top 100 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 122 points 11 months ago (38 children)

I want to believe we could have a woman president so long as she ran on something other than being a wet noodle that's trying to be #relatable more than just being a good candidate.

Or better yet, running on something more than

"Are you really gonna let Trump win?"

  • source
  • hideshow 38 child comments
  • [–] 42 points 11 months ago* (29 children)

    It's funny, in 2015, I thought that that platform would be the only way a woman would be able to win over such a hard hurdle of all the conservative states with the electoral college we have.

    The amount of people that looked past Donald Trump's flaws or embraced his hateful rhetoric, and blamed their decision on their dislike for Hillary was huge.

    I didn't like her either. She wasn't my favorite candidate by a long shot, but I still can't believe our country is in a better place now than it would have been if she had won.

    Also, it's hard to believe that was ten years ago. Gross.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 29 child comments
  • [–] 25 points 11 months ago (4 children)

    She wasn't my favorite candidate by a long shot, but I still can't believe our country is in a better place now than it would have been if she had won.

    I do, because you have to remember: Trump wasn't a one-off anomaly; he was the manifestation of deep structural issues and multiple converging crises within American society. It was a balloon that was going to inflate and inflate until it eventually popped, and if it didn't pop in 2016 it would have even harder in 2020. Hell, I could think of an even worse scenario: Trump is sidelined in the American fascist movement and a fascist that actually knows what he's doing takes his place.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 11 months ago (3 children)

    Phew. Glad it popped and everyone got it out of their system.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 15 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (2 children)

    "This isn't the worst it could've been" and "this is good" are not the same thing. Had Hillary (or any other do-nothing Dem) won in 2016 things would've been marginally worse in the sense that MAGA would've been stronger, not weaker, but that doesn't change the fact that things are in fact terrible and about to get much more terrible. The assumption that Hillary in 2016 = no fascism in 2025, however, is plain fantasy.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 13 points 11 months ago* (1 child)

    I don't know about things being worse had Hillary won. I do know that was the worst election I've seen in my life in terms of candidate quality. Hillary was the ultimate insider running for self-aggrandizement and Trump was a political outsider running for his brand out of cynical greed and sheer ego. Hillary had already lost to an outsider when she lost the 2008 primary to Obama—that was a sign of things to come.

    Hillary would've been a far better stateswoman, no doubt. And obviously Trump's policies were and are detestable. But I understand why Trump won. It shocked me at the time, but it makes sense seeing the past ten years.

    Populist candidates are what everyone is looking for. Not the party elite. Look at the backlash against Schumer for treating politics as normal. And the backlash against Israel when we've traditionally been a staunch ally regardless of party. And against older politicians in general. We want the old guard out. Republicans listened to the people. Dems didn't. Still aren't, based on the reaction to Mamdani winning the primary.

    Want to see a woman win the presidency? Run AOC. I don't know if this is the election for it. Are we "ready" for her? I don't know. But she's the kind of woman candidate who could win.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 9 points 11 months ago

    Are we "ready" for her? I don't know. But she's the kind of woman candidate who could win.

    Not disagreeing with you, but the last few years in America and worldwide have convinced me that, at least in the West, backlash to women leaders is mostly a fantasy. I mean how many fascist leaders or prominent personalities are actually women? You can't convince me the American left and center-left are more sexist than the literal fascists who elected literal fascist Georgina Meloni, or the literal neo-Nazis supporting literal neo-Nazi Alice Wiedel. People will vote for an Apache helicopter if it promotes their (real or perceived) interests; shockingly little of modern Western elections boils down to gender.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 5 points 11 months ago*

    In 2015, I saw Trump as the key to causing more chaos than the establishment can handle. If Hillary won (maybe in that timeline, Trump was sunk by the RNC coronating Jeb Bush as nominee, and then Bush lost the general), the rich would only get stronger, and their rise would be much more subtle than it is now. In our world, Trump doesn't hide the massive corruption he and his rich buddies are doing. In Hillary's world, the more under-the-hood corruption of the 2000s and early 2010s would have continued without anyone trying to stop them.

    This may come off as a stretch, but I claim that Mamdani (nor anyone like him) wouldn't have been able to become NYC mayor in Hillary's world. He wouldn't have the support, since people in Hillary's world are even bigger sheep than the ones in ours.

    On the other hand, certain policies pre-2015 might have survived. I think Roe v Wade would still be with us in Hillary's world.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] -4 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (3 children)

    Clinton stood no chance against Trump because of the large number of women voters that were never going to vote for her; not because of who she was in 2015 but because of her staying with Bill after he cheated on her.

    Even the same ardent feminists that you would assume want to see a woman president more than anything still had little interest in her, in particular, being the first woman president. Too many women see her as a woman that stayed married to jackass just because of what it afforded her politically, financially, ect. Plus, they especially did not like the expectation placed on them to vote for her solely based on gender considering they viewed her as a traitor to women more broadly.

    It says a lot about how hated she is by other women that a huge contingent of them voted for a serial sexual assailant rather than her

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [+] -11 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (18 children)

    I do think there's a debate to be had as to if were in a "better place" then if Clinton had won

    If she had won, we wouldn't be better off relative to 2015. We would have been in the same shit we were in 10 years ago with a housing crisis on the rise and COVID would have still happened and probably wouldn't have gone too radically differently.

    Wed still have increased income inequality and we saw under Biden that the main Liberal answer to climate change is Electric Cars which net doesn't help and in fact worsens our e-waste issue.

    Obviously, I don't know this is how it would have gone for sure, but the democrats really haven't given me much to believe in.

    So would we have been "better off" with a dem successor compared to the 2015 status quo? No I don't think so and I think we all knew that and it doesn't inspire people to vote or participate in elections.

    Would we have been better off to what we got? Yeah probably. But that's stuff we didn't completely know until hindsight kicked in. I think we all assumed he'd be a lame president and not a modern Commodus or Nero.

    Now, I don't subscribe to acceleration ist views, but there is that view point as well.

    Under that ideology, we are better off compared to a Clinton or Harris win because they would have subdued the flakier radical elements in society longer.

    Trump being president and his flagrant disregard for our status quo system is a massive stepping stone towards a revolution of some sort to hopefully fix the problems of our 2015 society plus the additional inflated issues by Trump.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 18 child comments
  • [–] 18 points 11 months ago

    I don't agree with a lot of this, but I can't reply a point by point here. The main thing I'll say is that Clinton wouldn't have defunded the pandemic response team before a pandemic and certainly would have set a better example wearing masks than Trump did.

    The country would always have been divided about the COVID response, but Trump followed his base and furthered the divisions.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 18 points 11 months ago

    Trump is directly responsible for Kavanaugh, Barret, and Gorsuch. That alone has been destructive already and will reap us tragic consequences for decades to come. Would Hillary have signed the ERA and gotten the right to bodily autonomy written into the law so it couldn't be "reinterpreted" away? Maybe. But she wouldn't have set attack dogs after it, and after trans people and immigrants.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 9 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (15 children)

    we saw under Biden that the main Liberal answer to climate change is Electric Cars which net doesn't help and in fact worsens our e-waste issue.

    This is a petroleum industry talking point and it is false.

    I think we all added he'd be a lame president and not a modern Commodus or Nero.

    He was clearly a narcissist and a fascist, and many of us could see where this was going quite clearly. I was in a room full of hundreds of people on the night he was declared the winner, and many of those people openly wept in fear of the future.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 15 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 11 months ago (14 children)

    This is a petroleum industry talking point and it is false.

    What, that focusing solely on electric cars are not the solution to climate change and is only a band-aid? No, it's the truth.

    It's better than ice cars in the short run, but you guys really need to focus on other, more practical solutions like better public transports and less car-centric infrastructure and laws.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 14 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 11 months ago (2 children)

    What, that focusing solely on electric cars are not the solution to climate change and is only a band-aid? No, it's the truth.

    You're changing the goalposts. I was clearly referring to the quoted portion of your assertion that electric cars are a net negative for climate change.

    This is false:

    Electric Cars which net doesn't help and in fact worsens our e-waste issue.

    It's better than ice cars in the short run, but you guys really need to focus on other, more practical solutions like better public transports and less car-centric infrastructure and laws.

    Thank you for the advice on how the US should operate. Good points that no one has ever considered.

    Cities, states, and regions have been and are continuing to improve the public transit infrastructure. The problem exists primarily at the federal level, as well as cost, local zoning, eminent domain and the lawsuits that follow, and certain state and federal environmental laws that result in lengthy studies and more lawsuits.

    These are all factors that have slowed down the California High-Speed Rail Project, for example. The goal is for it is to eventually connect every major city in California to high-speed rail (and Las Vegas via another high-speed rail line, Brightline West). Excluding Las Vegas, the total length of track is roughly the length of Belgium to Poland. And that's half of one state.

    The Northeast is already covered in rail. Going from city to city is easier that way, even though it's not high speed. NYC to DC is 3.5 hours and requires no cars, door to door. This works because of density, the same reason it works in Europe and Asia. The US is very large and doesn't have density everywhere. Building and maintaining the 4,500 km of high-speed rail track necessary to connect Los Angeles to NYC is expensive and difficult. That's Lisbon to Moscow.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 11 months ago

    I actually said they're a net negative and I stand by that.

    Lithium mining, their fixed short life spans, and the problems of car focused cities as a whole are not addressed by going all EV. Marginally better than combustion? Sure. I'll give you that.

    But ultimately its manufacturing and the lack of repair ability make it bad over all.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 0 points 11 months ago

    Well, first of all, you could read usernames. That would be helpful to determine what points you're going to argue against and what the appropriate response would be.

    Second, nobody is asserting that the US never considered public transport, we were only addressing the actual decision of the US in general, which IS very much focused on electric cars to the detriment of progress on much saner public transport projects. The Vegas Loop and similar projects immediately come to mind.

    The laws that gets in the way of public transport projects are a result of the US's obsession with car-centrism and capitalism. Instead of thinking of long term solutions, they'd rather clutch to a band aid solution to keep their status quo.

    And discussions about public transport is not focussed solely on trains. On the contrary, the most depressing thing about the us car-centrism is the inability to do short trips without needing a car. Pedestrian and cycling infrastructure are pretty cheap relative to building high speed train networks or even inner city metros, yet the US even struggle with that.

    The source of the problem are the people themselves who have been deluded into thinking they need to force everyone to use a car simply because they don't want to use public transportation, which is an absurd thought process. The focus on electric cars will only continue this brainwashing, not fix it, so it is a net negative in the long run.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 11 months ago (10 children)

    you guys really need to focus on other, more practical solutions like better public transports and less car-centric infrastructure and laws.

    Your solution is on the scale of decades — almost certainly over 100 years. None of our infrastructure is set up for this outside of cities that most of us have no interest in living in.

    We certainly need more interim projects like electric cars and green energy.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 11 months ago (9 children)

    The problem is I haven't seen much news of projects other than those types of interim projects that focus on electric cars. I mean, they spent millions of dollars on the Vegas Loop instead of on more sane public transport projects. America has a very unhealthy focus on electric cars because of their car-centric mindset and I don't see it changing any time soon unless people start pushing back on it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 11 months ago* (8 children)

    Most of us don't want to live in cities or put our mobility in the hands of others. People who want it for everyone are primarily city folks who are used to that lifestyle. Those ideas are less popular with the people who would be most affected.

    I know eventually the world will go that way and it'll be a good thing, but I'm also glad I won't live to see it because I have no desire whatsoever to live that way. The change will be generational. If folks try to impose it, there is going to be a lot of resistance and pushback. You have to get folks to want it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 11 months ago (4 children)

    More public transports benefits not only people who use public transports, but also people who use cars. You have the typical car-centric mindset that makes it harder for your country to progress in that area.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 11 months ago (3 children)

    I know I'm certainly part of the problem. But it's a chicken and egg problem. You have to make people want to change while the change will be inconvenient short term. I don't know how that happens, other than very slowly over time.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 11 months ago (2 children)

    Well, you could try and stop thinking that people are trying to make you use public transport and more along the line of not forcing you or anyone to use their car to go anywhere in a practical way. And imagine the improvement to traffic and safety once people who hates driving or not good at it are no longer forced to drive on the same road as you.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 11 months ago* (1 child)

    Gods, this is how I sell public transit to pro car people.

    I am traffic. I want to be off the road and in a bus.

    I just don't want my bus ride to be over an hour and a half long when the car ride is 10 minutes.

    I'll settle for a bike commute because that's 30 minutes but it would require riding down a major road where the only thing protecting me from a car going 60 MPH is a painted white line and trust.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 11 months ago

    Yep, all we want are more options other than driving. A good cycling and pedestrian infrastructure even helps in making sure they're out of the road and not in the way of cars, something I'm sure a lot of car-centric people would actually be happy about. It's a net positive for everyone.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 23 points 11 months ago (2 children)

    Or if you guys had an actual popular election instead of the whole Electoral College shit. A woman won the popular vote in 2016.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 11 months ago (1 child)

    Just barely, though, and against what was at the time the worst qualified opponent in history (beat only by Trump himself in 2020 and 2024). Hillary was an awful candidate in her own right and the fact that she barely eeked out a popular vote win against Trump shows that.

    I genuinely don't believe that a good, likeable, popular woman candidate who was free to campaign without the interference of the (mostly men) party's Old Guard would have no problem winning. We've got women in high offices in pretty much every other level of government. Just stop pushing out the worst, rich, pro-establishment candidates to the "progressive party" and demand a vote just because of their sex.

    /rant

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 8 points 11 months ago

    Hillary won by 3 million votes, but that's not enough for a Democrat to be appointed the presidency by the EC. A Republican can win by 3 million (Trump 47) or lose by 3 million (Trump 45) and be appointed, but a Democrat has to win by 8 million to be appointed (Biden). Maybe not that much, but +3M apparently isn't enough.

    It's an absurd system that favours the right and that's why it exists. See also gerrymandering. They cannot win openly and they know it, and they aren't even hiding it.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 11 months ago (1 child)

    #relatable

    Elizabeth Warren's "I think I'll have a beer" will live rent free in my head forever as the prime example of clumsy pandering.

    https://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2019/01/why-elizabeth-warrens-beer-moment-fell-flat/579544/

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 26 points 11 months ago (2 children)

    I'd love for AOC to prove het wrong

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 22 points 11 months ago (3 children)

    No it’s not America isn’t ready for a woman president. It’s not ready to have the DNC keep nominating candidates that lack any appeal or enthusiasm.

    Let me preface this rant with I voted for both Hillary and Kamala.

    Hillary was a terrible candidate because she is neither conservative or liberal/progressive. The DNC railroaded Bernie because it was Hillary’s “turn”.

    And with Kamala instead of have an actual primary and getting the best candidate, they just shoe horned her in at the last possible minute and expected everyone to just be ok with it. Not to mention she falls into the same category as Hillary who is neither conservative or progressive so equally disliked on both sides.

    I think the problem ultimately lies within the democrats themselves unwilling to listen to the younger voters who are in dire need of hope and change not the status quo that really isn’t working for them or anybody really. It also doesn’t help that neither party really gives two shits about pissing off the liberal base and it shows.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 11 months ago

    Yep, 41 years old and the Democratic party has nothing for me. I switched from my long standing independent status to democratic just to vote for Bernie in the primaries. I then voted for Hillary, Biden, and Kamala in the general even though I hated all three, why not vote 3rd party? Trump was clearly too much of a danger to our country the day he came down that escalator.

    I've recently taken to explaining my recent switch to voting for Democrats like this. Democrats are a cancer, Republicans are a fast moving flesh eating disease. I'd rather have something slow moving that has the potential to be stopped with less damage.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 47 points 11 months ago (8 children)

    Anyone suggesting that the US is too sexist to elect a woman president has to explain the election of Claudia Sheinbaum.

    By every metric I can find, Mexico is more misogynistic than the US. You can look at crime statistics on domestic violence, rape, murder; or opinion surveys showing men's negative attitude toward women -- all the stats coming out of Mexico are worse.

    Yet somehow, Mexico overwhelmingly elected a woman (a Jewish woman in an 85% Christian population, too).

    My hypothesis is that policy matters much more than the gender of a candidate. Kamala had absolutely pathetic policy proposals, supporting the status quo of corporate economic domination and a foreign policy soaked in innocent blood. but maybe I'm biased.

  • source
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 18 points 11 months ago (3 children)

    Can you imagine a world where Democrats are going to go all in on competing on policy?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 13 points 11 months ago (1 child)

    Their donors/handlers would be so angry!

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 11 months ago

    Thats why Run For Something exists. They train young progressive candidates who win

    They don't like all this bullshit happening, don't take AIPAC and their members don't either.

    Research them/volunteer and let's get things done. Encourage good people you know who will actually do the job, and actually care for people to apply to be candidates for them.

    Many of their candidates have won 1/2 weeks ago and they are gaining more candidates applying/people in office who win. Search up their Substack: RFS Feel Good for their accomplishments from every month nationwide to make country better. Also Amanda Litman is a good leader to look into.

    If we want better we gotta keep going together!! Get more people you see active as well!!

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 11 months ago

    I watched a documentary about the last US election where they interviewed people in New York City, there was a black guy who genuinely said that women shouldn't be presidents because of their periods..

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 0 points 11 months ago

    Stranger things have happened...

    I got banned from a forum (where I had over 5000 posts, and was largely very well liked) in 2007/8 when I would not back down from suggesting in strong terms that there was no way USA was going to elect Obama because of too much racism. Boy was I wrong.

    (Still... no reason to ban someone for pointing out racism. Eh? Even if in erroneous perception.)

    A token lady puppet may yet still happen.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 9 points 11 months ago

    Sad indeed. The rest of the world does mostly okay by their elected woman leaders. So...no metric system and no women leaders. Got it. I just hope to all that is holy that the country is not ready for a pedophiliac leader.

  • source
  • [–] 9 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 child)

    Disclaimer: My comment which follows does not apply to fans and supporters of a candidate. It applies to a difference in how male and female candidates are referred to in the media.

    When our society reaches the stage where TV pundits, political blog writers, etc. stop referring to women candidates by just their first name (almost every time) in the same context that they continue referring to men candidates using their last name, or title + last name, then maybe I'll believe the US is ready to elect a woman president.

    (edit: I should add to that list, also when even the opposing side will use her last name same as they do with male candidates that they are against, meaning that they may hate her but still have at least that much respect for her as a candidate)

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] -1 points 11 months ago

    Well the woman who made this statement is the wife of a former president. We cannot call her Obama, there already is an "Obama". The other candidate of relevance was Clinton, another wife of a former president. Current woman politicians of note for some reason get referred to as acronyms, AOC and MTG for example.

    You're point doesn't really hold up because news agencies are going to try to avoid obvious confusion.

    Kamala was also reffered to as Harris, but that may have been a result of her regularly pronouncing her first name differently throughout her campaign.

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] 65 points 11 months ago (36 children)
  • [–] 40 points 11 months ago (10 children)

    And yet everyone voted for a rich, racist, rapist, pedophile who can barely speak and also supports genocide anyway.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 22 points 11 months ago* (5 children)

    everyone voted for a

    ~30% of the adult population voted for said rapist

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 11 months ago (4 children)

    You need to add the people who couldn't be arsed opposing him.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 13 points 11 months ago* (2 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] 7 points 11 months ago* (3 children)
  • [–] 1 point 11 months ago (2 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 11 months ago

    My point is that the people who try to justify not voting for Harris due to her support of genocide achieved nothing.

    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?

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 12 points 11 months ago (2 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 11 months ago

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 11 months ago

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 14 points 11 months ago (2 children)

    I think you nailed it here. Give the people a choice to vote for AOC and I think it will happen.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 11 months ago (17 children)

    And both of them were so close that changing any one variable - such as having an actually likeable candidate - would've changed the outcome.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 17 child comments
  • [+] -7 points 11 months ago (16 children)

    Ah, so the problem is the women weren't "likeable" enough, got it. I heard they were too bossy, too. And too aggressive. Yeah.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 16 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 11 months ago (13 children)

    "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

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 13 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 11 months ago (6 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 11 months ago (5 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 11 months ago (4 children)

    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!

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 11 months ago* (3 children)

    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 😂

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 11 months ago (2 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

    Edit: just as an update, I've since learned that I was wrong and that "aggressive" and "un/likeable" are misogynistic red-flag terms. I apologise, you were right about those terms.


    I absolutely hear you and I don't disagree.

    It's really frustrating that people lie about their shitty bigoted feelings. Whether that's because they're incurious about why they dislike a female candidate (i.e. not interested in facing or dealing with their internalised misogyny), or they're ashamed that they feel that way, or they secretly feel that they're right to feel that way, or as you say they're just outright proud misogynists who know that the optics of saying "I won't vote for her because she's a woman" are bad, it doesn't matter.

    One of the most difficult impacts of people lying about their real reasons for disliking candidates that are part of marginalised groups is that it makes the rest of us have to be very vigilant around any criticism of those candidates, because there is always the chance that somebody criticising that candidate is a racist, a homophobe, or a misogynist, and is trying to mask that. That means it is actually harder to genuinely just "not like" a candidate, for their personality, words, actions, etc., because good people are rightly paranoid.

    Anyway, honestly I don't think we're disagreeing on fundamentals here. I'm just trying to explain why I am reluctant to label people as misogynists without any "real" clue, such as using those red-flag words like "bossy" or "shrill". I know it's a bit fussy but it's important to me that we can be clear about things like that.

    Agreed that the US is not ready for AOC in 2028. Also agreed that it would be good to see her energised and with a seat in the senate. HUGELY agreed that it would be fantastic to see Schumer piss off to whatever millionaire's pigpen he'll wind up in.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 0 points 11 months ago (5 children)
  • [–] 2 points 11 months ago* (4 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 11 months ago (1 child)

    @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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 11 months ago* (1 child)

    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

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 11 months ago

    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 👍

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 7 points 11 months ago

    Other parts of the world already had women as presidents and prime ministers for decades. Some countries have had queens as the primary ruler for centuries.

    Then there is America.

  • source
  • [–] 29 points 11 months ago (3 children)

    Doesn't help that the "women candidate" the DNC spit out are neoliberal status quo protectors, their "female candidates" is at best performative from them.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 11 months ago (1 child)

    Funny how this logic never seems to apply to their male running candidates, who clear elections left and right running on the exact same politics. Or was the status quo perfectly fine 4 years ago, then everyone suddenly changed their minds?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 11 months ago

    But, that logic does apply to their male running candidates too.

    Doesn't help

    neoliberal status quo protectors

    performative

    All still applies.

    Albeit a mite differently, given the status quo being protected.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 12 points 11 months ago

    Perhaps it's because the Democrat party keeps trying to force a woman candidate instead of letting it happen naturally. Voters wanted Bernie Sanders, instead the party made Hilary Clinton the nominee. Then they didn't even have a proper primary in 2024. Biden won the primary because he was the incumbent and nobody really tried to run against him. Then he dropped out, it was too late for a primary, and Harris was just appointed as his replacement.

  • source
  • load more comments
    view more: next ›