US Election results

[IwantToRetire]

Kamala Harris 27
45.2% popular vote
12,768,875 votes

Donald Trump 99
53.8% popular vote
15,275,564 votes

270 to win

U.S. election results 2024 | CBC News

6/11/2024 @ 01:25 GMT

A feminist view never means that a woman ONLY has the choice of a home based life

That isn't what feminism means

Feminism means removal of gendered restraints. Removal of Societal limits on female lives.

Gender ideology thrives in a strongly gender restrictive society - the more the right make such a society the more gender ecspaing becomes needed .

And anyone who thinks that a climate change denier will help their family - anyone who has children in a world that is more likely be 4 degrees warmer in that child lifetime as a result of the trump vote ... sorry I don't understand that at all

You're being hyperbolic, lots of young women want to be homemakers. You're just repeating the head girls snobbish 'domesticated zombies' mantra.

"Riley Gaines came out for Trump on issues such as this - and was an excellent spokeswoman and campaigner for women and girls rights."

I was actually hoping Harvey Weinstein would run because he'd be a great choice for women and girls due to him probably being anti-trans.

Why?

Women who want abortions can live in a state that allows them.

I'm not sure they "want" abortions, but that's true. It's easy and cheap to move state, I'm sure! Getting a new job will also be easy and finding a new support network. Totally.

That's ridiculous! So they have to move on the of chance in the future they may need one !
But what's important is no trans people in sports ...yeah you are obviously all about woman's rights and best interests

I didn't say it did. But most women do have children.

There are women, such as Mary Harrington, who have started to question just how liiberating it really is to have to work full time and put your children into day care pretty much from birth - when you'd really rather stay home for a few years. Who question just how liberating the sexual revolution has been for women generally. Who don't view prostitution or 'sex work' as a positive choice, and so on.......She calls it 'Reactionary Feminism'. Questioning whether all of the gains of the last six decades are really all positive or good for women or good for male/female relationships.

Women who have husbands, fathers, brothers and sons they love......and who don't want to suggest that they are inherently oppressors just because they are male; who can appreciate the male need for achievement and self respect and to feel some dose of masculine pride in providing for their families, or in protecting them.

But what's important is no trans people in sports

No, what’s important is no males in women’s sport. Because of Riley Gaines and with an executive order to reverse the damage done to Title IX, this will be one thing that will actually get done to protect a specific right of millions of American woman.

You can argue all you want about net gains and net losses, but this is a gain for women, whether you like how or who brings it about.

And if they do that’s brilliant. I’ve no problem with women choosing that as their life path

my concern is for the girls who don’t want that - and given the voting disparity between young men and young women - it’s clear many many young women don’t want that but are potentially facing a future where their choices are reduced

I'm surprised that on this board there isn't more awareness of just how in danger women are.
Yes Trump may have sexist views but I think we can deal with them.
On Harris's side, gender means that 'woman' is now a person who 'performs femininity' with much more rigid gender rules meaning that women are more likely to be pushed back in the kitchen, made to conform, and your children taken from you and transed.

I don't think it is about "danger" so much as american society coming to a critical point at which values and priorities have to be looked at anew. And that includes as they relate to women and to male/female relationships, families...everything......The progressive ideological hegemony has found wanting and a lot of people are rejecting it.

I don't think gender ideology means women are more likely to be pushed back into being homemakers. The kind of femininity that trans identifying male people perform generally has nothing to do with housework or caring roles. Rather, it's a pornified vision of womanhood which reduces women to sex objects. Even the language around gender affirming surgery shows this. Describing what post op trans women have as a "vagina" suggests that you think a vagina is just a hole for a penis, rather than an incredibly intelligent part of female reproductive anatomy.

Being told that someone like Dylan Mulvaney or Monroe Bergdorf is a woman, that being a woman is all about makeup and long hair and short skirts and push up bras, rather than simply being female, probably does push some young women to identify as trans or non binary, cut their breasts off and "live as a man" in order to escape all that. So no, gender ideology isn't pushing those girls into becoming homemakers, it's pushing them away from that by making them dissociate from their own female bodies and reducing the likelihood that they will ever become mothers.

Of course, even among Democrat voters the overwhelming majority of young women aren't trans and so the priority for them is having control over their own bodies and reproductive rights so that they can pursue their ambitions, whether their ambition is to be a mother or to be POTUS.

So overall I think Trump as POTUS is demonstrably worse for women than Kamala Harris as POTUS and it's hard to argue otherwise even with all the trans stuff. I think the main issue with the trans stuff (apart from the individuals who are directly harmed by it) is that people who are so concerned with not hurting the feelings of male people who want to be women that they refuse to say what a woman is or acknowledge that we need a word for female people are completely ill equipped to be fighting for women's rights. They can barely even convince themselves of what they believe in. They don't have a snowflake's chance in hell of convincing anyone else. And that's why they've failed to win the female vote, when it should have been easy.

This. The Democrats lied to themselves about transgenderism. That cutting off the breasts of girls is 'care' when any sane person can see it's not. That Richard 'Rachel' Levine is a woman when anyone can see he isn't. In this regard Walz was a particularly poor running mate for Harris.

The problem is, I think there are genuine issues affecting men but they are often quite nebulous or difficult for politics to easily fix. Whilst there are clear policy things for women (abortion, trans issues on the other side, maternity leave etc) that politicians can target in good faith or otherwise. So that nebulous dissatisfaction is easily directed in strange ways. And its easy to say "we need to listen to men/people more" but hard to do the listening when either loud angry voices are drowning everyone else out, or what people are saying is unfocused. And there are a lot of voices out there thanks to social media etc but it is a cacophony.

Also, its not just hate. Young men are more likely to be impressed by conspicuous displays of wealth than any other demographic. (Women might find wealth attractive in a partner but people talk less about how men find wealth attractive in male peers/role models to a much greater degree). So Elon Musk, the maverick tech billionaire, pulling a stunt like giving out million dollar checks is going to make him seem like leadership material.

Thank god Levine will be gone, a man who deliberately meddled with the production of WPATH’s Standards of Care to remove the age limit recommendations for surgery on children. He has directly contributed to harm to children who have had their breasts removed and genital surgery as a result.

That can definitely be chalked up in the “silver lining” column.

I think I know what you mean by "progressive ideological hegemony" but I think that is an example of something that is actually quite nebulous and hard to fix with policy changes.
It's not like wanting more mines to open so people have more jobs. Or wanting lower health insurance, or better sick leave etc.
Also "rejecting the hegemony" is always going to lead to something strange because it is moving away from something not towards any specific goal. And that is dangerous.

True, so glad that man will be removed from office. Should have been fired by Biden once the wpath scandal was unearthed.

The ‘trans stuff’ is not just the ‘trans stuff’ though - it is a demonstration that Harris is prepared to lie about something we all know is a lie, and to use the apparatus of the state to enforce that lie regardless of harms.

What next?

Not only gone but I will be amazed if Richard Levine isn't subjected to Congressional investigation. I mean the Repubs will have the power and the evidence he fixed medical outcomes is already out there because of the existing lawsuits.

The gender industry in the US is screwed. Without federal support the insurance industry will flip against it in a few years.

Once it is dead then Dems will have a better chance in the future

Given that the choice was between a woman who is prepared to lie about something the majority of the political left in the entire western world is prepared to lie about, and a man who has been convicted of multiple felonies, I'm not sure that's the strongest argument that can be made against Kamala.

There was a democrat woman strategist interviewed on R4 Today. Blamed the Harris loss partly on... the choice of Tim Walz as VP. Insisted it should have been Josh Shapiro.

There is going to be a circular firing squad now in the Democrat camp with recriminations

I find Mary Harrington a really interesting writer. But she did benefit massively herself from being able to go and get a really good education, and to work in quite high level jobs. Maybe she would have been happy not to do any of those things and stay home with children from her twenties - but maybe she would have been completely miserable. She is unlikely to have had the writing career she had.
There is a trend (and I know people like this) of very intelligent people getting really fixed ideas in their heads about what is wrong with society usually with a plan to fix it taken from fringe politics. I think because they are very single minded they miss a lot of stuff, and you tend to get people going down mad rabbit holes. Elon Musk, Thiell, Vance are definitely down one of those rabbit holes.

Yes, I think the gaslighting and obvious denial of reality doesn't go down well with a large demographic and is hugely underestimated as a voting issue as most political commentators that get amplified are middle class and in a position which removes them from the hard edges of reality.

Or to quote Sal Grover:
If you think that women have penises, I won’t believe a single word you say about anything else. Because if you will lie about something so obvious, I will assume you lie about everything.

Trump is hateful but he isn't telling voters they're bigots for noticing that grass is green.

There's been a lot of hyperbole about Trump being fascist but the other side could equally be said to be heading towards totalitarianism. The way they've shut down arguments about biological reality has been totalitarian. Forcing people to call Levine 'she' is totalitarian-adjacent at best.

I think also that the Dems ignored those voting Republican rather than voting for Trump. There's a strong chance he won't last the term. Their strategy relied too much on how obnoxious and repellant he is as a person. Most voters might hate him but are unlikely to meet him.

And the fact they didn’t, when many voters could see the horror of that scandal (which is ongoing) is just another reason people wanted rid of the Democrats.