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.

I think it's easy to forgot how rural much of the American interior is and how much 'traditional' values still hold sway in those kinds of areas.

I think Enid and YetAnother have nailed it upthread. From a personal point of view, within any political system (in this case a patriarchy) siding with the class with the power puts you in a privileged position relative to your own class. Okay, as a right-wing woman, your end position might not be as good as being a white upper middle class male, but you're still a hell of a lot better off than you would be as a working class single mother (to pick one example).

The way women who've chosen this route typically deal with the resulting cognitive dissonance (how the hell do you ignore Trump being a self-confessed sexual abuser, for instance?) is by othering certain classes of women. We see it all the time on rape apologist threads here - the thinking seems to go "I play by the rules - the right sort of relationship with the right sort of man, while wearing the right sort of clothes and socialising in the right sort of places at the right times in the right ways... so it won't happen to me. And I can bolster this [false] belief by looking at the behaviour of women who have been raped, identifying some [arbitrary] respect in which their behaviour differs from mine, then say 'actually it was their behaviour which caused the crime'." Classic victim-blaming as a form of psychologically defence mechanism to shore up the comforting and false belief that you personally are safe.

I think the same goes on when right wing women look at Trump. They say to themselves "oh, he doesn't hate all women - he respects nice middle class women like me who are respectably married to hard-working men, making sure the home is nice for our menfolk. He's only disrespectful to the sort of sluts who've brought it on themselves, by having sex outside marriage/wearing short skirts/not having a husband who'll stand up to him..."

It's all about othering and cognitive dissonance. And it's not a stupid strategy - far from it. If you get it right, on an individual personal level it can bring considerable rewards.

Interesting. Clearly Moore is only talking to men. White men. Like him.

DH made the interesting point yesterday that he didn't think you could class huge swathes of America as being what we might call a typical Western nation. A Western first-world country, if you will.

Here's the full breakdown of a 24.5k person sample:

edition.cnn.com/election/results/exit-polls/national/president

It's annoying if said men on The Wright Stuff aren't analysing men's decisions too; most senior Republicans who criticised Trump post "leak" were men.

But: broadly speaking, America is 50:50 Republican:Democrat (just as Britain is broadly 50:50 Leave:Remain). There are then swings away from each side at each election.

There are many people, perhaps the majority, who vote their party whoever the candidate is, just as there are in the UK.

Lots of people are quoting and tweeting Aaron Sorkin's letter to his daughter and wife (addressed as 'Sorkin Girls') on Twitter, about what they should do next and how upset he is and all the rest of it. It comes from a good place, but I find it rather irritating for the reasons I guess this thread sets out to explore.

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

Sorry, but that's just a different way of saying that they are stupid.

It's all about othering and cognitive dissonance. And it's not a stupid strategy - far from it. If you get it right, on an individual personal level it can bring considerable rewards.

I still think it is stupid. What do they do when their nice, perfect lives fall apart? When their husband leaves them, because unlike what they believed, being submissive and catering to his every wish was not enough when they grew old and ugly?
They play a dangerous game.

And of course, for those who have a choice, it is ethically reprehensible to throw other women under the bus. And they have to throw other women under the bus. If there were no class of "rapeable" women, then they themselves would be attacked by Trump and his ilk.

But: broadly speaking, America is 50:50 Republican:Democrat (just as Britain is broadly 50:50 Leave:Remain). There are then swings away from each side at each election.

There are many people, perhaps the majority, who vote their party whoever the candidate is, just as there are in the UK.

This is a very measured view, and highlights that women can disagree, and can hold differing views. We may not agree, but they have.

Trump voters are diverse, over a 3rd of Hispanics voted Trump too.

That Michael Moore video talks about men (and he's wrong because if it was only dispossessed make casualties of globalisation voting for Trump he wouldn't have won but that's an aside.)

I know what the OP is getting at but I think that women who are conditioned to subjugate their needs to those of men have just done it again. Just on a really big scale.

Oh I agree Vestal, it's ethically irresponsible. As for whether it's a stupid strategy because your husband might leave you for a younger model... well, they're playing the odds, just like the rest of us do. I personally prefer to rely on my own labour to keep a roof over my head and bread over the table - but having been through a lengthy and painful redundancy once in my life, it's not a guaranteed strategy either. (But at least it's not immoral because it doesn't involve throwing someone else's rights under the bus for the sake of my comfortable life).

The more I watch the polarisation of politics (and make no mistake, the virtue signalling numpties who couldn't bring themselves to vote Clinton because they couldn't give up the moral high ground long enough to dirty their hands are every bit as much responsible for this as the white Trump voters in the rust belt) the more I think it is a moral and political responsibility on all of us to make the attempt to understand where people on the opposing side are coming from, not write them off as stupid bigots. Because the act of writing them off as stupid bigots and letting them know this (from your lofty heights as an intellectual who's got the right answers) is a huge part of what creates the electoral climate in which demagogues like Trump can flourish.

I agree with M0stly and I agree it's not a stupid strategy. Perhaps an unkind and self-interested strategy, but not a stupid one.

I find it disgusting that it's considered acceptable to label any part of the electorate as "stupid" and it makes me really uncomfortable. It's one step away from saying only certain sections of the population should be "allowed" to vote.

I also think it's wrong of anyone to suggest that responsibility to stand up for the rights of women, ethnic minorities and other vulnerable groups falls primarily to people in those groups. It's everyone's responsibility.

The more I watch the polarisation of politics (and make no mistake, the virtue signalling numpties who couldn't bring themselves to vote Clinton because they couldn't give up the moral high ground long enough to dirty their hands are every bit as much responsible for this as the white Trump voters in the rust belt) the more I think it is a moral and political responsibility on all of us to make the attempt to understand where people on the opposing side are coming from, not write them off as stupid bigots. Because the act of writing them off as stupid bigots and letting them know this (from your lofty heights as an intellectual who's got the right answers) is a huge part of what creates the electoral climate in which demagogues like Trump can flourish.

This!! M0stly, I think you're spot on.

Yes peanut, he does talk about men. But those men have wives and daughters who may or may not be thrilled with how Trump behaves towards women, but who also may in the here and now of a long term struggling household.

I think it is a moral and political responsibility on all of us to make the attempt to understand where people on the opposing side are coming from, not write them off as stupid bigots. Because the act of writing them off as stupid bigots and letting them know this (from your lofty heights as an intellectual who's got the right answers) is a huge part of what creates the electoral climate in which demagogues like Trump can flourish.

This is beautifully put, and I agree 100% (although I'm not as good as putting it this way).

I honestly think that women who vote hard right or even conservative have a view that the misogyny they hear is directed at "other" women. They too have othered women, like the men they support but somehow view themselves outside the circle.

"What do they do when their nice, perfect lives fall apart?" Do people seriously think their lives are ever going to fall apart? People generally live in the here and now and what works from them at that time. For example, there are reasons why many women move towards feminism after having a child.

I don't think these women are stupid - just their lived experiences are very different from ours. It works for them to uphold a patriarchal society.

Do people seriously think their lives are ever going to fall apart? People generally live in the here and now and what works from them at that time. For example, there are reasons why many women move towards feminism after having a child.

I do think a great deal about all the ways things could go wrong.

Perhaps that's a symptom of depression or anxiety issues, but I know no other way to be.

And it is not like a husband running away with a younger woman is something rare.
Or a "decent" woman being targeted for sexual harrassment. I have been sexually harrassed, and the only more conservative way for me to dress would be to wear a skirt instead of trousers.

It happens a great deal more frequently than an upper class man losing all his money by accident. (This is why rich men voting for lower taxes for rich men are less of a puzzle to me)

From what I've read some of the women-voting-Trump and not Democrat is the economics of smaller communities who, as they see it have suffered due to globalisation and economic activity being moved abroad. Trump trumped on about inward investment, trade barriers, protecting small town industry. So the promised prospect of that may well over-ride sex/gender concerns. They may not like his attitudes and statements BUT the well-being of towns, the life-chances of their families etc would be primary. So they voted Trump, not Clinton who didn't say a great deal other than the status quo which swathes of people (incl women) don't see as serving their interests at all.

Some awful Trump women we also banging on about Christian values and raising their children 'the right way' and felt comfortable with Trump's weirdness, as we see them. Made sense to them and their lives.

As it happens I know a whole bunch of women who voted for Trump and they are most definitely neither poor nor stupid.

I can't explain or understand why they made what to me is such an extraordinary decision- but to write them off as idiots isn't going to help make sure that Trump gets only one term.

Writing them off a stupid bigots as people have put it is insulting. The problem is that (as with brexit) the losing side believe that the winners have exploited concerns about immigration and in this case have exploited a misogynist undercurrent to get what they want. We believe they lied but that will only be seen in the fullness of time.

I know we need to "understand" why people and women in particular voted as they did because until we do we can't change their mind but it's really hard
because we can't change our fundamental belief that they just voted for a woman hating, racist scumbag who is guilty of multiple counts of sexual assult.

The race issue runs parallel to this. How is "addressing concerns" (which seems to be the favoured way of framing the issue for U.K. politicians) different to pandering to racism?

I think it's easy to forgot how rural much of the American interior is and how much 'traditional' values still hold sway in those kinds of areas.
This is exactly the argument which was put forward on the Wright Stuff today. It made my blood boil. They were so sneering. They basically suggested that the husbands forced the women to vote Trump. Sneering metropolitans.
What I can't understand is that Obama was voted in twice. Those same women or some of them must have voted for Obama, a black man.
If someone can explain this please do
And by the way I come from a rural area. I run my own farm with the help of another woman. I voted Remain and would have voted for Clinton very reluctantly. She was an awful candidate.

I have also never understood why women feel comfortable depending on a man for financial support. I get that you wouldn't get together with a man who you thought would run off but surely common sense would tell you the possibility cannot be completely dismissed?

Derxa

You are 100% right, most of these 'white males' who voted for Trump must have voted Obama too!!