Why are white American men so afraid of a female POTUS?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I agree that it's this particular woman.

I am not a white male (I'm an American-born Asian guy), but I know and have discussed American politics with a lot of friends, colleagues and acquaintances who are like minded Caucasian men. Many of us supported Geraldine Ferraro. As a moderate, I have been supportive of a number of female politicians in the past (from both sides of the aisle): Connie Morella, Barbara Mikulski, Jean Kirkpatrick, Madeleine Albright.

However there are a number of female politicians, I cannot conscientiously support including Hillary Clinton. Another one was Sarah Palin. I notice that there were far fewer cries of sexism or that people were afraid of voting for Sarah Palin because they didn't want a female vice president. Clinton's gender may be historically significant but I believe that it is far less significant as to why people who are not voting for her are voting against her. She carries a huge volume of negative political baggage. Just because her supporters discount the baggage, does not mean that the baggage is a more signficant factor for her detractors than her gender. But apparently because her supporters can cast her political baggage as unimportant, everyone else must and therefore the only real reason anyone would vote against her is her gender.

Your argument is overly simplistic. Yes there are some men who are voting against her because they don't want a woman president, but I think there are far fewer of those than you think. There are probably more white men who are voting against her this year because they have just been through 8 years of a non-white male president and want to come back to a white male president (since that's all we've ever had prior to 2008), but I think the number of people who are actually voting this way is highly overestimated.

PP I can understand pretty much everything you have said, even if I don't necessarily agree, except when you place Sarah Palin and Hillary Clinton in the same sentence. Or context. Or discussion. Beyond the fact that they are both women, there are absolutely no parallels to be drawn between them. Sexism wasn't the issue with Palin, in fact it worked in her favor since she was seen as hot. Her undeniable and inexcusable stupidity is what people were afraid of. She would have been an even scarier proposition than Trump. And that, to me, says a lot.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I agree that it's this particular woman.

I am not a white male (I'm an American-born Asian guy), but I know and have discussed American politics with a lot of friends, colleagues and acquaintances who are like minded Caucasian men. Many of us supported Geraldine Ferraro. As a moderate, I have been supportive of a number of female politicians in the past (from both sides of the aisle): Connie Morella, Barbara Mikulski, Jean Kirkpatrick, Madeleine Albright.

However there are a number of female politicians, I cannot conscientiously support including Hillary Clinton. Another one was Sarah Palin. I notice that there were far fewer cries of sexism or that people were afraid of voting for Sarah Palin because they didn't want a female vice president. Clinton's gender may be historically significant but I believe that it is far less significant as to why people who are not voting for her are voting against her. She carries a huge volume of negative political baggage. Just because her supporters discount the baggage, does not mean that the baggage is a more signficant factor for her detractors than her gender. But apparently because her supporters can cast her political baggage as unimportant, everyone else must and therefore the only real reason anyone would vote against her is her gender.

Your argument is overly simplistic. Yes there are some men who are voting against her because they don't want a woman president, but I think there are far fewer of those than you think. There are probably more white men who are voting against her this year because they have just been through 8 years of a non-white male president and want to come back to a white male president (since that's all we've ever had prior to 2008), but I think the number of people who are actually voting this way is highly overestimated.

? Doesn't the bolded just support what I'm thinking? I don't know the numbers, and obviously, I don't know what the 70% of non educated white male voters who are supporting Trjmp are thinking, but I just can't help think there is some sexism going on here. Like I said, that statement by white repub males about HRC not smiling during the CIC forum really hit me.

Like I stated, my white DH is voting for HRC, so yes, I do know there are white men out there who support her.

[Anonymous]

I see that recent comments have ignored the subject line and challenges to it completely.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My DH is white and voting for HRC. So, yes, I know there are white American men who don't support Trump. But, a vast majority do.

NP. As a white male, I gotta speak up here. The vast majority of support Trump gets is from the no-college-education white men. His support drops dramatically among those of us with a college degree. No way am I supporting that piece of garbage. I wouldn't trust him to manage a Foot Locker.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I see that recent comments have ignored the subject line and challenges to it completely.

OP here. Someone also seems to have removed the "majority" I added to the subject line.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I see that recent comments have ignored the subject line and challenges to it completely.

OP here. Someone also seems to have removed the "majority" I added to the subject line.

OH, nm.. hm.. I can't change the subject line.

[Anonymous]

After being at the top of the food chain for so long, white men are afraid of being irrelevant, and society not having a place for them. What you see is them acting out in a child-like "what about me??" tantrum.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I agree that it's this particular woman.

I am not a white male (I'm an American-born Asian guy), but I know and have discussed American politics with a lot of friends, colleagues and acquaintances who are like minded Caucasian men. Many of us supported Geraldine Ferraro. As a moderate, I have been supportive of a number of female politicians in the past (from both sides of the aisle): Connie Morella, Barbara Mikulski, Jean Kirkpatrick, Madeleine Albright.

However there are a number of female politicians, I cannot conscientiously support including Hillary Clinton. Another one was Sarah Palin. I notice that there were far fewer cries of sexism or that people were afraid of voting for Sarah Palin because they didn't want a female vice president. Clinton's gender may be historically significant but I believe that it is far less significant as to why people who are not voting for her are voting against her. She carries a huge volume of negative political baggage. Just because her supporters discount the baggage, does not mean that the baggage is a more signficant factor for her detractors than her gender. But apparently because her supporters can cast her political baggage as unimportant, everyone else must and therefore the only real reason anyone would vote against her is her gender.

Your argument is overly simplistic. Yes there are some men who are voting against her because they don't want a woman president, but I think there are far fewer of those than you think. There are probably more white men who are voting against her this year because they have just been through 8 years of a non-white male president and want to come back to a white male president (since that's all we've ever had prior to 2008), but I think the number of people who are actually voting this way is highly overestimated.

PP I can understand pretty much everything you have said, even if I don't necessarily agree, except when you place Sarah Palin and Hillary Clinton in the same sentence. Or context. Or discussion. Beyond the fact that they are both women, there are absolutely no parallels to be drawn between them. Sexism wasn't the issue with Palin, in fact it worked in her favor since she was seen as hot. Her undeniable and inexcusable stupidity is what people were afraid of. She would have been an even scarier proposition than Trump. And that, to me, says a lot.

My point is that people automatically characterized votes against Sarah Palin based on various issues, including the ones that you cite. And the arguments against voting for her have nothing to do with gender. Too many blind Democrats, ignore the fact that moderate and conservative voters may have the same attitude towards Clinton. There are many, many polls that cite that very large groups of people are not supporting Clinton because they question her integrity and her truthfulness, her ability to follow rules and regulations. If you want a list of issues for why she is scary to many people, just Google "hillary rodham clinton scandal" and see how many billions of hits you get about the many, many questionable incidents that have occurred over her long political career. She has a huge amount of baggage. For many of us, she has far more baggage than Sarah Palin ever did. I would never vote for Palin, but I would also never vote for Clinton. And in both cases, it has nothing to do with their gender. But for some reason, people who are willing to discount Clinton's political baggage, cannot accept that others are not so blind to her political history and they simplistically characterize the opposition to her as only about her gender.

Sexism is again not the issue. Or it if is, it is a minor issue. I would guess that the number of people who are voting on gender is a relatively small and not particularly significant percentage of the voters.

[Anonymous]

Why is the female POTUS (god I hate that word) in waiting so afraid of white American men?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why is the female POTUS (god I hate that word) in waiting so afraid of white American men?

She's not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My DH is white and voting for HRC. So, yes, I know there are white American men who don't support Trump. But, a vast majority do.

NP. As a white male, I gotta speak up here. The vast majority of support Trump gets is from the no-college-education white men. His support drops dramatically among those of us with a college degree. No way am I supporting that piece of garbage. I wouldn't trust him to manage a Foot Locker.

Agreed. Overall educated, people skew against Trump. But, even educated white males tend to prefer Trump.

"In the most recent ABC News/Washington Post poll, released May 22, Trump led Clinton among men overall (56 percent to 34 percent), white male college graduates (59 to 33) and white men without college degrees (76 to 14)."

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/donald-trumps-sizable-lead-white-male-voters-increases/story?id=39526363

I think the DC area leans heavily towards HRC to begin with. But if you go out of this area, I think the numbers speak for itself. The poll numbers were done back in May, so I don't know if the numbers have changed all that much now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why is the female POTUS (god I hate that word) in waiting so afraid of white American men?

She's not.

yea that comment makes no sense. You know she's married to white American man, right?

[Anonymous]

It doesn't matter who she is married to, she hasn't been able to brow beat the other men in this world like she has Billy boy. The real question is why to white women, including HRC, hate white men so much? This whole board shows on a continuous basis the contempt for men, why?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I agree that it's this particular woman.

I am not a white male (I'm an American-born Asian guy), but I know and have discussed American politics with a lot of friends, colleagues and acquaintances who are like minded Caucasian men. Many of us supported Geraldine Ferraro. As a moderate, I have been supportive of a number of female politicians in the past (from both sides of the aisle): Connie Morella, Barbara Mikulski, Jean Kirkpatrick, Madeleine Albright.

However there are a number of female politicians, I cannot conscientiously support including Hillary Clinton. Another one was Sarah Palin. I notice that there were far fewer cries of sexism or that people were afraid of voting for Sarah Palin because they didn't want a female vice president. Clinton's gender may be historically significant but I believe that it is far less significant as to why people who are not voting for her are voting against her. She carries a huge volume of negative political baggage. Just because her supporters discount the baggage, does not mean that the baggage is a more signficant factor for her detractors than her gender. But apparently because her supporters can cast her political baggage as unimportant, everyone else must and therefore the only real reason anyone would vote against her is her gender.

Your argument is overly simplistic. Yes there are some men who are voting against her because they don't want a woman president, but I think there are far fewer of those than you think. There are probably more white men who are voting against her this year because they have just been through 8 years of a non-white male president and want to come back to a white male president (since that's all we've ever had prior to 2008), but I think the number of people who are actually voting this way is highly overestimated.

PP I can understand pretty much everything you have said, even if I don't necessarily agree, except when you place Sarah Palin and Hillary Clinton in the same sentence. Or context. Or discussion. Beyond the fact that they are both women, there are absolutely no parallels to be drawn between them. Sexism wasn't the issue with Palin, in fact it worked in her favor since she was seen as hot. Her undeniable and inexcusable stupidity is what people were afraid of. She would have been an even scarier proposition than Trump. And that, to me, says a lot.

My point is that people automatically characterized votes against Sarah Palin based on various issues, including the ones that you cite. And the arguments against voting for her have nothing to do with gender. Too many blind Democrats, ignore the fact that moderate and conservative voters may have the same attitude towards Clinton. There are many, many polls that cite that very large groups of people are not supporting Clinton because they question her integrity and her truthfulness, her ability to follow rules and regulations. If you want a list of issues for why she is scary to many people, just Google "hillary rodham clinton scandal" and see how many billions of hits you get about the many, many questionable incidents that have occurred over her long political career. She has a huge amount of baggage. For many of us, she has far more baggage than Sarah Palin ever did. I would never vote for Palin, but I would also never vote for Clinton. And in both cases, it has nothing to do with their gender. But for some reason, people who are willing to discount Clinton's political baggage, cannot accept that others are not so blind to her political history and they simplistically characterize the opposition to her as only about her gender.

Sexism is again not the issue. Or it if is, it is a minor issue. I would guess that the number of people who are voting on gender is a relatively small and not particularly significant percentage of the voters.

There are indeed some who discount her political baggage, but clearly not a significant number or she would be running away with this election. I do not agree with the OP that gender is the main issue voters have with Clinton (male or otherwise), but the visceral hatred for her, as opposed to simply disagreeing with her politics or any questionable practices, does suggest to me that there is far more than just this baggage weighing her down.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Your argument is overly simplistic. Yes there are some men who are voting against her because they don't want a woman president, but I think there are far fewer of those than you think. There are probably more white men who are voting against her this year because they have just been through 8 years of a non-white male president and want to come back to a white male president (since that's all we've ever had prior to 2008), but I think the number of people who are actually voting this way is highly overestimated.

? Doesn't the bolded just support what I'm thinking? I don't know the numbers, and obviously, I don't know what the 70% of non educated white male voters who are supporting Trjmp are thinking, but I just can't help think there is some sexism going on here. Like I said, that statement by white repub males about HRC not smiling during the CIC forum really hit me.

Like I stated, my white DH is voting for HRC, so yes, I do know there are white men out there who support her.

I think you changed the context of what I wrote. Yes, the bolded part does support what you opined. However, I wanted to stress the underlined. I think there are some, but I think that the framing of the OP and the focus of your discussion are vastly overstated. I think that while it may affect some people, I think it is not a huge statistically significant portion of the voting population that are voting based on gender and that your subject makes it sound like a huge majority or all white men, when I think it is a relatively small and less significant number of white men who are voting this way.