this post was submitted on 30 Jun 2025
783 points (95.4% liked)

politics

24567 readers
2925 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] lennybird@lemmy.world 5 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (2 children)

This is complete and total gatekeeping (actual sexism) bullshit that is frequently parroted but not actually analyzed with a modicum of depth, for one actually did, they would realize it has no bearing in reality. If anyone wants me to explain why, I will happily do so.

[–] bridgeenjoyer@sh.itjust.works 4 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Have you gone outside? Americans (even women) don't want a woman president. We are stuck in 1890.

[–] lennybird@lemmy.world 4 points 2 days ago (2 children)

Unlike you I imagine, I actually door-kncoked on GOP and Independent households so yes, dare I say I've gone outside while in a battleground state no less.

I say again because there has been no evidence provided to the contrary: There is no evidence Harris lost because she was a woman. Put another way, if we placed Biden in her position or if we placed an identical copy of Harris as a male, she too would've lost for a multitude of factors beyond the fact she was a woman (again, because no actual sexist fuck was reachable in the first place for Democrats and never are).

[–] Draedron@lemmy.world 0 points 2 days ago

I say again because there has been no evidence provided to the contrary

Twice americans chose the fascist over the woman. Now Americans won't have free elections anymore so they will never have a female president unless her last name is Trump maybe. So I guess they got what they wanted.

[–] bridgeenjoyer@sh.itjust.works -2 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Sure, there's other factors, but even if they were exactly what voters wanted, there would be a stigma around it. I mean, even women hate women and actively vote to sabotage their own Healthcare so it's not really based on any logic. Maybe in 20 years when the olds are gone, and IF the youngs don't get brainwashed by Tate types, there could be a female president.

[–] lennybird@lemmy.world 4 points 2 days ago

I mean even men hate men at times; this male here would much prefer a female candidate so it slices both ways.

Reality remains: true bigots; trust sexists were only ever voting conservative, regardless if it was Obama, Biden, or a female like Harris or AOC. So that alone is a non-starter.

[–] finitebanjo@lemmy.world 1 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

I voted for the female candidates, they both lost. The gender divide in congress is 7:18, only 28% of elected federal representatives are women. Gen Z voters were divided along gender lines between Trump and Harris. I don't know how to fix this problem, but ignoring it is not the solution.

[–] lennybird@lemmy.world 2 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (3 children)

This has fundamentally zero bearing on the actual outcome of the Presidential election; moreover there are many less female candidates seeking office in the first place. Yes, sexism exists — that's not in dispute —but sexist voters were never in reach in the first place, whether it was Harris, Biden, Hillary, or Obama.

  • A majority of registered voters are women.

  • A majority of actual voters are consistently women.

There is just as much risk of women getting pissed off and protesting and staying home because they are tired for voting male candidates.

There is zero evidence a woman cannot win. You just can't run inauthentic consultancy-crafted non-charismatic candidates, and BOTH Hillary and Kamala were. Mind you, the same holds true for men. Go ahead and just try to run Tim Kaine and see what happens, I dare you.

This made all the more clear by the fact that the vast vast vast majority of misogynistic sexist bigots are already a firm part of the conservative maga base —And so they were Never. Up. For. Grabs in the first place.

[–] FarmTaco@lemmy.world -2 points 2 days ago (1 children)

There is zero evidence a woman cannot win.

I've got a relatively small sample size, but considering the alternative I dont think its worth grandstanding on your soapbox for another 4-8 years just to trot out another losing horse.

[–] lennybird@lemmy.world 3 points 2 days ago

Instead of being a gatekeeping sexist, I'm going to continue to reiterate (for lack of evidence and also because it's the right thing) that sex / gender of the candidate does not matter in the slightest, and the only thing that matters are their policies, their authenticity, and their charisma — male, or female.

Also because there hasn't been a lick of evidence to suggest Harris lost because she's a woman. Also because, as I pointed out and you conveniently ignored: All actual sexists were never reachable votes for Democrats in the first place.

We don't need them, and we don't fucking want them.

[–] finitebanjo@lemmy.world -2 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

28% of congress is female, 50.5% of the general population and their ratio gets higher in the average age group that corresponds to congress'. The percentage of people enthusiastic about a female president is down since 2015, a third of voters today say they are not ready for a female president.

We're not talking about convincing a population of unbiased, nonprejudiced people. We're talking about convincing a nation full of hateful assholes. A lot of republican voters will mobilize solely to keep women out of power.

[–] lennybird@lemmy.world 3 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

a third of voters today say they are not ready for a female president.

Now intersect that with actual reachable swing-voters and Democrats.

Like I said: that tracks for core dyed-in-the-wool MAGA trash that we will never win nor want beneath our banner.

Let's not make Faustian bargains, shall we?

Edit: Also, your facts are just incorrect, as well as interpretation:

a third of voters today say they are not ready for a female president.

  • 23% is not 33%.
  • 57% say America is "ready" and 20% were "not sure"
  • Answering the question whether the rest of America is "ready" is not answering whether you believe a woman could be President.

To make it even more clear for you: https://ropercenter.cornell.edu/madame-president-changing-attitudes-about-woman-president

Public willingness to vote for a woman

In 1937, the first time the public was asked by Gallup about its willingness to vote for a female president, the question included the caveat “if she were qualified in every other respect.” Gallup removed that phrase, with its implications, and tried a new version in 1945, asking, “If the party whose candidate you most often support nominated a woman for President of the United States, would you vote for her if she seemed best qualified for the job?” The results remained the same, with about one-third saying yes.

In 1948, the country was split on a new version of this question, which identified the woman candidate as qualified, but not “best” qualified. The final wording became settled in 1958 and has been asked repeatedly since. Large gains were made over the 1970's and the proportion answering yes has continued to rise, reaching 95% in the most recent poll.

Americans may say they are willing to vote for a woman, but when asked to assess the willingness of others, people have not been as optimistic about women’s chances of winning the presidency. In 1984, when NBC asked likely voters if they were ready to elect a woman president, only 17% said yes. Substantial shares of the population have remained skeptical, though the most recent poll found the lowest proportion who believe the country is not yet ready.

[–] freddydunningkruger@lemmy.world -3 points 2 days ago

In Christianity, the bible forbids women from exercising authority over men in the church - they are forbidden from any leadership role within the church. This begs the question: what makes you think Christians will vote to elect a woman to the highest level of leadership this country has, into a position where she can make decisions affecting not just one church, but every single church across the US?