politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- 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:
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
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.
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.
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!
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 😂
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.
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.
Definitely agree, AOC would be most effective in and have the best chance to win Schumer's seat.