraising prowess can work to change potential candidates' perceptions of a biased electoral arena – perceptions that may be driven by exposure to a handful of very high-profile, but unrepresentative, candidates and campaigns.

By continually blaming Clinton's defeat on her gender, you are actively deterring women from entering politics. This is a bad thing, and you should stop.

And again, as I mentioned in my earlier post, one of the most significant things you can do as a grassroots activist is encourage a female friend or family member to run for local political office. If you know someone, please do so, now. Tell her how good her chances actually are!

 

[super-heated plasma]

I like Harris, but let's face it, Trump getting voted in means (mostly rural)America is not ready for a female President, let alone a black female president.

 

[Madness]

I mean the majority of white women in the US believed Donald Trump was a better candidate than Hillary Clinton. That they would vote for someone with years of sexual harassment claims, misogyny, calling women dogs, criticizing them as flat chested, arguing the appearance of a fellow Republican nominee was not Presidential enough over someone who could have been the most powerful person in the free world, the first Female President of the world superpower. That someone who once said Women's Rights are Human Rights is less qualified to lead women than someone who bragged about grabbing women by their pussies and that when you're rich and famous they let you do anything.

So I am not really sure what would happen if Warren or Kamala Harris types ran.

 

[zelas]

Once they have decided to run, women candidates are actually no less likely to win than equivalent male candidates. This is relatively well-corroborated data in political science, across (for example):

Kathleen Dolan (2004, 50) "Voting for Women: How the Public Evaluates Women Candidates. Boulder: Westview Press"
Fox, Richard L. (2010) “Congressional Elections: Women’s Candidacies and the Road to Gender Parity.” In Gender and Elections, 2nd edition, eds. S. Carroll and R. Fox. New York: Cambridge University Press
Lawless, Jennifer L. and Kathryn Pearson. (2008) “The Primary Reason for Women’s Under- Representation: Re-Evaluating the Conventional Wisdom.” Journal of Politics 70(1):67-82
Smith, Eric R.A.N. and Richard L. Fox. (2001) “A Research Note: The Electoral Fortunes of Women Candidates for Congress.” Political Research Quarterly 54(1):205-21
Cook, Elizabeth Adell. (1998) “Voter Reaction to Women Candidates.” In Women and Elective Of ce, eds. S. Thomas and C. Wilcox. New York: Oxford University Press
J. Newman and M. Voorhees Leighton (1997) "Sex as a Political Variable." Boulder: Lynne Reinner

They also raise equivalent amount of funds, and receive equal air-time.

The reason there are less women politicians isn't because they don't win - they win at comparable rates to men - it's because they don't run. The mainstay of the sexism is one stage earlier in the process - there's cultural pressure on women to be more risk-averse, women are typically expected to perform domestic roles that prevent them from entering the earliest stages of a political career as councillors/state representatives/etc., women are conditioned to under-perceive rather than over-perceive their achievements and see themselves as less likely to win than equivalent male candidates.

So I don't think this will be a very successful tactic for the GOP, since, given their intention to run, Harris and Gillibrand have already 'made it', and you would not expect their genders to have significant impacts on their likelihood of success from this point on.

I think the point of this article is more about the nature of how female candidates are attacked compared to their male counterparts once they've decided to run. I agree that sexism prevents women from running in the first place, but female candidates are not in the clear once they've cleared that hurdle. Sexism doesn't take a break.

FiveThirtyEight actually talked about this issue while mentioning Kathleen Dolan''s work:

Political scientists will tell you that women do OK at the ballot box. “Being a woman doesn’t hurt you in an election,” said Kathleen Dolan, professor of political science at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee. What she means is that, when women run for political office, they win at about the same rate men do. Likewise, a candidate’s gender doesn’t seem to affect the amount of money she is able to raise for her campaign. And, should she fumble in her leadership, she isn’t judged more harshly than her male counterparts. But those rosy facts come from a body of research aimed at understanding the large gender-based disparities in American politics. With an average of 16.9 percent, the United States was 91st in female political representation at the national legislative level in 2011, behind more than 50 democratic nations. (It hasn’t gotten particularly better since.) Being a woman may not hurt you in an election, but it definitely seems to have an impact on the process of getting to that election — largely because women themselves are reluctant to run. And there’s reason to believe that reluctance could have a lot to do with how some women who do run experience a sort of sexism that scientific research isn’t really documenting.

...

But that doesn’t mean there is no sexism, said Schneider, Dolan, and other political scientists. And it doesn’t mean sexism isn’t having an impact on elections. Instead, sexism may be inconsistently affecting women who run for political office, depending on factors such as which job a specific woman is running for, what’s happening in the world when she runs, and her personality and history. In current U.S. society, sexism doesn’t often take the form of a mustachioed villain cackling about his refusal to vote for any woman ever. It’s more likely to play out in nuanced and complex ways. And those nuances are difficult for the current science to capture.

And in relation to the point I believe this article is trying to make about what happens once a female candidate runs:

In 2011, researchers at the American University’s Women and Politics Institute surveyed more than 1,900 men and 1,800 women whose careers and social positions made them well placed to run for public office. The men were 16 percentage points more likely to ever have considered a run, and the women were much more likely to say that elections where they live were highly competitive and that women didn’t do as well. The women were also more likely to judge their own qualifications and set a higher bar to entry than men — 35 percent of men described themselves as “highly qualified” compared to 22 percent of women.

More tellingly, those women based their opinions on what they saw during the 2008 presidential election. Two-thirds of the women surveyed thought Clinton and Palin were at the receiving end of sexist media coverage. More than half thought the public paid too much attention to the women’s appearances. And 84 percent thought Hillary Clinton had faced gender bias from voters — 49 percent thought the same for Sarah Palin.

I don't think you're trying to say otherwise, but I just want to make it clear that it's just as worthwhile to address sexism at every stage because the way female candidate are treated once they've reached that stage does have consequences that go beyond a candidate's election run.

 

[BajiBoxer]

The evidence bears out this is true, though. Or rather: the way in which Clinton was attacked might have been unique to her gender, and she may have received some attacks which a male candidate would not have faced, but the effectiveness of those attacks was not effective because of her gender, and there's no evidence to support that a 'male Hillary Clinton' would have done better.

Again, all the data shows that once they have decided to run, there is no significant difference between the performance of male and female candidates; the institutional sexism is taking place at a much earlier place in the game. Hillary Clinton was just a bad candidate.

And this point is actually really important, since one of the strongest reasons that women are less likely to get involved in politics is because they perceive that they are very unlikely to succeed, even though this factually untrue. I'm going to quote the advice of the Women & Politics Institute:



By continually blaming Clinton's defeat on her gender, you are actively deterring women from entering politics. This is a bad thing, and you should stop.

And again, as I mentioned in my earlier post, one of the most significant things you can do as a grassroots activist is encourage a female friend or family member to run for local political office. If you know someone, please do so, now. Tell her how good her chances actually are!

Wouldn't Clinton's situation be unique though? It was a national presidential campaign which has a different approach from the media and on issues. It's a spotlight present nowhere else, and Clinton is the sole datapoint.

Edit: Also want to point out a general study does not apply to an individual. If ever there would be an outlier, Clinton would be it.

 

[platocplx]

You are saying people need to get over themselves and I'm the one being dumb? I'm being practical. People are going to act exactly the same as every other election which is why we need to minimize exposure to lose independents/democrat non voters.

it isnt practical if you are waiting for some unicorn candidate when literally republicans will vote for an amorphous blob that tells them what they want to hear as long as it has an R next to it. its not even close to practical.

I'll vote for whoever is the nominee In the GE and pick who I want in the primary.

You'd think such a basic concept would be understood by folks.

yep. unfortunately many liberals need to fall in love with candidates while republicans fall in line. I just need to know the overall parties direction and policy is sound and just in many ways. But many people really dont care about that they treat politicians like celebrities they like and dislike and dont even look at the bigger overall picture. Same reason you have purity tests on the left while the right just keeps on marching along.

 

[Thatonemoor]

If Harris or Warren ran I'd vote for them before I'd vote for any dude.

 

[Garlador]

I like Harris, but let's face it, Trump getting voted in means (mostly rural)America is not ready for a female President, let alone a black female president.

Looking at how many WOMEN voted for Trump as well, it's... weird.

And yet most of my family in rural America did as well, including my mother. I told her Trump was everything she raised me not to be... she paused and responded, "but at least he's not Hillary".

A large segment of American women largely still believe that their worth is measured in the eyes of a man, not on their own merits. It's ingrained in them culturally since they were kids, at school, at work, at church... "The man is the head of the household", she'd repeat. "A woman's job is to nurture and support."

So, no matter how bad Trump was, even for women, they instinctively trust a man to lead them more than another woman, and I watched her rationalize it no matter how many examples of his misogyny and chauvinism I showed her.

"At least he's not Hillary," she'd repeat, because no matter how bad Trump was, at least he wasn't Hillary...

 

[JustenP88]

It didn't hurt Trump as much because the media normalized his behaviour. They saw a Clinton stomping coming and wanted a horse race. Then they tend to do a lot of commentary based on their speculation of how people will react to him after they've already set a narritive. It got real stupid.

The cable news networks are a serious problem.

Yeah, Jeff Zucker is a prick.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

I don't think you're trying to say otherwise, but I just want to make it clear that it's just as worthwhile to address sexism at every stage because the way female candidate are treated once they've reached that stage does have consequences that go beyond a candidate's election run.

I think we agree entirely, on all issues. Women do face sexist attacks when running in office. These don't appear to have any impact on their chance of success - what it does is deter future women candidates from running, because, well, that's a horrible thing to be exposed to. This is awful, and we need to do everything in our power to reduce sexist smear campaigns.

The reason I responded to Eidan is that he is reinforcing that narrative, by reiterating that women candidates underperform. They don't, and we need to stop telling them they do because it is deterring them from seeking office - why would you apply for a job you're told you're not going to get?

Clinton was a bad woman candidate. A good woman candidate would have succeeded. We just need good women candidates to run, and part of that (along with many other policy things we can do) means telling them that their chances are good.

 

[SolidSnakeUS]

If Harris or Warren ran I'd vote for them before I'd vote for any dude.

Warren is probably the only one right now that can fire up a crowd like Obama did. I'd love for Harris to run, but I could see Warren being the running mate, especially with her vim and vigor.

 

[Fuchsdh]

What Bush/Gore should have taught everybody is that politics should never be about likability.

Yeah, I'd prefer my politicians to be chummy, but at the end of the day I need them to get business done, and if that requires being a hard-ass then and again I'm down.

I do think the point about if multiple women are serious candidates running it'll help break down the "not this woman" mentality, which is good. Yeah, Clinton isn't the woman I would have liked to be the historic first, but what crazed person puts that sentiment over getting someone who is, failing everything else, just plain competent?

Also, you'd think Clinton's loss would have cemented the fact that women aren't some monolith who are going to vote for the person who looks like them (in this case, for ill), but I'm sure that sort of punditry will come out in full force when the next election heats up.

 

[Nictel]

Clinton was a bad woman candidate. A good woman candidate would have succeeded. We just need good women candidates to run, and that means telling them that their chances are good.

Clinton and Trump were basically each others opposite. Clinton lacks charisma, acting and stage presence however she is very qualified. Trump is a charismatic actor with great presence who lacks all statesmanship. Unfortunately for Hillary just being the most qualified doesn't win you an election.


Ivanka could win

Spoiler

/s but also not /s

 

[sturgboski]

Republicans and the right are terrible people. Then again, so too does the left fight over dumb shit when it's more important to unify and stop the right.

 

[excelsiorlef]

Because she flip flopped on issues? Super predators. Healthcare. TPP.

Hillary was not a good candidate.

She never flopped on health care. Christ she was leading the charge on it back in 93

 

[LosDaddie]

Looking at how many WOMEN voted for Trump as well, it's... weird.

And yet most of my family in rural America did as well, including my mother. I told her Trump was everything she raised me not to be... she paused and responded, "but at least he's not Hillary".

A large segment of American women largely still believe that their worth is measured in the eyes of a man, not on their own merits. It's ingrained in them culturally since they were kids, at school, at work, at church... "The man is the head of the household", she'd repeat. "A woman's job is to nurture and support."

So, no matter how bad Trump was, even for women, they instinctively trust a man to lead them more than another woman, and I watched her rationalize it no matter how many examples of his misogyny and chauvinism I showed her.

"At least he's not Hillary," she'd repeat, because no matter how bad Trump was, at least he wasn't Hillary...

Was your mom a reliable GOP voter in the first place? Because that's more likely going to determine a person's vote than anything else.

 

[Inuhanyou]

While there is no doubt, NO DOUBT, that women in general still suffer from misogynist attacks and double standards from voters and even their own co workers no matter the political stripes, we must also remember that it is dangerous to conflate misogyny and gender based attacks with legitimate criticism on a politicians political stances and policy positions.

That is one of the big splits between progressives and neoliberals among the democratic party for example when it comes to infighting, and its something that people should be careful about.

 

[excelsiorlef]

Looking at how many WOMEN voted for Trump as well, it's... weird.

White women. Not women in general. White women in specific

 

[TumblingHippo]

Don't forget that after Obama the country lost is collective racist mind, so that means no more minority presidents either. Definitely no non-Christians, and SUPER DEFINITELY no gays. Gotta keep that next Dem ticket white, straight, and only with at least one previous wife.

I shouldn't have to add the /s but moreso want to just tell anyone that says we're not ready for a female pres to buzz off. I know it's hard after 2016 but I wanna believe we're better as a country.

 

[Garlador]

White women. Not women in general. White women in specific

That's the majority of women voters, tragically. I'm well aware that if minority women voted, it would have universally gone the other direction.

Also, while my mother is a traditional GOP voter, she has voted for Dems before if she agreed with their values more.

 

[Nictel]

Don't forget that after Obama the country lost is collective racist mind, so that means no more minority presidents either. Definitely no non-Christians, and SUPER DEFINITELY no gays. Gotta keep that next Dem ticket white, straight, and only with at least one previous wife.

I shouldn't have to add the /s but moreso want to just tell anyone that says we're not ready for a female pres to buzz off. I know it's hard after 2016 but I wanna believe we're better as a country.

Or go all in and get a candidate that is a Hispanic/black lesbian woman who used to be a man.

 

[Lunar15]

Republicans are fighting an ideological battle in their heads against The Worst Thing Ever Invented, which is communism. The existential threat of communism was so drilled into the heads of older generations that honestly, it even effects many democrats. The fear is that, by using any method possible, liberals are trying to make America a communist state.

The choice is so clear in their heads that anyone who takes up a democratic stance is instantly an enemy that you can't vote for at any cost.

Although, not to both sides it, but think about it, would any of you vote for a republican under any circumstances?

 

[TatteredHat]

US politics suck ass.

 

[Auto_aim1]

I'll vote for whoever is the nominee In the GE and pick who I want in the primary.

You'd think such a basic concept would be understood by folks.

Yup. This is the best way to go about it.

 

[excelsiorlef]

That's the majority of women voters, tragically. I'm well aware that if minority women voted, it would have universally gone the other direction.

Also, while my mother is a traditional GOP voter, she has voted for Dems before if she agreed with their values more.

What?

No it's not.

Clinton won the Woman vote overall 54 to 42%.

 

[WiiredShawn]

Republicans are fighting an ideological battle in their heads against The Worst Thing Ever Invented, which is communism. The existential threat of communism was so drilled into the heads of older generations that honestly, it even effects many democrats. The fear is that, by using any method possible, liberals are trying to make America a communist state.

The choice is so clear in their heads that anyone who takes up a democratic stance is instantly an enemy that you can't vote for at any cost.

Although, not to both sides it, but think about it, would any of you vote for a republican under any circumstances?

I would if they had a platform other than "enrich white men to the exclusion of everyone else."

As you say, a lot of Republicans are stuck fighting phantoms of the past while their leaders make bank off their unwillingness to face the present. When Republican leaders can stop acting like it's 1945 - with white American men running the world and treating everyone else like a second-class citizen - then they might be worth voting for.

 

[cirrhosis]

I'll vote for whoever is the nominee In the GE and pick who I want in the primary.

You'd think such a basic concept would be understood by folks.

Right on. Simple as.

 

[devilhawk]

Once they have decided to run, women candidates are actually no less likely to win than equivalent male candidates. This is relatively well-corroborated data in political science, across (for example):

Kathleen Dolan (2004, 50) "Voting for Women: How the Public Evaluates Women Candidates. Boulder: Westview Press"
Fox, Richard L. (2010) “Congressional Elections: Women’s Candidacies and the Road to Gender Parity.” In Gender and Elections, 2nd edition, eds. S. Carroll and R. Fox. New York: Cambridge University Press
Lawless, Jennifer L. and Kathryn Pearson. (2008) “The Primary Reason for Women’s Under- Representation: Re-Evaluating the Conventional Wisdom.” Journal of Politics 70(1):67-82
Smith, Eric R.A.N. and Richard L. Fox. (2001) “A Research Note: The Electoral Fortunes of Women Candidates for Congress.” Political Research Quarterly 54(1):205-21
Cook, Elizabeth Adell. (1998) “Voter Reaction to Women Candidates.” In Women and Elective Of ce, eds. S. Thomas and C. Wilcox. New York: Oxford University Press
J. Newman and M. Voorhees Leighton (1997) "Sex as a Political Variable." Boulder: Lynne Reinner

They also raise equivalent amount of funds, and receive equal air-time.

The reason there are less women politicians isn't because they don't win - they win at comparable rates to men - it's because they don't run. The mainstay of the sexism is one stage earlier in the process - there's cultural pressure on women to be more risk-averse, women are typically expected to perform domestic roles that prevent them from entering the earliest stages of a political career as councillors/state representatives/etc., women are conditioned to under-perceive rather than over-perceive their achievements and see themselves as less likely to win than equivalent male candidates.

So I don't think this will be a very successful tactic for the GOP, since, given their intention to run, Harris and Gillibrand have already 'made it', and you would not expect their genders to have significant impacts on their likelihood of success from this point on.

Whoa.

Primary sources? No hot takes? What type of place do you think this is?

 

[Beartruck]

Use the fictitious Keith Mann tactic.

You mean the Woodrow Wilson tactic.

 

[UberTag]

The messaging machine of the left isn't up to the task of beating back the abject nonsense coming from the right. If we ever want this country to come to its senses and stop favoring extreme right policies and politicians that needs to change.

The left needs to stop playing by the rules... because the right sure as fuck doesn't give a rat's ass about the rulebook.
Start calling them on their blatant hypocrisy.

 

[Fuchsdh]

I like Harris, but let's face it, Trump getting voted in means (mostly rural) America is not ready for a female President, let alone a black female president.

At some point I don't think that matters, though. Despite our country's continued problems with racism, there are Trump voters who voted for Obama... twice. It may be an instance of a excellent minority candidate having to jump twice as high in the general, but Obama ended up with positive approval ratings by the end of his term. He didn't "ruin" the chances for whoever comes after him.

Pragmatically, the Dems can try and bridge the gap with those rural voters, or they can double-down on the people who are statistically far more likely to vote for a minority woman and get them to show up regularly. From an overall political standpoint, I don't think the latter tack is going to be successful. For a presidential election, though? I think it has a chance to succeed, the same way Obama did.

(How useful having a black woman as our president is besides being a symbol if liberals can't get off their asses and vote each and every year is still a useful question. But one way or another we've got to reckon with our past, and there's no time like the present.)

 

[LosDaddie]

Don't forget that after Obama the country lost is collective racist mind, so that means no more minority presidents either. Definitely no non-Christians, and SUPER DEFINITELY no gays. Gotta keep that next Dem ticket white, straight, and only with at least one previous wife.

I shouldn't have to add the /s but moreso want to just tell anyone that says we're not ready for a female pres to buzz off. I know it's hard after 2016 but I wanna believe we're better as a country.

Dems just need to run a competent candidate next time.

And start voting in midterms so that there's a stable of experienced Dems to take on leadership roles in the future.

 

[Garlador]

What?

No it's not.

Clinton won the Woman vote overall 54 to 42%.

Sorry. Poorly stated. I meant to say that white women are the majority racial demographic. Overall women supported Clinton, but the largest demographic, white women, supported Trump overall.

And that's still boggling to me, even thought all the women I knew at home, both friends and family, were proud to do so.

 

[Skinny Pete]

I'd vote for any of them over this orange shit stain.