Male voters and women in authority

Post Reply New Topic

Hey! That's not true! We could criticize them from the center by accusing them of not being centrist enough! But then they would say that's demanding they be more conservative since they're Democrats.... Uh... We could uh.... Criticize them for not being apolitical?

Idk we could spread vicious rumors that Kamala though The Godfather was overrated, or that she thinks Drake is a better rapper than Kendrick Lamar......

 

"When you are accustomed to privilege, equality feels like a threat." -- attributed to many

Those men feel threatened that they can no longer make all the rules to keep them in the game and run it by themselves.

"Oh, no!  Let the people we have oppressed tell us what we can and cannot do?!  We must fight!!"

This is one of those "facts" not in evidence. The vast majority of the people that have ever lived were not privileged in any sort of identifiable way. So to claim that men are upset about losing their privilege is anon-starter. The men tended to have more power because the men were the ones that were held responsible for things when they went wrong. Women didn't have the power because in most societies women were not entrusted with responsibilities that required it.

Articles like https://www.fastcompany.com/91161368/ex ... er-go-away which conveniently ignore that the "wage gap" is nearly entirely the result of a few percent of extremely wealthy people at the top doesn't really improve matters. It's inconvenient to the activists to have to admit that women make nearly exactly the same amount of money as men do for the job, so they keep to the inaccurate figures. But, logically, businesses would not be hiring men at the rates they do if women were cheaper.

Last edited by Cornflake on 27 Jul 2024, 6:14 am, edited 1 time in total.: Removed some especially sexist commentary - and the post generally has an unpleasant sexist vibe

Probably the most popular complain I can remember hearing in 2016 about Hillary is that she's not Bernie Sanders. The people who expressed that opinion then voted for Jill Stein, which was half a vote for Trump. I guess they appreciated the fact that Trump needed those half-votes.

In all fairness, her campaign made it pretty clear that she neither wanted nor needed our votes and chose a running mate that wasn't even slightly appealing to us while going after right wing voters.

And somehow it's us being sexist when we notice that they aren't trying to earn our votes while blaming everything on us. If Harris wants the votes, she should show that she deserves them and promise things that would improve our lives. And then if elected actually follow through on the promises.

????
Roughly 50% of the world's population has benefited from the privilege of being a man in a man-dominated society--barring the few matriarchal societies you see in scattered corners of the world. Just because a poor man's life sucked doesn't mean he doesn't benefit from being a man in most situations as opposed to if he were a woman. Privilege does not mean that all aspects of your life are going to be easy. Through almost all of history, a poor man has had more agency over his life than a poor woman. A poor white man in America is going to generally be better off than a poor black man.
White men so often resent suggestions of privilege, because it insinuates that they enjoyed unearned advantages in society. We live in a capitalist society that tells us that your success or failure is entirely down to your individual choices (this is a Lie). Therefore, if you are a successful man, and I suggest you are privileged, you will resent the implications that you have more than you "deserve" based on your efforts. And if you are a less successful man, and I suggest you are privileged, you will resent the implication that there are forces making your life easier without you doing anything. It is a fundamentally narrow-sighted, self-centric attitude towards society and gender that ultimately comes from personal insecurity.

You act like men had some unfair burden that they have to face more responsibility for their actions like? What??? Men forcibly denied women social and political agency for millennia. Men do not get to act like it was oh-so-difficult to have a monopoly on power when men actively and often violently prevented non-men from gaining greater power and responsibility. This would be like if I lived with a bunch of people who could drive cars, but I decided they were all too stupid to drive cars, but then I get bitter and stressed out that have to take on the responsibility of driving everyone everywhere because I forcibly denied their ability to do so on their own out of selfishness and arrogance.

It's like the nonsense of men's rights advocates acting like the military draft is a sign men aren't that privileged. No?? Men in power inflicted the military draft on men with less power. Feminism overwhelmingly opposes mandatory military service. It's just namby-pamby, mainstream-liberalism-friendly pseudo-feminism that act like it's some victory for justice that now women can go into battle for the state.


It is, in fact, not just because of outliers at the top that this is the case.
But let's be generous, and assume you are right. So? Does that not still further the argument that men enjoy unearned advantages in society that only recently are starting to be dismantled? This is a meaningless deflection onto another social problem about which you show little actual concern. What does it say that there are more ultra-rich men than women? Do you consider that a good thing? Do you have any issues with that status quo? Do you feel any desire to see it changed? Do you believe we should have a more economically equal society in general? Do you like that there are enough ultra-rich people that they skew everyday statistics and distort social understanding? Would you be equally okay with this situation if it were mainly women who are ultra-rich? Would you think that was meritocracy? Do you think this status quo is the result of meritocracy?


Look, I grew up as a white dude in America, and I never really got bent out of shape at the suggestion I enjoy unearned privilege because of that. It's like someone telling me water is wet. I took one look at history, and considered the conclusion to be obvious. I am not so fixated on the capitalist belief that life is fair the market is meritocratic that I believe the economic status quo is the result of fair and equal judgment of everyone. If you believe life is fair the market is meritocratic, then you are going to get defensive at the suggestion it is not. I am not so thin-skinned as to bristle at the suggestion that I am blessed beyond what I have actually "earned".

I heard Hillary called a witch and a b***h plenty of times. If that is not misogyny I don't know what is.

[quote="roronoa79"][/quote]
Thank you for making my point. None of that is actually true. This sort of revisionist history does little to advance any sort of useful end.

In all fairness, look at how she ran her campaign. I don't think that that sort of language is appropriate. By the same token she's hardly one to talk. I definitely remember the Bernie bros thing that she tried to get started claiming that it was sexist men holding her back

Now that Ms. Harris is a presumptive candidate, my vote can finally go to a "Not Trump" person.

I'd say it's more of a progressive question and thus if we ran an alternate history where our first options for female presidents were Condaleezza Rice and Marsha Blackburn would progressives feel warm and fuzzy voting in the first female Republican president?

I think the best reason for conservative men not to have voted for Clinton or Harris is that they're not conservative. Offer then Tulsi Gabbard and I think you'd get a lot more positive feedback from the center as well, ie. I don't think Tulsi being a woman would cost her much in the way of male vote because she has a brand that speaks for itself irrespective of her sex chromosomes.

There was a recent study that showed four different countries by gender and it showed US, UK, Korea, and I forgot the fourth - maybe Germany? It looks like they all had strong gender splits grow as far as politics, in two cases it looked like the men more actively curved right, in other cases it looked like the women curved more left. Men want (technically need) the ability to turn competence into $$ because it's their only prayer for attracting a mate, having kids, ie. affluence and status is everything and to that they don't want to be hobbled and 'made less' than what they could be - both for morale but also getting their genes to the next round. I think women have more upside and less downside from social democracy but what effects men still hits them, the question on repeat 'Where have all the good (successful) men gone?' says a lot.

the republicans are mainly pivoting on the idea Kamala is a DEI appointment as a way of dismissing her credibility. Of course Vance also made comments about her being another cat lady who is selfish because she did not have kids. I think most of the attacks against Hillary were around fake conspiracies. Neither were specifically attacked for being females.

^ Actually, Clinton frequently received attacks from conservatives specifically for being a woman.

https://www.npr.org/2016/10/23/49887835 ... inevitable

Last edited by TwilightPrincess on 27 Jul 2024, 10:09 pm, edited 1 time in total.

That's an attack that's likely to land because she can't really point to a record that justifies her being the nominee and she didn't even earn the nomination this time around. Had she won the nomination by fighting it out in the primaries, that would have gone a long ways towards convincing the folks that could be convinced that she deserved it. Likewise, her term in the Senate was pretty short. She didn't even complete a single term as Senator before becoming the VP. Likewise, her time as AG of CA involved such low points as withholding evidence from a prisoner on death row and prosecuting people for marijuana related crimes and parents for truancy. That clip of her laughing about sending people to prison for marijuana and admitting that she smoked the stuff was incredibly problematic, and laughing about it just made it that much worse.

It's sort of the same deal as with HRC, you can't run on diversity and expect for people to go after you on your merits. VP Harris might become a great President, but she hasn't earned the nomination and she hasn't done a particularly impressive job as VP either.

The whole thing is rather comical because it's not like we've had a lot of female candidates that aren't horrible candidates to choose from that arguably deserved to win and didn't because they were women. We've had terrible women running and then getting their buts handed to them because being a woman isn't sufficient justification to win votes. And, women know this, if women thought that being a woman was enough, it would have happened by now. There are more female voters than male ones in the US.

Yes I acknowledge conservatives also carry views that females are prone to hormone related fluctuations in mood so unreliable in high pressure roles (and other assorted myths).