After Trump’s win, some women are considering the 4B movemen

Post Reply New Topic

Still, a smaller percentage of White female voters voted for Trump than White men, so the competition theory doesn’t really hold up. I don’t think we need to speculate with sexist theories as to why women voted for Trump when more reasonable and likely explanations are readily available. We also don’t need to call out female voters, specifically, when they aren’t the only group who voted for Trump. As has already been stated, a higher percentage of men voted for him in each age bracket or racial category.


The political and religious landscape in America IS complex. That’s true no matter a person’s gender.


I’ve never encountered a person who thought Trump was cute, and most people I know who vote voted for him. It mostly came down to their allegiance to the Republican Party due to its stance on issues related to religion, abortion, and economics - that’s true regardless of gender. People who are not strongly aligned to the Republican Party but voted for him anyway largely seemed to think he’d be good for the economy.

I think that it would’ve been beneficial if the switch from Biden to Harris would’ve happened sooner because some folks’ minds were already made up by that point. Many people were very unhappy with Biden’s presidency. Of course, when people are unhappy with a Democrat, they are ready for a Republican and vice versa. That doesn’t change the fact that sexism and racism was involved in Trump’s campaign and among voters. Sexism (and often racism on some level) is built into the Republican Party although it’s not always recognized as such.

The competition theory would only apply to female Trump voters. Other theories would apply to male Trump voters. I don't have any grand theory worked out, but there is this:

https://www.glamour.com/story/why-did-y ... nald-trump



I don't think that the Harris campaign was explicitly anti-man. Many Trump supporters might have accused the Harris campaign of being explicitly anti-man, but I think that was projection more than anything.



We don't need to do anything, but we can speculate all we wish. Women and men do behave differently, and may have different core reasons for voting as they do. So far, I've cited two female authors who felt that men were motivated to vote for Trump because the Harris campaign was anti-male. I don't think that the Harris campaign was "anti-male"--maybe just not masculinist enough for some tastes.



I'm American, and I favor the principle of parsimony.



I don't think that you will encounter anyone who is going to SAY that Trump is cute. But,

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog ... trump-cute






So, actually it ISN'T complex? If it came down to the Republican Party's stance on things like religion, abortion, etc., then Mike Pence would have won the nomination. Not Donald Trump.



Only because of what the Fox Noise Machine told them.



I think that everyone recognizes the sexism. People disagree on whether the sexism is good or bad.

Men and women aren’t as different with their political outlooks as you appear to be claiming although it is true that female voters were more likely to vote for Harris and are more liberal overall. Based on people’s own stated, political opinions, it seems like men and women, in general, voted for Trump for similar reasons, though. Many of your arguments in this thread have a distinctly sexist flavor to them - George Clooney/Brad Pitt, high-heeled shoes, Trump being cute (ew.), women competing against each other, shaming female voters who voted for Trump, etc. - all in a thread allegedly about a feminist movement centered on pushing back against sexism. At any rate, it’s almost like you’re suggesting that women don’t have strong political or religious ideological views. Obviously, I strongly disagree with those who voted for Trump on many levels, but I don’t think it’s fair or correct to suggest that people who voted for him, in this case women, did so for the reasons you’re suggesting.

It’s too complex and multifaceted to sufficiently address in one post or thread. I will say that Pence doesn’t have a cult following - a cult made up of both men and women.

As I’ve stated before, some people voted for Trump because they think he’ll be good for the economy. His misogynistic behavior, among other things, wasn’t enough of a deterrent for them when they were thinking about supposed financial benefits, not that money isn’t a serious concern for a lot of people. I doubt things will improve in the ways people are hoping.

Last edited by TwilightPrincess on 15 Nov 2024, 12:33 pm, edited 1 time in total.

There was a convergence towards Trump.



Only slightly, and not enough to make a difference.



I don't quite know what this means.



People's own stated political opinions are often tainted by "social desirability bias"

https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/ps ... ility-bias



Very few people are going to admit that they just wanted to see a woman brought down. They will be inclined to put a much more socially desirable spin on their stated reasons.



I suspect that if the choice had been between Donald Trump and George Clooney, then many men would have voted for George, too.



That is a form of self-abuse that many women fall for (pun intended).



Many men also find Trump to be cute.



Do women not compete against each other?



Do you think that such voters should not be shamed?



Shaming is a part of modern political strategies.



I'm the one who started this thread. I'm interested in an open, frank discussion. Not just male bashing.



No more so than men.



I don't think that anyone has any real rational reason for voting for Trump. They were just taken in by the con. Women and men for different reasons, possibly.


[/quote]

Occam's Razor. That's the best that we can hope to do in one post or thread.




Aha! So a lot of voters are NOT voting in their own self interest! And, not only that--voting against their stated stance on religion, abortion, etc. They've simply been duped!

Last edited by Honey69 on 15 Nov 2024, 1:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.

I am practicing it for the last 10 years. But nobody can say, I didn't try. I did, but it is not for me. I am better alone.

Not as much as some of y’all like to think. Women also band together and support each other as various feminist movements have demonstrated.

The US may not have elected a female President but many other countries have done so.
Sure, but I don’t think we need to pick on women specifically here - in a thread about 4B, especially when a smaller percentage of women voted for Trump than men in every category.
The main topic is not even being addressed, and it’s an important one.
Not when it’s leading to erroneous conclusions regarding a topic that’s already fairly clear and well-understood. People often allude to Occam’s Razor as a manipulative tactic to legitimize their stated views. Politics are complex. A simple, straightforward solution will likely be erroneous. Upbringing, environment, and location seem to play a large role in one’s political alignment which is why some areas are predominantly Red while others are Blue. Conservative Christian areas tend to be Red.
Many voters believe they are voting in their best interest. That’s how cults work. Cultists believe that the best possible outcome involves following their cult leader, period. I’m not claiming that all Trump voters are in his cult by any means, but a large number of Republicans will not be swayed no matter what. Others appeared to have largely been driven by concerns about the economy among other things.

Women swing more liberal than men in politics in the US. They are more likely to vote for the Democratic candidate.

https://cawp.rutgers.edu/gender-gap-vot ... -elections

White women are more likely to be conservative than women of other racial categories, but they are still more likely to vote Democrat than their male counterparts which aligns with research I previously cited from this election.

I wouldn't expect this to last very long. The main reason that there's that stereotype about women not wanting it as badly as men is that for most of human existence, getting pregnant was a life threatening experience and there weren't many good options for avoiding pregnancy other than abstinence and possibly condoms made out of animal parts that didn't have the same sort of QA options. Then the pill was invented and all of a sudden you had a lot of women expressing their sexuality in a way that had never been the norm.

We'll have to see where this ultimately does resolve because abortion, sex ed and family planning options have been significantly curtailed in large parts of the US and a lot of women have voted for the politicians promising to reduce the related choices.

It also assumes that enough women that men would have wanted will be participating and that the men being cut off actually have any sort of pull in terms of changing the political positions. And, it kind of ignores the fact that nobody has cared when it was men checking out of society to a more extreme degree than just what is covered under 4B.

Unfortunately, not enough to cancel out the ill effects of toxic masculinity, this time around.



Other countries are more socially advanced than we are. On the other hand, those of us whose ancestors migrated here from Europe did miss out on some really horrible wars.




I think that picking on female voters is legitimate here, because their support for Harris wasn't strong enough to beat the male voters. Males were facing pressures to vote for Trump

https://apnews.com/article/men-trump-ha ... 049bcfed97



And, the strategy worked.




Well, it might make for an interesting topic for a graduate student's thesis or dissertation. The trouble is that establishing data to establish a link between female intragender competition and wanting to see Harris fail might be impossible. Academics want to see their papers published in prestigious peer-reviewed journals. And, I'm talking about subconscious reasons that go back to our prehistory. Any academic who is following the present discussion is welcome to perform a study.



A lot of them are going to be very disappointed when their grocery bills do not come down.

Focusing on/blaming/shaming female voters specifically when a higher percentage of male voters voted for Trump is sexist which brings us back to the 4B movement…

The evidence does not support your previously stated hypotheses.

We can compare the 2016, 2020 and 2024 elections. The numbers are pretty consistent among female voters whether it was for Clinton, Biden, or Harris, so the gender of the candidates doesn’t seem to have played a significant role among women.




https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/20 ... 0-victory/

The data is similarly consistent going a bit further back. Therefore, significant numbers of female voters voting for Trump because they think he’s cute is not likely, if damning evidence in the form of pictures and video is not enough.



https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads ... al-voting/

Young women seem to be more liberal and politically conscious - 61% of 18-29 year old women voted for Harris. We might see an even higher percentage of Democratic voters among women in the next few years.




https://www.businessinsider.com/gen-z-g ... 024-1?IR=T

It looks like voters are choosing candidates on ideological grounds. Of course, a lot of folks, no matter their gender, consider their political party affiliation part of their identity and fail to seriously consider whether a specific candidate deserves their vote or not. I’ve known people, including an entire church of people, who believed that being and voting Republican was a key component of their Christian identity - even part of their worship. That sort of thing is fairly common in the Bible Belt among White evangelicals. Obviously, this is only one factor among many, but it certainly has some impact on the numbers as the overwhelmingly Red counties/states in certain regions consistently indicate.

Certainly, concerns about the economy and inflation played a role in this particular election. Women think about this and other serious political issues more than some likely think, not that I personally believe Trump will be good for the economy or anything else, but it’s not an uncommon supposition. Women have just as much of a right to be wrong as men do, not that as high of a percentage voted for the wrong candidate.

Last edited by TwilightPrincess on 15 Nov 2024, 9:03 pm, edited 3 times in total.

My hypothesis is not that women were less likely to vote for Harris than Trump, nor that ALL women were motivated by a desire to see Harris fail. Only that SOME may have been motivated by a desire to see Harris fail. Particularly in light of Trump's strongly anti-female rhetoric. Given the very close race, there may have been enough women who fell in this category to give Trump the victory. Some of these women (and some men) may have been more likely to vote for a male candidate who was more handsome than Trump.



Maybe some. But a lot also vote for the best looking candidate.



Yes, I've known people like that, too.



A lot of people don't seem to realize that the economy is the best that it has ever been, and inflation is presently low. Inflation was temporarily high when we emerged from the pandemic, everything was slowly opening up, and demand was greatly outstripping supply.



A lot of voters are feeding on misinformation.

Based on the research I cited in my last post, it would be a very insignificant number of voters given that the percentage of votes for Democratic candidates among women has been pretty consistent over the past three decades. Take note of the highlighted, female votes for Biden in 2020 in particular.

At any rate, I think, perhaps, the biggest factor beyond the usual nonsense is likely inflation and people’s perception of it. It’s not at all uncommon for that to determine elections, and it’s largely what people are talking about. When people aren’t happy with a Democrat, especially over issues related to the economy, the vote often swings Republican.

If it wasn’t for that, I suspect an even higher percentage of women would’ve preferred Harris, especially given the fact that female issues/concerns still aren’t being appropriately addressed - thus the need for 4B, women’s marches, and other forms of organized (and unorganized) protests.

What good does an improved economy do if you don't have rights? I feel like any woman who voted for Trump is an idiot at the very least...or thinks they are one of the 'good ones' that won't be oppressed so hard as the rest of us if they support MAGA.

In a way, I was thinking about Maslow’s hierarchy of needs. Sometimes people worry about the economy to the point that they are concerned about affording food, heating, gas, and things like that (whether it’s rational or not) without having to skimp on other stuff that’s important to them. Or they worry about other folks being able to afford it. Many have been complaining about the price of things, even if they aren’t especially poor. The prospect of retirement amid inflation probably isn’t pleasant. I’m not saying that I agree with it. I would never dream of voting for him or dating someone who did, but it is a common theme for people to put money concerns above other stuff including rights. I’ve observed it in action and know some women who voted for him for such reasons. Some feel like they can worry more about other issues when money isn’t so much of a concern.

I believe that any person who voted for Trump - no matter their gender - made the wrong choice.

Last edited by TwilightPrincess on 16 Nov 2024, 10:01 am, edited 1 time in total.

I can see where Trump's brand of toxic masculinity appealed to a certain number of men. I was hoping that it would have repelled enough women that they would have voted for Harris in sufficient numbers to turn the election around. But, it didn't, and they didn't. I'm disappointed. Maybe I should just join MGTOW.



That's going to be dangerous. Trump will be culling generals that he considers "woke", and will be appointing generals who will be willing to attack the "enemies within."



Remember what they did to Sophie Scholl: https://www.nationalww2museum.org/war/a ... n%20Munich.

It would have been much easier to elect Kamala Harris in the first place. But, NO! We just HAVE to elect a malignant, narcissistic sociopath, and march down the path towards fascism.

In the 1930s, the world was in a Great Depression. Inflation was especially hard in Germany. In the United States, we experienced deflation and high unemployment. People were hungry and desperate. We elected Roosevelt and got the New Deal. Germany got Hitler.

Now, things are nowhere near as bad, and somehow we have a new version of Hitler.

Yes, although Hitler wasn't just hypnotically charismatic, he also had enough competence to have a functioning state and could benefit from the reality that the country hadn't been treated fairly following WWI with bills to pay so massive that it pretty much guaranteed that there'd be more pain for generations. Arguably, the whole armistice fell within a very unhappy medium of not being enough to crush their ability to wage war, while being too much to really allow for a proper peacetime economy to develop even though the Germans weren't inherently on the wrong side of that war other than by being on the losing side.