I'd like help please. I'm uncomfortable with the many statements that the women who voted for Trump are poor and stupid

[HoneyDragon]

I can't articulate why. And need help to do so. I'm not going to beat around the bush when people say uneducated with faux sympathy, they do obviously mean stupid. Which isn't helping me either.

Even watching the dreaded Wright Stuff, I'm at edge with two priviliged White males effectively saying women voted that way because they are too weakened to do anything else. (Texan housewives being put forth as an example). I'm not liking the way the media is discussing the amount of women that voted for an odious openly sexist turd ....but for the life of me cannot verbalise it.

[ImpYCelyn]

Well if you look at the data women really voted more or less in line with men - along race lines rather than education or wealth.

Not sure that's any better though. But it's what the data suggests.

[HoneyDragon]

I noticed that. But there is an awful lot of focus on the "60% of women". And there is either anger or contempt directed at them.

[CoteDAzur]

"I'm not liking the way the media is discussing the amount of women that voted for an odious openly sexist turd"

I would be interested to read a psychological/sociological paper about how and why women decided to vote for Trump, if ever one is written in the future. It is a contradiction that someone should try to explain at some point.

I wouldn't be surprised that intellectual shortcomings were a contributing factor, judging by the few short interviews I have seen with female Trump supporters at his rallies and elsewhere.

There must be some other (more important?) reasons why a majority of women would vote for (as you aptly put) "an odious openly sexist turd" but I can't think of any right now, to be honest.

[Rockpebblestone]

It is uncomfortable because one the one hand it seems women have voted against women's rights, in supporting a man who openly makes misogynist comments, on the other hand to dismiss them as unintelligent erodes their rights, women's rights, to autonomy which is anti-feminist in itself.

[ChocChocPorridge]

TBH I think some discussion is to be had over why women voted for someone with such obvious distain for women (at least, those not young, thin and pretty who know there place - or male - like Jenner)

I don't like woman bashing either though - especially since as Imp says, the men who voted for him were also poor and ignorant - albeit with the added dimension of personhood (from the point of view of many other men at least)

[ElizabethHoney]

There must be some other (more important?) reasons why a majority of women would vote for (as you aptly put) "an odious openly sexist turd

I'd assume that most of them are putting party and/or policies ahead of the character. I've certainly voted for the candidate I like and respect less before, because I think their/their party's policies are better.

I also think that Clinton's record of lies and ineffectiveness, and the very plausible corruption allegations, made this easier: whilst I wouldn't have voted for Trump, had Clinton been running against almost anyone I'd have voted against her!

I can't imagine voting for Trump myself, especially as as woman, but I also find the sneers and condescension infuriating.

[ImpYCelyn]

I think contempt directed at women shows the deep-seated misogyny of many. Men should be just as culpable for voting for a misogynist. They could also have voted for Clinton. They don't get a free pass just because they are men. They should be labelled as stupid/poor/ignorant as well if that's what people want to do.

However...

The fact that many educated men also didn't vote for her suggests that concerns about his misogyny were low down the voting priorities of both men and women. Racism appears to be far more significant than sexism, as shown by the size of his white vote compared to all minorities (even black men who Clinton "hadn't connected with").

It's also very important not to underestimate the religious conservatism of white America. A huge number of well-educated women are very pro-life, and would never think of voting for a democrat, even a woman, on those grounds alone. (There are a far larger number of religious universities in the States, but I think in the U.K. we have some idea that religion becomes less important to degree educated people, probably inaccurately, but certainly that is not the case in the US.)

Immigration (esp. Muslims and Mexicans) and abortion came up frequently and are huge factors.

[MadgeMak]

Total agree with that, Enid. My husband and I were discussing why a woman would vote for Trump last night and this is the conclusion we also came to.

[YetAnotherSpartacus]

Has anyone read Beatrix Campbell's The Iron Ladies: Why Women Vote Tory? (might have the title wrong). This explained the decision of many women to vote for Thatcher.

I think there are actually two issues present.

1. Why did women in some demographics vote for Trump (a question if turnout or political sociology) and
   
   
2. The issue of labelling those who voted for Trump as 'uneducated' (a put-down in the use of the word - potentially implying stupid).
   
   Campbell considered the first question in light of Thatcher and found that women were quite easily able to articulate why - and some of this was to do with a rejection of feminism (if I remember rightly, not having read the book for three decades).
   
   In relation to the second - I think the issue is more the put-down ... which I agree is similar to some I heard post-Brexit - and offensive.

[ImpYCelyn]

Also I'd like to make clear that I don't think the women who voted for Trump are poor and uneducated, or the men. I think what they predominantly are is white. Across all education levels and wealth levels white people voted in significant numbers for Trump.

This has far more significance about what it says about white Americans tbh.

I think the media is trying to spin in as a backlash from "poor, ignorant American" because that is far more acceptable that saying "actually, they're racists", or "actually our cultural misogyny runs so deep that even the most intelligent people would rather vote for Trump than a woman".

[VestalVirgin]

I view it as psychological issue, mainly. Self-destructive behaviour is not unheard of.

And then there's identification with the oppressor.

Education and intelligence would enable women to see through those issues, so I'd assume there's some influence of that.


The Republican party is not woman-friendly, either, so that theory doesn't seem plausible.

[KarlosKKrinkelbeim]

I agree that support for misogyny is equally reprehensible among men as among women. However I do think a woman voting for someone who has behaved as trump has calls for an explanation as it seems contrary to basic self interest. My view is this. I have often noted that women who buy into the subservience narrative - and there are many, not least because a life of dependence on male financial support and authority and be in some superficial respects easier than the alternative- often demonstrate great hostility to women who explicitly or implicitly (by their own life choices) reject that position. This is especially the case now where subservience is a choice - we can earn our own money, live independently of men who are unkind, prosecute husbands who abuse us with th full support of the system. We don't have to let men run our lives. But those who choose that way - because it's easier or less scary - often hate those of us who don't. Hence they love trump and hate Hillary.

[KarlosKKrinkelbeim]

I should clarify the above by saying that I am of course aware that subservience is still imposed on many women. Those women I suspect do not think mr trump is quite so great.

[Cisoff]

I'm uncomfortable with the statements, too, OP.

Perhaps they believed him when he said he could create jobs (for them, and by extension their partners, children etc).

[RiverTam]

It's uncomfortable reading because it's an uncomfortable truth, that women will vote against their own self interest, because they've been brought up to ignore their own self interest?

I must say I'm struggling with all the excuses and reasons for anyone voting for Trump. He's a hateful, xenophobic, misogynistic, anti-Semitic, disabilist, morally devoid, utter unqualified, tax avoiding billionaire who inherited his wealth, and he has hidden none of this. Yet apparently we should all be castigating ourselves for not taking enough notice of those who chose to vote for this person over and above a super-qualified woman with 30 years public service who has yet to have been proven to have done anything wrong with her emails.

Do I think people (rich or poor, male or female) who made that choice are, using your word, 'stupid'? I'm struggling to see how they can possibly be otherwise.

[birdsdestiny]

I agree the focus should not specifically be on women. But. The data is showing that those who voted for Trump has less money than those who voted for Clinton. How should we express this? It's important.

[Pizanfan]

The Irony of not being able to understand why women would vote for a misogynist is clearly lost on everyone...

You see, as villified as Trump has been as a misogynist by mainstream media, people (of all sexes and races) have had a chance to watch him speak, listen to him, and have had unfiltered unbias access to his words that 99% of people outside the US have not.

Women voted for Trump because they resonated with his words and viewpoints, the important factors for women in the US is similar to those of men, the media outcry that sexism and racism is the only thing you should look at is bluster, and American women have proved that.

BTW more than a 3rd (38% I think) of Hispanic voters voted for Trump, and 15% of Black voters too.

Do you think these people are odd also? for voting for a racist?

Or is it more plausible, that over 20 million women, Hispanics, Black, Muslim etc people found Trumps campaign non sexist, non racist, and spoke to them, opposed to the worldwide view that has been crafted by the media?

I suggest those with intimate knowledge of the system, campaigns and access to unbiased research know something we don't! All the FB memes in the world won't prove otherwise.

[RiverTam]

Oh, do troll off Piz. Your posts clearly show you aren't someone who can debate or be belated with so you're bringing nothing to the various threads you're on.

[KarlosKKrinkelbeim]

I'm simple minded enough to think that when someone tells you who they are, on the whole, you should believe them.
When trump boasts of assaulting women, insults in the crudest possible terms those who challenge him, mocks a man with disabilities, he is telling us who he is. He has offered us no grounds to conclude that he cares about the rights and welfare of women and people with disabilities. He has told us that he hates them.
Given that, the willingness of any member of either group to vote for him seems odd.

[Cisoff]

enlightening.

Watch it. It's only a little over 3 minutes long.

[Cisoff]

Sorry, it's 4 minutes. The following video is good, too.

[wasabipeanut]

I was chatting to my deeply conservative British MIL at the weekend about the election in general and she told me she disliked Clintons aggressiveness. My response "er, what about Trumps aggressiveness?" which has been demonstrated publically on countless occasions she just responded with a shrug saying "I don't like seeing aggressiveness in a woman." I just gave up at that point because the ensuing row would have upset everyone but it just underlines the double standards point.

I think misogyny had a lot to do with this, truly I do. This was an uppity woman being put back in her box. I know there was more to it and that HC didn't have a glowing record in office but I think ultimately this was about her gender not her actions.