How did "we" get to a place in the year of the woman where two white male harassers end up the Democratic nominees? Why sexism, of course! That's what the girls are saying, and boy am I seriously enjoying the post mortem feminists are going through right now. Let's discuss.
Almost all of these women start their articles with the same premise: for the first time in history, women ran for the Presidency in this election cycle. Whoops. That's wrong. What about Geraldine Ferraro and Hillary Clinton and Elizabeth Dole, Carol Moseley Brown, Michele Bachman, Jill Stein, Carly Fiorinia, and like 40 more? Do these women really not know this or are they just victim-claiming? I think you know
Anyways, having lied to their audience to make the latest crop sound "brave," they quickly ask how could all these "groundbreaking" girls gets dumped before this election cycle even got hopping?! Seriously, given the #metoo movement, the resistance being founded by women, and the huge push by the women of the Democratic Party to finally throw off the shackles of penis-facades and be openly represented by women... for the first time (cough cough Hillary Clinton), how could this happen, they ask!!
The answer, they claim, is obvious: America is sexist. Yup.
Nancy Pelosi said there "is an element of misogyny" which undermines females candidates. Rep. Barbara Lee, D-Calif, said, “The narrative that somehow women are less electable than men seems to still be an issue. It’s very disgusting really.” And pretty much every woman who has written about this has echoed those claims. Even when they admit that maybe the girls made a few tiny mistakes here and there, they were quick to say, "While she did err by [insert failure here], women are unfairly held to a higher standard when it comes to mistakes like that." Wash, rinse, repeat.
So its victim-blaming. These poor women were destined to lose because women can't win! Boo hoo hoo!
Of course, this is crap. For starters, only Democrats voted in this election as it was a primary. That means that all this sexism and misogyny these women claim held them back came from Democratic voters. Interesting, don't you think?
What's more, did you realize that 63% of Democratic primary voters were women? Uh huh. So these horrible misogynists they are complaining about are women. In fact, on Super Tuesday, Warren came in third among female voters by more than 10% behind Biden and Sanders. That means it was women who rejected these female candidates.
A couple of these writers seem aware of this, though they don't dare say so openly. Instead, they suggest that many women, knowing how sexist the world is, voted for a man because beating Trump was so important and they knew that no Republican or independent would ever vote for a woman. So they weren't sexist, they were trying to adjust for the sexism of others! But this is crap too. Only 7% of Democratic men and 18% of Democratic women held this view, so that wasn't what happened.
So why didn't the "resistance moms" help sway the field for women? That's another tragedy, say these writers. Apparently, these moms didn't know what to do, for some strange reason. That's bull too. The real answer is simpler: looking at the turnout, resistance moms didn't show up... just like I predicted. After whining "why doesn't somebody (else) do something?!" they littered their Starbucks cups on the protest ground and went home, never to be seen again. Why? Because that was a tantrum by a group who expect others to solve problems for them, and any idea that they would become a "movement" is simply wrong.
But what about #metoo? How can two harassing men be the top dogs for the nomination in the age of #metoo? Because, as I've been saying, #metoo is an illusion. It's a group of actresses who wanted to cover up the fact they slept their way into films and female journalists looking to destroy male colleagues to get their jobs, and that's it. The "movement" never really got beyond that because it immediately devolved into batshit crazy demands akin to Black Lives Matters and it collapsed. Then it got incorporated and became a fundraising mechanism.
This is why you have this strange disconnect between Democratic women wanting a woman as their nominee, but voting for men.
But still, why not support one of the girls? Because they stunk as candidates.
Consider this. None of the women ever finished above third place in eighteen contests, and even that was kind of rare. This is despite a wide variety of states, from states dominated by white professional women to blacks to white farms to cross-sections of America to their very own home states. That means they were rejected across the board by all groups. Biden swept blacks, 6 of 10. Sanders swept Hispanics 6 of 10 (Biden got 2 of 10). Sanders won 7 of 10 young people. Biden won old people 2-1. As noted above, women went for Biden and then Bernie and finally 10% lower Warren. So Warren controlled no group including women, and Amy was worse. They weren't even close. That means they were unacceptable across the board.
But why?
First, these women have no real resumes/identities. I can name the men without naming them: Billionaire Mayor, Socialist, former VP, gay dude. Except for the gay thing, those are achievements and the beef with gay Pete was his lack of achievements. But how do I do that with the girls? Amy: Senator... uh? That's nothing. Warren: Senator... uh? Neither has an identity except "woman." With Warren you add the fact that she's mostly known for lying: "I'm an Indian! I never claimed to be an Indian! I have DNA proof! I'm not elitist! My kids don't go to private schools! I drink beer from bottles!" She did help build a consumer agency, but no one knows the name of it and its relevance to people's lives is pretty much zero. Amy doesn't even have that. She sits in a room with 90 men we don't like and debates 17th Century procedures.
Then there's the personality issue. These women have the personalities of abusive school teachers. They remind you of that teacher who screwed you on a grade because she could ("I said turn it in at the beginning of class"), the one who turned you in for skipping school, the one who kept you every last second on the last day. The people the public elects are anything but that. The public likes people with an easy smile who know that when things are running well, you let people play hooky. I think the public sees value in that in two ways: (1) it suggests that the candidate has confidence if they're not afraid of a little chaos, (2) it suggests control if they can allow chaos and yet recover from it, and (3) it suggest an element of trust in the staff, which is something employees crave. Being a tight-ass suggests that the candidate is petty, controlling, scared and does not trust. These women came across as tight-asses.
Then there's the question of what they stood for. Amy stood for nothing at all. Warren stood for everything, kind of, only not as extreme as Bernie. Amy was that guest speaker who didn't prepare. Warren is that expert in some dry field who can't speak to anyone but other experts. Politics is about passion. Kennedy sold romance and youth. Reagan sold imagery of America. Clinton sold cool. Obama sold a new race-free America. Trump sold a huge middle finger to the elite. Warren? She has a statute book she'd like you to read. Female candidates rarely offer a vision and, when they do, it's often about being a woman candidate, which says nothing to the public... it only works for other women who feel oppressed by their gender.
Feminists seem to crave the wrong things. They want women candidates who build professional resumes but don't realize that achievements, not jobs, matter in politics. Oh, I see you were Undersecretary of Boring. They want women who project anger rather than confidence. "But men can do it!" they always scream as their candidates crash and burn to avoid difficult questions. The problem is they look at the bastards, the c*cksuckers, the douchbags and assume that this is acceptable conduct for men, but it's really not... it's a stereotype, but feminists are so sure they are being victimized that they delude themselves into believing the worst.
I don't think there's any reason a woman couldn't win either party's nomination. Nor do I think a woman can't be President. In fact, I suspect that the right woman would win in a landslide. The problem is that the wrong women keep running and the feminists latch onto the worst of the bunch to add insult to injury. Run a woman with a vision and achievements to back that up. Run a woman with confidence and a confident style, not one wallowing in anger and insecurity. It's really not that hard.
The left won't figure that out because they delude themselves when they lose, but they will soon start running only women -- the numbers and anger make it inevitable. Not this time, but probably by next time. In fact, look for them to pick a 2024 standard bearer soon and decide to push her no matter what.
Almost all of these women start their articles with the same premise: for the first time in history, women ran for the Presidency in this election cycle. Whoops. That's wrong. What about Geraldine Ferraro and Hillary Clinton and Elizabeth Dole, Carol Moseley Brown, Michele Bachman, Jill Stein, Carly Fiorinia, and like 40 more? Do these women really not know this or are they just victim-claiming? I think you know
Anyways, having lied to their audience to make the latest crop sound "brave," they quickly ask how could all these "groundbreaking" girls gets dumped before this election cycle even got hopping?! Seriously, given the #metoo movement, the resistance being founded by women, and the huge push by the women of the Democratic Party to finally throw off the shackles of penis-facades and be openly represented by women... for the first time (cough cough Hillary Clinton), how could this happen, they ask!!
The answer, they claim, is obvious: America is sexist. Yup.
Nancy Pelosi said there "is an element of misogyny" which undermines females candidates. Rep. Barbara Lee, D-Calif, said, “The narrative that somehow women are less electable than men seems to still be an issue. It’s very disgusting really.” And pretty much every woman who has written about this has echoed those claims. Even when they admit that maybe the girls made a few tiny mistakes here and there, they were quick to say, "While she did err by [insert failure here], women are unfairly held to a higher standard when it comes to mistakes like that." Wash, rinse, repeat.
So its victim-blaming. These poor women were destined to lose because women can't win! Boo hoo hoo!
Of course, this is crap. For starters, only Democrats voted in this election as it was a primary. That means that all this sexism and misogyny these women claim held them back came from Democratic voters. Interesting, don't you think?
What's more, did you realize that 63% of Democratic primary voters were women? Uh huh. So these horrible misogynists they are complaining about are women. In fact, on Super Tuesday, Warren came in third among female voters by more than 10% behind Biden and Sanders. That means it was women who rejected these female candidates.
A couple of these writers seem aware of this, though they don't dare say so openly. Instead, they suggest that many women, knowing how sexist the world is, voted for a man because beating Trump was so important and they knew that no Republican or independent would ever vote for a woman. So they weren't sexist, they were trying to adjust for the sexism of others! But this is crap too. Only 7% of Democratic men and 18% of Democratic women held this view, so that wasn't what happened.
So why didn't the "resistance moms" help sway the field for women? That's another tragedy, say these writers. Apparently, these moms didn't know what to do, for some strange reason. That's bull too. The real answer is simpler: looking at the turnout, resistance moms didn't show up... just like I predicted. After whining "why doesn't somebody (else) do something?!" they littered their Starbucks cups on the protest ground and went home, never to be seen again. Why? Because that was a tantrum by a group who expect others to solve problems for them, and any idea that they would become a "movement" is simply wrong.
But what about #metoo? How can two harassing men be the top dogs for the nomination in the age of #metoo? Because, as I've been saying, #metoo is an illusion. It's a group of actresses who wanted to cover up the fact they slept their way into films and female journalists looking to destroy male colleagues to get their jobs, and that's it. The "movement" never really got beyond that because it immediately devolved into batshit crazy demands akin to Black Lives Matters and it collapsed. Then it got incorporated and became a fundraising mechanism.
This is why you have this strange disconnect between Democratic women wanting a woman as their nominee, but voting for men.
But still, why not support one of the girls? Because they stunk as candidates.
Consider this. None of the women ever finished above third place in eighteen contests, and even that was kind of rare. This is despite a wide variety of states, from states dominated by white professional women to blacks to white farms to cross-sections of America to their very own home states. That means they were rejected across the board by all groups. Biden swept blacks, 6 of 10. Sanders swept Hispanics 6 of 10 (Biden got 2 of 10). Sanders won 7 of 10 young people. Biden won old people 2-1. As noted above, women went for Biden and then Bernie and finally 10% lower Warren. So Warren controlled no group including women, and Amy was worse. They weren't even close. That means they were unacceptable across the board.
But why?
First, these women have no real resumes/identities. I can name the men without naming them: Billionaire Mayor, Socialist, former VP, gay dude. Except for the gay thing, those are achievements and the beef with gay Pete was his lack of achievements. But how do I do that with the girls? Amy: Senator... uh? That's nothing. Warren: Senator... uh? Neither has an identity except "woman." With Warren you add the fact that she's mostly known for lying: "I'm an Indian! I never claimed to be an Indian! I have DNA proof! I'm not elitist! My kids don't go to private schools! I drink beer from bottles!" She did help build a consumer agency, but no one knows the name of it and its relevance to people's lives is pretty much zero. Amy doesn't even have that. She sits in a room with 90 men we don't like and debates 17th Century procedures.
Then there's the personality issue. These women have the personalities of abusive school teachers. They remind you of that teacher who screwed you on a grade because she could ("I said turn it in at the beginning of class"), the one who turned you in for skipping school, the one who kept you every last second on the last day. The people the public elects are anything but that. The public likes people with an easy smile who know that when things are running well, you let people play hooky. I think the public sees value in that in two ways: (1) it suggests that the candidate has confidence if they're not afraid of a little chaos, (2) it suggests control if they can allow chaos and yet recover from it, and (3) it suggest an element of trust in the staff, which is something employees crave. Being a tight-ass suggests that the candidate is petty, controlling, scared and does not trust. These women came across as tight-asses.
Then there's the question of what they stood for. Amy stood for nothing at all. Warren stood for everything, kind of, only not as extreme as Bernie. Amy was that guest speaker who didn't prepare. Warren is that expert in some dry field who can't speak to anyone but other experts. Politics is about passion. Kennedy sold romance and youth. Reagan sold imagery of America. Clinton sold cool. Obama sold a new race-free America. Trump sold a huge middle finger to the elite. Warren? She has a statute book she'd like you to read. Female candidates rarely offer a vision and, when they do, it's often about being a woman candidate, which says nothing to the public... it only works for other women who feel oppressed by their gender.
Feminists seem to crave the wrong things. They want women candidates who build professional resumes but don't realize that achievements, not jobs, matter in politics. Oh, I see you were Undersecretary of Boring. They want women who project anger rather than confidence. "But men can do it!" they always scream as their candidates crash and burn to avoid difficult questions. The problem is they look at the bastards, the c*cksuckers, the douchbags and assume that this is acceptable conduct for men, but it's really not... it's a stereotype, but feminists are so sure they are being victimized that they delude themselves into believing the worst.
I don't think there's any reason a woman couldn't win either party's nomination. Nor do I think a woman can't be President. In fact, I suspect that the right woman would win in a landslide. The problem is that the wrong women keep running and the feminists latch onto the worst of the bunch to add insult to injury. Run a woman with a vision and achievements to back that up. Run a woman with confidence and a confident style, not one wallowing in anger and insecurity. It's really not that hard.
The left won't figure that out because they delude themselves when they lose, but they will soon start running only women -- the numbers and anger make it inevitable. Not this time, but probably by next time. In fact, look for them to pick a 2024 standard bearer soon and decide to push her no matter what.
Andrew, Name 3 great American female politicians since women were given the right to vote. Someone who stood for something and inspired followers, other than being the “first” at something. American. I can name a few in the rest of the world but I’m talking about here in this country.
ReplyDeleteI’ve always believed progressivism and women voting walked hand in hand over the last 100 years. Women will always vote for someone, or a policy, that will provide for them if their husband/breadwinner up and goes away.
I think that women see someone like Warren, Klobuchar and Gabbard and realize there ain’t no way they’re gonna be President and provide for them, so they go with the best chance candidate who they think will win and keep the goodies flowing.
You’re spot on for the impressions you stated above of how these politicians come off.
As an aside, I’d love to see Trump respond to his “misogyny” accusers of how they felt about Bill Clinton and his misogyny. Again, the women won’t respond because Clinton kept the goodies coming so anything he did was brushed off. They know Trump expects people to earn what they get, and not get something just because of a group they belong to. That will never fly in women as victims land.
Very nice post Andrew. Yeah, these two women were simply unlikable, as was HRC. And I totally agree with the preachy school mark analogy. I tend to like candidates who have succeeded in business rather than politics ... kind of along the lines of a CEO such as Carly. A good POTUS must instill confidence that they have sound judgement and put the right people in positions to succeed. Warren was a liar and hypocrite. Klobuchar had a background as a prosecutor who ignored misdeeds by her friends and donors. Harris’ who career was based on banging Willie Brown like a screen door in a tornado
ReplyDeleteI'll repeat what I've said from the get go that without charisma and an ideology that strikes a voter as reasonable a candidate will not find success no matter their race or gender.
ReplyDeleteHard to say when a woman will win the presidency. The right person needs to come along at the right time. If Alan Keyes, James Harris and Cynthia McKinney had been the only blacks running for the presidency in 2008, there would not have been a black president.
It's possible we've seen the future (2020 or beyond) first female president on the debate stage already, but I kinda doubt it. Elizabeth Warren is the tallest midget of the recent batch and she has the deadly label of 'university liberal'.
Patriot, I think there are a couple problems women face in that regard:
ReplyDelete1. Smaller number of women in the business means a smaller pool to choose from generally means few good candidates.
2. The type of women pulled into politics are not generally all that good, making the poll seem even worse. The same is true of men, but numbers hide the problem better with men, plus, the best men come from outside the system -- something women have not done as readily.
3. The left picks their women for ideological purity rather than quality, and that tends to mean they get the worst ones. At the same time, when a woman rises on the right, the left tries to destroy them. Consequently, most of the women left standing are worthless ideologues.
Thanks Jed! Good breakdown, especially on Harris and Amy. I'm amazed how often "sleeping your way up" is so acceptable to the left. But even beyond that, by making prosecutors into villains, the left is killing one of the easiest paths for women to become known and demonstrate ability. Typical leftists.
ReplyDeleteAnthony, Tallest midget is quite accurate. Eventually, the right woman will come along and we may already be looking at her. I would be that Facebook's Sheryl Sandberg would be an excellent candidate, except the left has been trying to destroy her because she's the voice for the Facebook boogeyman.
ReplyDeleteI'm going to write about the coronavirus soon. I was so scare that it might kill us all... but then our governor declared an emergency and now I feel so much better.
ReplyDelete// rolls eyes
People have gone seriously stupid.
Not much I can add except that it's a great analysis, Andrew. I was actually wondering if you were going to do a piece on the Kung Flu myself since nobody can seem to get away from chatter about it and the number of cancelations I'm seeing is starting to get a bit worrisome. About the mental state of the people ordering them anyway rather than the virus itself. At this point I'm more sick of the hype surrounding it than the virus itself.
ReplyDeleteDaniel, We. Are. All. Going. To. Die. Either from infection because of lack of toilet paper or just simply from abject stupidity.
ReplyDeleteAll kidding aside, it is worrisome that people are behaving so stupidly. I'll write about it.
Looking forward to it, Andrew. Reasonable precautions are certainly in order here but people are going beyond that and that's more worrisome than the Kung Flu itself. You know it's bad when comparisons to The Stand annoyed Stephen King to the point where he's actually a voice of reason on the subject. I'm especially interested in your thoughts on how and why it's elicited this kind of reaction from the public. It's not all or even mostly the media doing their usual politicized hype, is it?
ReplyDeleteI went to bed with the Corona virus being fake news woke up to a European travel ban, Tom Hanks being sick and the NBA being suspended indefintely.
ReplyDeleteI get the virus is only really dangerous to the sick and the elderly and I'm neither but of course I have family and friends that are so I hope the USG gets its act together sooner rather than later.
I’m curious as to what people expect our gov’t to do about this health scare? Provide more face masks? (China controlled supply chain) provide free vaccinations? (China controlled manufacturing). While the US still R&D’s many pharmaceuticals, the actual building up of the supply is mainly accomplished overseas and getting them here takes time through regular shipping channels (China controlled supply and logistics). Perhaps if there was enough of whatever drug was found effective that wasn’t being used in hard hit countries, the US could fly air cargo jets full of the vaccine, but no vaccine has been developed yet.
ReplyDeleteShort of using Chinese containment tactics (dragging people out of their homes and putting them in camps with other affected people) and declaring martial law, what should our omniscient politicians do?
How have we contained the flu virus (my understanding this covid-19 virus is another cold virus, albeit, newer strain) that the government helped out on?
My point is we shouldn’t ever rely on government to help us out on these health scares. Broad based, national directives don’t ever seem to work. What works is people taking responsibility for their health (washing hands, avoiding airports and cruise ships) and local/state governments putting in place appropriate measures to contain (we can never prevent) any “pandemic” possibility.
I believe many pharmaceutical companies are furiously working to develop some remedies for this new virus (the profit motive). It’s obvious existing vaccines aren’t working.
One final point...why do we have the WHO and CDC? It appears they’re good for repeating existing health actions and what to do and not do whenever we’re hit with a health scare. Rather than relying on the President to address the problem, why doesn’t he state that we give billions already to these organizations that are supposed to have response teams and or preventive measures in place already! Look to them to address it, not politicians!