Ah yes, the two options: either misogyny isn't real, or its reality requires us to deferentially narrow women's prospects.
Reposted from
Grizwald
People who say this are very rarely willing to grapple with the implication of their thesis that Dems shouldn't nominate women for POTUS going forward.
I don't happen to think it's true, so I don't think it's a strategic mistake for Dems to nominate women when they're the best candidates.
I don't happen to think it's true, so I don't think it's a strategic mistake for Dems to nominate women when they're the best candidates.
Comments
This is america. A middle aged or older woman wouldn’t. Off the top of my head, I can’t think of any shallower or more conventional “first world” countries
OMG you hate all women!
The fact that you’d vote for Haley due to some perceived slight indicates you are not a serious person. Policy positions are meaningless to you, and you have zero standards or credibility. There is no point in discussing anything of substance with you.
And of course she'll have to run a perfect campaign (unlike male pols).
I mean Trump sexually assaulted two dozen women and he won twice. There are only so many ways to interpret that.
77 million (trump) voters say no to women potus. if dems want to win, they either shave some of those votes (w a white hetero male), or convince some non-voters to get off their ass
democracy is not ab the best one winning, it's ab (very stupid) people choosing.
I think a woman candidate actually chosen through a legitimate primary process could win the presidency.
know it consciously or not ppl resist being manipulated
The system needs to recognise there must be change, or it will be sated in the far right
They just give up!
And it's infuriating b/c winning or losing elections is not the only reason to give af about misogyny! wtaf