Male voters and women in authority

Post Reply New Topic

Hillary Clinton and Kamala Harris seem pressed from the same mold, and both seem to inspire intense hostility from male voters across the political spectrum.

I can imagine a male voter looking at Harris and seeing every teacher or principal who sent him to detention as a teenager. Although in the adult world, authority is more often wielded by men, boys coming of age are mostly subject to female authority. Especially in America's culture of thumbing one's nose at authority, I can see how people like Clinton and Harris can be so unpopular. However, it leaves me to wonder about the success of Margaret Thatcher. For some reason, the animosity seems to be more pronounced against female politicians espousing a progressive agenda. Why?

I think most of the hostility would be related to sexism, conservative values, and the fact that America has never had a female leader. Many other places have had female monarchs and such.

This 2018 article talks about the leadership gap among men and women:

Apart from that, women in America are more likely to be liberal than men are, especially among younger generations.

With all that being said, Harris does appear to have a lot of support already.

That's how it is here in Norway too. There have been some news articles and news reports about it over the last couple of years. The left has lost more young male voters than the conservatives have lost young female voters.


I don't know why that is, but it seems to at least somewhat hold true here too.

How do you know any of this?

Are there polls that show men being more hostile to Hillary or Kamala than women? Ive never seen any. I live here in the US and never got a sense that there was a gender difference attitude toward them.

Hillary was pilloried, but did men do it more often than women?

And you undercut your own argument by pointing out that the women who are hated are the ones who express progressive views...duh...so they were hated for their progressive views. Not for their gender after all.

Men might be intimidated by the increase in women's decision-making or choice as it relates to dating, marriage, divorce, pregnancy, raising children, careers, financial independence, exploring identity like LGBTQ/ND, reporting domestic crime, holding fathers accountable for their kids, etc.

I imagine that might make some men feel insecure about gender roles. Progressive views from women might be more threatening to men than the other way around.

I'm just guessing though. I don't have a dog in this fight.

UGH I just don't know why so many men are this way. Like, even here in the year of 2024 they still can't understand that women are people? (and sadly, it's not just men. I've seen other women also act this way. SMDH)

Kamala Harris is not only far more qualified for the position of President, but also her character is far more fitting of a leader. This is as clear as day. Come on, people. Don't be absurd.

It's sexism--but not just for the obvious reasons. Sexism says that women should not be in politics, because politics is a matter for men. Women are supposedly not rational or intelligent enough to succeed as well as men. Therefore, when sexists see a woman succeed in politics, they reflexively assume she must have cheated in some way. Especially if the woman is not white, they will assume the woman only succeeded at the expense of more competent men. Hence how the anti-DEI (or anti-woke, w/e) crowd so often says they just want a return to meritocracy. To the anti-woke sexist, a brown woman succeeding in politics is a sure sign that the meritocracy is not working properly. Wonder why?

The conversation is muddled by the fact that there are plenty of very valid reasons to not like Harris. Beltway insider, establishmentarian capitalist, coastal elitist, questionable record on criminal justice, etc. It's a similar situation to Hilary Clinton. Both candidates have also dismissed such criticism of them as being grounded in sexism (if from the right) or radicalism (if from the left).

Hard to say how much of Hillary and Kamala’s “unlikability” is because they are women or because they are unlikable, but sexism is definitely a factor. While Trump voters are stereotyped as cultists a lot of them are voting for him despite or because he is unlikeable. The sexism comes in when that is considered a necessary sign of leadership for men and a deal breaker for women.

As far a Maggie Thatcher maybe she was liked because she was in tight with Reagan, I don’t know.

In other words: there is NO rational valid reason to hate Harris. Ditto Hillary.

Last edited by naturalplastic on 26 Jul 2024, 2:42 pm, edited 2 times in total.

I think this is a really important point. I’ve heard conservatives openly state this line of thought. It’s such a pervasive belief that you don’t need to be conservative to be influenced by it to a greater or lesser extent.

Leftists legitimately feel this way, it's why so many voted third party in 2016, leading to Trump's first term in office.

And as a result, we no longer have Roe vs Wade. We may not have the right to same-sex marriage anymore after the next SCOTUS term, as well. And while I feel like I will here in New England, if Trump and his goons get into power, same-sex marriage and abortion will be safe in no state.

BUT HER EMAILS as they say.

Last edited by Harmonie on 26 Jul 2024, 4:19 pm, edited 1 time in total.

That’s not been my experience on or offline but especially online.

They're both terrible candidates that wouldn't be where they are if they were men. Most men are perfectly fine with women in authority positions, those were just horrible frauds that were forced on the voters.

Had they actually earned their nominations, the attitude by men would probably be a lot less hostile.

There certainly was. Both candidates benefited from a rigged primary system that saw them elevated to the nomination without having earned it. HRC in particular was incredibly sexist in how she ran against Bernie. Or have you forgotten about the "Obama Boys" in2008 and "Bernie Bros" in 2016 that she tried to make a thing.

Men have been pretty well screwed over in the last 50 or so years, if we're not powerful enough to be near the top, nobody really cares about our issues. And having candidates forced onto us without earning the nomination isn't going to go over well, regardless of gender, because they're terrible people that didn't earn their way to the nomination. HRC in particular castigated us for being sexist even though her whole campaign was being run on the basis of being a woman with nothing in there to appeal to progressive interests.

You are probably right about online with incels and the like. A bit more than half of my life was before I had internet. Also it is something I have heard from a number of women over the years. But it might by a Boomer and Silent Generation thing.