How can we combat deep misogyny?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's apparent that it runs incredibly deep in this country, where a woman's professional status is put under a significantly higher scrutiny than a man's, or the standards for which she could be put in the same professional level with a man (or higher) are impossibly unrealistic. She will never be "enough" even compared to males with mediocrity.

If we can somehow avoid talking about politics, can we please have a serious discussion about how deep misogyny runs in America (and yes, much more than many other places--or at least in different ways) and how we can successfully combat it? Is it possible? What do you think works well in other countries? What can we do here?

The reason we can't have a productive discussion about this, OP, is because you are assuming two conclusions which the majority of Americans simply don't agree with: 1) that the U.S. is deeply misogynistic country; and 2) that the U.S. is a uniquely misogynistic country.

Why does the US have to be uniquely misogynistic for us to want better for our own society?

It doesn't, of course. It's the childish "well, Ethan's parents let him do it so why can't I?"

Exactly!

[Anonymous]

Women supporting other women is how. If we worked collectively for the good of ALL women, misogyny wouldn't stand a chance. Instead internalized misogyny has women cutting each other down and infighting leaving the men to reap the benefits.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Put up a better female candidate next time and stop blaming it on this.

In what world is a grifter, rapist, insurrectionist, and convicted felon a better candidate?

I feel this is a bad answer. Put up a better Dem candidate. Then the grifter may have been beat. It takes two sides. But to directly answer your question -- a majority of people felt that the grifter was better than Harris. You may disagree. I disagree -- I did not vote for the grifter. But you have to understand that given the choice the majority picked the grifter. That says more about Harris than it does the grifter.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Put up a better female candidate next time and stop blaming it on this.

In what world is a grifter, rapist, insurrectionist, and convicted felon a better candidate?

I feel this is a bad answer. Put up a better Dem candidate. Then the grifter may have been beat. It takes two sides. But to directly answer your question -- a majority of people felt that the grifter was better than Harris. You may disagree. I disagree -- I did not vote for the grifter. But you have to understand that given the choice the majority picked the grifter. That says more about Harris than it does the grifter.

But it doesn't. It says a hell of a lot about the people who voted for him. It says a lot about their education, their priorities, their beliefs, their fears, but Kamala was a better candidate. I know she lost. I know the majority voted for Trump. You can even blame some of it on the priorities of the Democratic party. But it doesn't mean she wasn't infinitely a better candidate than trump.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Put up a better female candidate next time and stop blaming it on this.

In what world is a grifter, rapist, insurrectionist, and convicted felon a better candidate?

I feel this is a bad answer. Put up a better Dem candidate. Then the grifter may have been beat. It takes two sides. But to directly answer your question -- a majority of people felt that the grifter was better than Harris. You may disagree. I disagree -- I did not vote for the grifter. But you have to understand that given the choice the majority picked the grifter. That says more about Harris than it does the grifter.

WTF? No, it doesn't. The grifter is objectively the worse option. More people didn't "choose" him - his votes were flat. He only won because Ds stayed home.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Put up a better female candidate next time and stop blaming it on this.

In what world is a grifter, rapist, insurrectionist, and convicted felon a better candidate?

I feel this is a bad answer. Put up a better Dem candidate. Then the grifter may have been beat. It takes two sides. But to directly answer your question -- a majority of people felt that the grifter was better than Harris. You may disagree. I disagree -- I did not vote for the grifter. But you have to understand that given the choice the majority picked the grifter. That says more about Harris than it does the grifter.

But it doesn't. It says a hell of a lot about the people who voted for him. It says a lot about their education, their priorities, their beliefs, their fears, but Kamala was a better candidate. I know she lost. I know the majority voted for Trump. You can even blame some of it on the priorities of the Democratic party. But it doesn't mean she wasn't infinitely a better candidate than trump.

Exactly.

[Anonymous]

It may seem counterintuitive but many of us need to do some work on not blaming men for every social ill or casually snark that men are lesser beings and horrible by nature. I am seeing a lot of posts lately on DCUM where women feel completely comfortable making broad negative generalizations about men as a gender. This type of talk leads to more polarization rather than understanding. Misogyny cannot be reduced by retreating into gendered spaces and discourse. Misogyny will only die when men and women can see beyond gender stereotypes and view one another as individuals.

So in other words… no, misogyny will not die any time soon based on what I have been seeing these days. Men and women will increasingly hate one another until something larger forces a reckoning. Women had an opportunity when the old social structures started to fall away but they are showing that they are more interested in payback and acting like the worst men than they are with the idea of growing into a more balanced future.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Put up a better female candidate next time and stop blaming it on this.

In what world is a grifter, rapist, insurrectionist, and convicted felon a better candidate?

I feel this is a bad answer. Put up a better Dem candidate. Then the grifter may have been beat. It takes two sides. But to directly answer your question -- a majority of people felt that the grifter was better than Harris. You may disagree. I disagree -- I did not vote for the grifter. But you have to understand that given the choice the majority picked the grifter. That says more about Harris than it does the grifter.

But it doesn't. It says a hell of a lot about the people who voted for him. It says a lot about their education, their priorities, their beliefs, their fears, but Kamala was a better candidate. I know she lost. I know the majority voted for Trump. You can even blame some of it on the priorities of the Democratic party. But it doesn't mean she wasn't infinitely a better candidate than trump.

Exactly.

She was an absolutely horrible candidate, by any metric.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Put up a better female candidate next time and stop blaming it on this.

In what world is a grifter, rapist, insurrectionist, and convicted felon a better candidate?

I feel this is a bad answer. Put up a better Dem candidate. Then the grifter may have been beat. It takes two sides. But to directly answer your question -- a majority of people felt that the grifter was better than Harris. You may disagree. I disagree -- I did not vote for the grifter. But you have to understand that given the choice the majority picked the grifter. That says more about Harris than it does the grifter.

But it doesn't. It says a hell of a lot about the people who voted for him. It says a lot about their education, their priorities, their beliefs, their fears, but Kamala was a better candidate. I know she lost. I know the majority voted for Trump. You can even blame some of it on the priorities of the Democratic party. But it doesn't mean she wasn't infinitely a better candidate than trump.

Exactly.

She was an absolutely horrible candidate, by any metric.

Compared to Trump, she is a saint.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Put up a better female candidate next time and stop blaming it on this.

In what world is a grifter, rapist, insurrectionist, and convicted felon a better candidate?

I feel this is a bad answer. Put up a better Dem candidate. Then the grifter may have been beat. It takes two sides. But to directly answer your question -- a majority of people felt that the grifter was better than Harris. You may disagree. I disagree -- I did not vote for the grifter. But you have to understand that given the choice the majority picked the grifter. That says more about Harris than it does the grifter.

But it doesn't. It says a hell of a lot about the people who voted for him. It says a lot about their education, their priorities, their beliefs, their fears, but Kamala was a better candidate. I know she lost. I know the majority voted for Trump. You can even blame some of it on the priorities of the Democratic party. But it doesn't mean she wasn't infinitely a better candidate than trump.

The education? Keep telling yourselves that. You are flat out wrong. Start with Bill Ackman. Many many more out there just like him, and his wife.
Put up a better candidate. The majority of the country says that the Dems did not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Put up a better female candidate next time and stop blaming it on this.

In what world is a grifter, rapist, insurrectionist, and convicted felon a better candidate?

I feel this is a bad answer. Put up a better Dem candidate. Then the grifter may have been beat. It takes two sides. But to directly answer your question -- a majority of people felt that the grifter was better than Harris. You may disagree. I disagree -- I did not vote for the grifter. But you have to understand that given the choice the majority picked the grifter. That says more about Harris than it does the grifter.

But it doesn't. It says a hell of a lot about the people who voted for him. It says a lot about their education, their priorities, their beliefs, their fears, but Kamala was a better candidate. I know she lost. I know the majority voted for Trump. You can even blame some of it on the priorities of the Democratic party. But it doesn't mean she wasn't infinitely a better candidate than trump.

Exactly.

She was an absolutely horrible candidate, by any metric.

Compared to Trump, she is a saint.

That has little to do with either candidates' quality as a candidate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Put up a better female candidate next time and stop blaming it on this.

In what world is a grifter, rapist, insurrectionist, and convicted felon a better candidate?

I feel this is a bad answer. Put up a better Dem candidate. Then the grifter may have been beat. It takes two sides. But to directly answer your question -- a majority of people felt that the grifter was better than Harris. You may disagree. I disagree -- I did not vote for the grifter. But you have to understand that given the choice the majority picked the grifter. That says more about Harris than it does the grifter.

But it doesn't. It says a hell of a lot about the people who voted for him. It says a lot about their education, their priorities, their beliefs, their fears, but Kamala was a better candidate. I know she lost. I know the majority voted for Trump. You can even blame some of it on the priorities of the Democratic party. But it doesn't mean she wasn't infinitely a better candidate than trump.

The education? Keep telling yourselves that. You are flat out wrong. Start with Bill Ackman. Many many more out there just like him, and his wife.
Put up a better candidate. The majority of the country says that the Dems did not.

So you would have voted for someone other than Trump in this election if you had the choice?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Put up a better female candidate next time and stop blaming it on this.

In what world is a grifter, rapist, insurrectionist, and convicted felon a better candidate?

I feel this is a bad answer. Put up a better Dem candidate. Then the grifter may have been beat. It takes two sides. But to directly answer your question -- a majority of people felt that the grifter was better than Harris. You may disagree. I disagree -- I did not vote for the grifter. But you have to understand that given the choice the majority picked the grifter. That says more about Harris than it does the grifter.

But it doesn't. It says a hell of a lot about the people who voted for him. It says a lot about their education, their priorities, their beliefs, their fears, but Kamala was a better candidate. I know she lost. I know the majority voted for Trump. You can even blame some of it on the priorities of the Democratic party. But it doesn't mean she wasn't infinitely a better candidate than trump.

Exactly.

She was an absolutely horrible candidate, by any metric.

And 100000000000 times better than Trump.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Put up a better female candidate next time and stop blaming it on this.

In what world is a grifter, rapist, insurrectionist, and convicted felon a better candidate?

I feel this is a bad answer. Put up a better Dem candidate. Then the grifter may have been beat. It takes two sides. But to directly answer your question -- a majority of people felt that the grifter was better than Harris. You may disagree. I disagree -- I did not vote for the grifter. But you have to understand that given the choice the majority picked the grifter. That says more about Harris than it does the grifter.

But it doesn't. It says a hell of a lot about the people who voted for him. It says a lot about their education, their priorities, their beliefs, their fears, but Kamala was a better candidate. I know she lost. I know the majority voted for Trump. You can even blame some of it on the priorities of the Democratic party. But it doesn't mean she wasn't infinitely a better candidate than trump.

Exactly.

She was an absolutely horrible candidate, by any metric.

And 100000000000 times better than Trump.

He won, but he was in no way better or more qualified. You can keep telling yourself that a hate spewing criminal who tried to overturn the last election is better, but it just proves everything I said above.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Women supporting other women is how. If we worked collectively for the good of ALL women, misogyny wouldn't stand a chance. Instead internalized misogyny has women cutting each other down and infighting leaving the men to reap the benefits.

+1000