That Guardian article is more about race than gender. Here's a pull quote:
The strong support for Trump among white women suggests that many of them, if not “overtly racist”, simply “don’t think racism is a big deal”, said Mikki Kendall, a feminist cultural critic.
“For them, it’s not real. They don’t have to worry about it, so you must be exaggerating. It’s Ivanka Trump [saying], ‘I’ve never had to deal with sexual harassment,’ and she’s only worked for her dad and companies she’s owned.”
...not saying I agree or disagree with that statement - there's a lot to unpack in it - but that's one of the biggest thrusts of the article.
The Quartz article is also only tangentially related to anything gender-related. The big takeaway for me was that the electorate divided more based on education levels than anything else, which is data I've seen reflected in other sources.
And...I linked to that 538 article. It's great for a lot of information. Taken together, the takeaway from those articles seems to be that she didn't get any kind of benefit from being a woman. Which doesn't exactly make my point, but it also doesn't refute it.
The Atlantic article I linked earlier probably comes the closest to codifying some of this in our institutional leanings. But it's not like other examples don't exist.
As mentioned like seven times now, though, these things exist in a system of variables that can be hard to separate, but undoubtedly have collective influence. I just think it's a little weird how strongly y'all are trying to refute the presence of sexism when, like, we live in an American where Donald "Grab her by the p*ssy" Trump is President.
It would help if you provided your interpretation, though. I'm not linking things in a vacuum; I'm describing how they apply to the points I'm making, which makes this conversation like 1000% easier to have.
Originally posted by Afro Cheese
You can see why this is a somewhat strange idea though, no? Presumably, the swing voters who had voted Obama previously were the more liberal brand of Trump voters. Also... weren't they largely from places like the rust belt that Trump was preaching to about bringing back their jobs from overseas?
I don't know where you're from. But I'm originally from the rust belt. My extended family is a wonderful little microcosm for the rust belt voter. The county I grew up in has shifted red in my lifetime about 10-15%. Sexism and racism are real there. It's not the only factors, mind you. But it's there.
But for that hypothetical individual, maybe it was the Comey letter. Maybe it was policy. That's my point. Several potential factors. But the things Hillary cites are all valid, possible (probable?) factors.
Originally posted by Afro Cheese
I started reading that link but it just seems like some chat convo between a bunch of bloggers and seems pretty long. Maybe give me the gist of what it says that is relevant.
Basically, after parsing the election a dozen different ways, they took a look at Hillary's reasoning and basically emerged with a "yeah, she makes some decent points about influential election factors. The criticisms are mostly about her tone, and may be related to sexist double standards."
Originally posted by Afro Cheese
As for Comey's letter, I could see it having an impact.
No, it did have an impact. Period.
Originally posted by Afro Cheese
Eh. I think it's evidence that this scandal wasn't enough to cost him the election. I see that quote as basically him bragging about being a womanizer. Many on the left portray it as him openly boasting about rape. I suppose it depends on which interpretation you take.
This is a somewhat disturbing dismissal of what I see as a horrific comment. I know womanizers. They're sh*theads. But they also don't brag to strangers about stuff like this. That's next level. People are fungible to Trump, in a way that's entirely sociopathic.
Do you disagree with my point, though, that the fact that this didn't really hurt him (polls before and after that week were fairly static) shows an indifference to misogyny? It seems somewhat obvious to me.
Originally posted by Afro Cheese
I started reading the second article... once again it's pretty damn long so I quit about halfway through. There's some interesting studies and shit in there... but my issue is basically that since you can prove sexism exists, then any time a woman doesn't get a job or doesn't win the election then you can basically assume sexism played a major role. And that just seems very convenient for me...
And my point is that this is a sh*t reason to dismiss sexism. No, we shouldn't engage in those slippery slope arguments you mention. This is why analyzing things is important, not just throwing it out as a cause or citing as a cause without reason.
As you say, though, some interesting studies. Studies that show institutional sexism in our culture. Which is my point.
Originally posted by Afro Cheese
Another thing that was interesting in 2016, is the primaries. The democrats got the first black president in, so they figured in 2016 it was a woman's turn. This is pretty evident when you look at the primaries: 5 white guys vs Clinton. Where as the Republicans actually had a much more diverse group. Two latinos, one woman, one orange man, one repitilian(Bush), one member of a barber shop quartet, one fat new jersey mobster, a black guy, etc. Clearly, they've completely bought into identity politics as well.
Did Hillary ever use "It's my turn" or any variation thereof? Serious question. I'm curious whether this might be projection on the part of her detractors to make her seem more unlikable.
Because take gender out for a second. Hillary was 2nd in 2008 in the primaries. Obviously she'd be the front-runner to succeed Obama. That's how these things work. If it were a man in the same spot, I wonder if we'd be whining with the same "they figured it was his turn" rhetoric. My guess is no.