May, Clinton and selective accusations of Sexism

[The Reach Clans]

It amuses me to think that many of the British Leftists, who blamed Hillary Clinton’s defeat on her being a woman and the sexism of those who voted against her, are very likely to be people who are going to be voting against Theresa May in June this year. And I guarantee that Mrs. May’s gender will never be brought up by their side.

They will not celebrate her as a woman who has climbed to the top of a patriarchal society on her own merit and cunning to become one of the most powerful people in the world. If she wins the election, they will not celebrate her defeat of a cis, white, heterosexual man who went to private school, they will view her as a she-devil who brutally called a snap election to utterly crush the opposition party and its idealistic and amiable leader when they were already on the ropes.

They will claim to judge Mrs. May exclusively by the quality of her character and her policies. They will claim it is because of the cuts to disability funding that have occurred under her leadership, the creeping privatisation of the NHS, the tax breaks for the wealthy and her support for a “hard Brexit”. Their opposition to her Prime Ministership will NEVER be because of her being a woman.

And yet, people voted against Hillary Clinton because of the patriarchal oppressive impulses from men scared of losing their power and the internalised misogyny of the women who voted against her.
It couldn’t have possibly been because, at a time when people had grown deeply frustrated with the status quo, Hillary Clinton was its living embodiment. It couldn’t have possibly been because of her decades-long public track record of abusing her power for cronyism, her sketchy financial donors, professional misconduct and prolific penchant for lies. It couldn’t have possibly been an American weariness of political dynasty, especially in the wake of a second Bush in office. It couldn’t possibly have been because of fears for her mental faculties in light of shocking footage showing her apparently having seizures and collapsing spells throughout the campaign.

It couldn’t possibly have been any of those things that put people off voting for Mrs. Clinton. It couldn’t possibly have been because of who she seems to be as a person - an individual. No! It was because she had a vagina and people hate that! Especially other white women!

I don’t think the British Left will become aware of their double standards on this issue as the general election campaign goes forward. And if they did become aware of their hypocrisy, they might have to ask themselves if they are being sexist in supporting candidates other than Theresa May.

Apparently identity politics and the importance of having women in leadership roles doesn’t matter when the “minority candidate” is somebody you disagree with.

People of general, are you a Leftist who opposes female candidates like May and Le Pen in their bids for office? Why are you not being sexist in opposing them but people who voted against Clinton were being sexist in not voting for her? (I have to think of some question to ask to avoid this being a blog post!)

[The Wolfiad]

You know what's even worse than that? Right-wingers who suddenly become massive feminists and opportunistically use arguments like this whilst not giving a hoot for the principle.

[Proctopeo]

You know what's even worse than that? Right-wingers who suddenly become massive feminists and opportunistically use arguments like this whilst not giving a hoot for the principle.

Seems to me more like it's the old tactic of "turning their logic against them" than "suddenly became a massive feminist".

[The Reach Clans]

You know what's even worse than that? Right-wingers who suddenly become massive feminists and opportunistically use arguments like this whilst not giving a hoot for the principle.

I'm not Right-wing. Every political quiz I take puts me economically left and more socially libertarian than the average person who takes the quiz. And I am not a feminist, I am an egalitarian who believes in equal opportunity, not necessarily equal outcomes. I merely use the language of contemporary feminists to parrot their points back at them and highlight a discrepancy.

I am just somebody who has grown tired of the portion of the Left that has grown so fixated on identity politics and collectivist thinking.

[The Wolfiad]

You know what's even worse than that? Right-wingers who suddenly become massive feminists and opportunistically use arguments like this whilst not giving a hoot for the principle.

Seems to me more like it's the old tactic of "turning their logic against them" than "suddenly became a massive feminist".

It's rhetorical.

[Proctopeo]

Seems to me more like it's the old tactic of "turning their logic against them" than "suddenly became a massive feminist".

It's rhetorical.

Rhetorical questions can be contested.

[The Wolfiad]

You know what's even worse than that? Right-wingers who suddenly become massive feminists and opportunistically use arguments like this whilst not giving a hoot for the principle.

Seems to me more like it's the old tactic of "turning their logic against them" than "suddenly became a massive feminist".

It's rhetorical.

You know what's even worse than that? Right-wingers who suddenly become massive feminists and opportunistically use arguments like this whilst not giving a hoot for the principle.

I'm not Right-wing. Every political quiz I take puts me economically left and more socially libertarian than the average person who takes the quiz. And I am not a feminist, I am an egalitarian who believes in equal opportunity, not necessarily equal outcomes. I merely use the language of contemporary feminists to parrot their points back at them and highlight a discrepancy.

I am just somebody who has grown tired of the portion of the Left that has grown so fixated on identity politics and collectivist thinking.

The difference between Clinton and Le Pen is that Clinton didn't advocate the oppression and marginalisation of certain groups in society. Feminists don't support that. Clinton was a feminist and a woman. May is different, I'd say she has a feminist record having drafted up the Tories' A-list, but arguably she supports a lot of policies that result in female oppression.

That said, I don't necessarily agree with it.

It's rhetorical.

Rhetorical questions can be contested.

Very well. There seems to be a habit of right-wingers doing this whilst themselves not believing in the logic they've just turned against them. Isn't pointing out the hypocrisy they profess exists hypocritical in itself, because suddenly they care about feminism and they start advocating for 'how you feminists should actually think'? That's problematic and hypocritical. Same with the 'go protest issues about the third world'; if you're saying that, why don't you go do it too instead of using red herrings or proper arguments to discredit feminism?

[Conserative Morality]

It amuses me to think that many of the British Leftists, who blamed Hillary Clinton’s defeat on her being a woman and the sexism of those who voted against her, are very likely to be people who are going to be voting against Theresa May in June this year. And I guarantee that Mrs. May’s gender will never be brought up by their side.

They will not celebrate her as a woman who has climbed to the top of a patriarchal society on her own merit and cunning to become one of the most powerful people in the world. If she wins the election, they will not celebrate her defeat of a cis, white, heterosexual man who went to private school, they will view her as a she-devil who brutally called a snap election to utterly crush the opposition party and its idealistic and amiable leader when they were already on the ropes.

They will claim to judge Mrs. May exclusively by the quality of her character and her policies. They will claim it is because of the cuts to disability funding that have occurred under her leadership, the creeping privatisation of the NHS, the tax breaks for the wealthy and her support for a “hard Brexit”. Their opposition to her Prime Ministership will NEVER be because of her being a woman.

And yet, people voted against Hillary Clinton because of the patriarchal oppressive impulses from men scared of losing their power and the internalised misogyny of the women who voted against her.
It couldn’t have possibly been because, at a time when people had grown deeply frustrated with the status quo, Hillary Clinton was its living embodiment. It couldn’t have possibly been because of her decades-long public track record of abusing her power for cronyism, her sketchy financial donors, professional misconduct and prolific penchant for lies. It couldn’t have possibly been an American weariness of political dynasty, especially in the wake of a second Bush in office. It couldn’t possibly have been because of fears for her mental faculties in light of shocking footage showing her apparently having seizures and collapsing spells throughout the campaign.

She was running against Trump. All of that is peanuts compared to our local orange businessman. He has all that and a bag of chips.

It's a simple double-standard. Many people even believe they don't have it while viciously pursuing it. "Women that agree with me are harmless and correct, women that disagree with me are dangerous bitches who need to be taught a lesson." It's a power dynamic.

Worst part is? I say all of this as someone who deeply dislikes Clinton, voted for Bernie, and then Johnson in the general despite hating libertarians. I'm no fan of Clinton. But I recognize that there is a double standard often applied to women in power, and Clinton was no exception.

It couldn’t possibly have been any of those things that put people off voting for Mrs. Clinton. It couldn’t possibly have been because of who she seems to be as a person - an individual. No! It was because she had a vagina and people hate that! Especially other white women!

I don’t think the British Left will become aware of their double standards on this issue as the general election campaign goes forward. And if they did become aware of their hypocrisy, they might have to ask themselves if they are being sexist in supporting candidates other than Theresa May.

Apparently identity politics and the importance of having women in leadership roles doesn’t matter when the “minority candidate” is somebody you disagree with.

People of general, are you a Leftist who opposes female candidates like May and Le Pen in their bids for office? Why are you not being sexist in opposing them but people who voted against Clinton were being sexist in not voting for her? (I have to think of some question to ask to avoid this being a blog post!)

Because our reason for opposing them isn't "WOMAN"

[The Reach Clans]

The difference between Clinton and Le Pen is that Clinton didn't advocate the oppression and marginalisation of certain groups in society. Feminists don't support that. Clinton was a feminist and a woman. May is different, I'd say she has a feminist record having drafted up the Tories' A-list, but arguably she supports a lot of policies that result in female oppression.

That said, I don't necessarily agree with it.

Fair enough on Le Pen. Though, before she came out (hah!) as saying that she was going to oppose gay marriage and implicitly block gay adoption, I didn't think any of her ideas were particularly heinous.

Which Conservative policies overtly oppress women? I can point to many of their policies that fuck over the most vulnerable in British society - those with physical and mental impairments or mental health issues, those unable to find work, the young, the old - but I can't think of any that actually affect women exclusively as a group.

[Kannap]

People of general, are you a Leftist who opposes female candidates like May and Le Pen in their bids for office? Why are you not being sexist in opposing them but people who voted against Clinton were being sexist in not voting for her? (I have to think of some question to ask to avoid this being a blog post!)

I am speaking as an American here, so I will not pretend I know and understand the depth of the politics of France or the UK. All my snippets of information are learned from friends and acquaintances who are British or French, and admittedly they're probably biased. From what snippets I have heard, I would have to say that if I lived in those nations, my opposition to May or Le Pen would be equal to the reasons for my opposition towards Trump. As an American who is registered independent and unaffiliated officially with any party, I voted some Republics on lower levels, but for President I had to vote Hillary because I felt that she was the lesser of the two evils.

That being said, I wish the best of luck to the French and the British and hope that they do what they think is right for their nations.

[The Reach Clans]

She was running against Trump. All of that is peanuts compared to our local orange businessman. He has all that and a bag of chips.

It's a simple double-standard. Many people even believe they don't have it while viciously pursuing it. "Women that agree with me are harmless and correct, women that disagree with me are dangerous bitches who need to be taught a lesson." It's a power dynamic.

Worst part is? I say all of this as someone who deeply dislikes Clinton, voted for Bernie, and then Johnson in the general despite hating libertarians. I'm no fan of Clinton. But I recognize that there is a double standard often applied to women in power, and Clinton was no exception.

Because our reason for opposing them isn't "WOMAN"

I will certainly grant you that most people will not vote against Theresa May because she is a woman, but why should your political opposites not be afforded the same courtesy? Why would you assume the worst possible motivations for them but never consider your own side potentially having the same bigoted impulses?

I am speaking as an American here, so I will not pretend I know and understand the depth of the politics of France or the UK. All my snippets of information are learned from friends and acquaintances who are British or French, and admittedly they're probably biased. From what snippets I have heard, I would have to say that if I lived in those nations, my opposition to May or Le Pen would be equal to the reasons for my opposition towards Trump. As an American who is registered independent and unaffiliated officially with any party, I voted some Republics on lower levels, but for President I had to vote Hillary because I felt that she was the lesser of the two evils.

That being said, I wish the best of luck to the French and the British and hope that they do what they think is right for their nations.

A perfectly valid and reasonable position to hold, I just wish that the Left would concede that the other side has valid reasons to vote against a female candidate too. And I'm sure there are plenty of Leftists who are able to concede that there were valid reasons to vote against Clinton (I know there are, I've heard/read them saying as much), but almost all of my 20-something, middle-class, tertiary educated friends just shrug off Clinton's defeat as a sexist conspiracy.

[Jello Biafra]

People of general, are you a Leftist who opposes female candidates like May and Le Pen in their bids for office? Why are you not being sexist in opposing them but people who voted against Clinton were being sexist in not voting for her? (I have to think of some question to ask to avoid this being a blog post!)

Aside from the obvious in that many people used sexist language when insulting Hillary, there's actual evidence of sexism in opposition to her.

[Ashmoria]

i don't think it is good debate practice to diss someone over something you THINK they will say a month from now.

[Kannap]

She was running against Trump. All of that is peanuts compared to our local orange businessman. He has all that and a bag of chips.

It's a simple double-standard. Many people even believe they don't have it while viciously pursuing it. "Women that agree with me are harmless and correct, women that disagree with me are dangerous bitches who need to be taught a lesson." It's a power dynamic.

Worst part is? I say all of this as someone who deeply dislikes Clinton, voted for Bernie, and then Johnson in the general despite hating libertarians. I'm no fan of Clinton. But I recognize that there is a double standard often applied to women in power, and Clinton was no exception.

Because our reason for opposing them isn't "WOMAN"

I will certainly grant you that most people will not vote against Theresa May because she is a woman, but why should your political opposites not be afforded the same courtesy? Why would you assume the worst possible motivations for them but never consider your own side potentially having the same bigoted impulses?

I am speaking as an American here, so I will not pretend I know and understand the depth of the politics of France or the UK. All my snippets of information are learned from friends and acquaintances who are British or French, and admittedly they're probably biased. From what snippets I have heard, I would have to say that if I lived in those nations, my opposition to May or Le Pen would be equal to the reasons for my opposition towards Trump. As an American who is registered independent and unaffiliated officially with any party, I voted some Republics on lower levels, but for President I had to vote Hillary because I felt that she was the lesser of the two evils.

That being said, I wish the best of luck to the French and the British and hope that they do what they think is right for their nations.

A perfectly valid and reasonable position to hold, I just wish that the Left would concede that the other side has valid reasons to vote against a female candidate too. And I'm sure there are plenty of Leftists who are able to concede that there were valid reasons to vote against Clinton (I know there are, I've heard/read them saying as much), but almost all of my 20-something, middle-class, tertiary educated friends just shrug off Clinton's defeat as a sexist conspiracy.

Eh, Clinton's defeat was the idiocy of the Democratic Party putting up the candidate they shouldn't have put up instead of the candidate people wanted. They suffered the consequences.

[The Reach Clans]

People of general, are you a Leftist who opposes female candidates like May and Le Pen in their bids for office? Why are you not being sexist in opposing them but people who voted against Clinton were being sexist in not voting for her? (I have to think of some question to ask to avoid this being a blog post!)

Aside from the obvious in that many people used sexist language when insulting Hillary, there's actual evidence of sexism in opposition to her.

Blood hell, dude! 29 pages and it's an automatic download! Wish you'd put a warning on that because I'm certainly triggered... That'll take a while to sift through, but I'll admit there was some pretty sexist comments made by Trump, which amusingly did even rile up Fox News.
And sexism was probably a factor for a minority of Republican voters, but the majority of Left-leaning people I have spoken to regarding Clinton's defeat assume her gender was the primary factor in her defeat and adamantly explain away any negative aspects to her character or professional history as being minor faults or only excuses used to cover up misogynistic impulses.

i don't think it is good debate practice to diss someone over something you THINK they will say a month from now.

It's more about what they've already said (in the wake of Clinton's defeat).

Eh, Clinton's defeat was the idiocy of the Democratic Party putting up the candidate they shouldn't have put up instead of the candidate people wanted. They suffered the consequences.

I'm in 100% agreement with you there. Were I an American, I would have voted for Bernie Sanders. But, the DNC's active sabotage of his campaign (and that sabotage being exposed) cost them dearly and drove away a lot of people who might have otherwise voted for them out of party loyalty.

[Alvecia]

i don't think it is good debate practice to diss someone over something you THINK they will say a month from now.

It's more about what they've already said (in the wake of Clinton's defeat).

What is that, if I May ask.

[Arcturus Novus]

It isn't sexist to hate shitty politicians.

[Diopolis]

It definitely seems like the left(well, the mainstream, establishment left in anglophone countries at least) has a thing for crying sexism when one of their own loses an election, but happily opposes right wing female politicians. Granted, they also cry sexism when a male left-wing politician is defeated, and in the case of Clinton specifically there were some legitimate reasons to talk about sexism in that regards(granted, most of this was due to her... unusual opponent, but it's still a valid point to make).

[The Reach Clans]

What is that, if I May ask.

That Clinton's defeat was largely down to the sexism of those who voted against her, with people dismissing valid criticisms of her as secondary at best. Not all leftists reacted that way, of course (I'm one and didn't), but anecdotally, that's the main excuse for her loss that I see among peers.

It isn't sexist to hate shitty politicians.

I totally agree. I just wish the collectivist/identity politics-oriented section of the Left understood that.

It definitely seems like the left(well, the mainstream, establishment left in anglophone countries at least) has a thing for crying sexism when one of their own loses an election, but happily opposes right wing female politicians. Granted, they also cry sexism when a male left-wing politician is defeated, and in the case of Clinton specifically there were some legitimate reasons to talk about sexism in that regards(granted, most of this was due to her... unusual opponent, but it's still a valid point to make).

Aye, seems that way. And I agree that there were those driven by sexism, but I just think those who consider it the major factor in her defeat to be extremely uncharitable to the majority of their opponents.

[Diopolis]

Seems to me more like it's the old tactic of "turning their logic against them" than "suddenly became a massive feminist".

It's rhetorical.

I'm not Right-wing. Every political quiz I take puts me economically left and more socially libertarian than the average person who takes the quiz. And I am not a feminist, I am an egalitarian who believes in equal opportunity, not necessarily equal outcomes. I merely use the language of contemporary feminists to parrot their points back at them and highlight a discrepancy.

I am just somebody who has grown tired of the portion of the Left that has grown so fixated on identity politics and collectivist thinking.

The difference between Clinton and Le Pen is that Clinton didn't advocate the oppression and marginalisation of certain groups in society. Feminists don't support that. Clinton was a feminist and a woman. May is different, I'd say she has a feminist record having drafted up the Tories' A-list, but arguably she supports a lot of policies that result in female oppression.

That said, I don't necessarily agree with it.

Rhetorical questions can be contested.

Very well. There seems to be a habit of right-wingers doing this whilst themselves not believing in the logic they've just turned against them. Isn't pointing out the hypocrisy they profess exists hypocritical in itself, because suddenly they care about feminism and they start advocating for 'how you feminists should actually think'? That's problematic and hypocritical. Same with the 'go protest issues about the third world'; if you're saying that, why don't you go do it too instead of using red herrings or proper arguments to discredit feminism?

It's not exactly hypocrisy to try to make your opponent's argument work against them.

[Gun Manufacturers]

I wouldn't have voted for Hillary even if she was a man. It wasn't about her gender, it was about her politics. BTW, I voted for Johnson.

[Jello Biafra]

It definitely seems like the left(well, the mainstream, establishment left in anglophone countries at least) has a thing for crying sexism when one of their own loses an election, but happily opposes right wing female politicians. Granted, they also cry sexism when a male left-wing politician is defeated, and in the case of Clinton specifically there were some legitimate reasons to talk about sexism in that regards(granted, most of this was due to her... unusual opponent, but it's still a valid point to make).

Can you think of another female politician who didn't have sexist language used against her, (particularly by her opponent), who lost her election, but who a large portion of her supporters assume was the victim of sexism anyway? (Ignoring that again, there is evidence of sexism against Clinton from voters.)

[Proctopeo]

It's rhetorical.


The difference between Clinton and Le Pen is that Clinton didn't advocate the oppression and marginalisation of certain groups in society. Feminists don't support that. Clinton was a feminist and a woman. May is different, I'd say she has a feminist record having drafted up the Tories' A-list, but arguably she supports a lot of policies that result in female oppression.

That said, I don't necessarily agree with it.


Very well. There seems to be a habit of right-wingers doing this whilst themselves not believing in the logic they've just turned against them. Isn't pointing out the hypocrisy they profess exists hypocritical in itself, because suddenly they care about feminism and they start advocating for 'how you feminists should actually think'? That's problematic and hypocritical. Same with the 'go protest issues about the third world'; if you're saying that, why don't you go do it too instead of using red herrings or proper arguments to discredit feminism?

It's not exactly hypocrisy to try to make your opponent's argument work against them.

Exactly; to do so, you don't have to believe it. All that matters is that your opponents do.

[Frank Zipper]

There are lots of reasons to vote against Theresa May that have nothing to do with sexism.

[Major-Tom]

You know what's even worse than that? Right-wingers who suddenly become massive feminists and opportunistically use arguments like this whilst not giving a hoot for the principle.

"I'm with Her, and by her I mean LePen lololol"