Why hrc was right about white women - and their husbands

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:From the article: "Given the opportunity to make history by electing the first female president, women didn’t take it. And ironically, the women who bore the most resemblance to Clinton – white, heterosexual and married – were less likely to vote for her.”

Did you ever stop to think that maybe it’s because we saw right through her?
We saw who she was and didn’t want it.
We saw what she stood for, and didn’t want it.

I think it’s humorous that these people are still trying to cast blame and make excuses for Hillary’s loss.
It’s simple really. We rejected her and her politics. I know the liberals don’t want to admit that.

No, you were stupid. She stood for progress and equality, diligence and hard work. I'm a heterosexual, happily married, well educated, UMC white woman and I voted for Hillary.

You voted for a treasonous rapist. You must be so proud.

As opposed to someone who lets her husband rape other women and then scold the women?

As opposed to someone who committed treason against her country numerous times?

See how stupid my comments are. Your comments are equally stupid. Take a knee while you take a deep breath and come to terms with the reality that your Democratic Party caused Trump's election by forcing a woman on the public who was a joke. You must be so proud.

Well said.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Maybe if the Dems had let the better candidate run, we'd all be sitting here talking about how Bernie was dealing with North Korea.

Good point.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/sep/25/white-women-husbands-voting

White women, defend yourselves.

Trump won the majority of white women who voted

“White women more susceptible to pressure from their (mostly white) husbands”

“White women side less with all of womenhood than with their particular husband”

Interesting note:

“The more educated a woman was, the less likely they were to say women being able to support a family was important”

This tracks true with what you see on dcum. The more educated a woman is, the more she places value on male providers

“White women were most likely to dismiss the importance of women being able to support a family”

Translation: white women like being kept women the most and have providers

Overall eval of the above? Bullshit.

And if you had run a similar evaluation about black women the outcry would be deafening.

Had you read the article, you would have realized that black women hold much more independent views than white women based on survey data. That's the whole point of the article - married white women hold incredibly sheltered and paternalistic views about a women's place in the world.

Married white women tend to have different life experiences (economically and socially) than single white women or black women and that certainly affects their political thinking. It has little to do with the woman's place in the world or paternalistic views.

Are these “different life experiences” what cause them to also be drunks and lushes - because that also has been proven in the last year. There was a 20+ page dcum thread on it in off-topic. White women drink way more than women of other races, so much so that it’s affecting the collective life expectancy of white women.

I wonder if this collective drunkenness has addled their brains so much that they voted for trump

Self-medicating by drinking and angrily voting for Trump are symptoms of the same source of unhappiness: change to the status quo.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/sep/25/white-women-husbands-voting

White women, defend yourselves.

Trump won the majority of white women who voted

“White women more susceptible to pressure from their (mostly white) husbands”

“White women side less with all of womenhood than with their particular husband”

Interesting note:

“The more educated a woman was, the less likely they were to say women being able to support a family was important”

This tracks true with what you see on dcum. The more educated a woman is, the more she places value on male providers

“White women were most likely to dismiss the importance of women being able to support a family”

Translation: white women like being kept women the most and have providers

Overall eval of the above? Bullshit.

And if you had run a similar evaluation about black women the outcry would be deafening.

Had you read the article, you would have realized that black women hold much more independent views than white women based on survey data. That's the whole point of the article - married white women hold incredibly sheltered and paternalistic views about a women's place in the world.

Married white women tend to have different life experiences (economically and socially) than single white women or black women and that certainly affects their political thinking. It has little to do with the woman's place in the world or paternalistic views.

Are these “different life experiences” what cause them to also be drunks and lushes - because that also has been proven in the last year. There was a 20+ page dcum thread on it in off-topic. White women drink way more than women of other races, so much so that it’s affecting the collective life expectancy of white women.

I wonder if this collective drunkenness has addled their brains so much that they voted for trump

The white women I know who drink the most are single white women drinking with their girlfriends. And single white women voted overwhelmingly for Clinton.

The "dry" white women are likely to be religious and they voted heavily for Trump.

So your alcohol theory doesn't hold up. Perhaps the liberal white woman's brain is so addled from all the wine she drinks?

[Anonymous]

The stupid ones voted for Trump. We should analyze IQs not drinking scores.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I question a thread whose title alludes to which Hillary Rodham Clinton (aka HRC) commenting on the relationships of white women and their husbands. She hardly qualifies as an expert on marital relationships!

I also wonder what the OP thinks of husbands in Germany, Croatia, Estonia, Lithuania, Norway, Poland, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom who couldn't stop their wives from electing a qualified person (albeit a white woman) to run their countries.

I voted for a biracial man for President twice; I voted for a white woman for President not once. It wasn't "a woman"; it was "that woman."

If you don't chose to believe it, so be it.

Keep your pink pussy hats and your delusions. You will need them when a qualified woman becomes President of the United States in 2020.

Our first woman president will be Nikki Haley, in 2024. Mark this post.

No, it won't.

Nope. Our first woman president will be Susan Collins, in 2020.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Seriously? You just can't admit that women decide for themselves who to vote for? The most sexist attitude of all comes from you liberals who insist white women must have been persuaded, coerced, or bullied into voting for Trump - against their wishes, of course.

If anyone is setting back women, it's the left with their infantilizing of educated white women (and women in general).

It's appalling that you're actually blaming white women for HRC's loss, rather than taking a good, hard, dispassionate look at HRC herself and asking yourselves: why did my candidate lose? And then coming up with the correct answer, all on your own. She lost because she was an unappealing candidate. Own it and move on.

She was unappealing because of sexism. People are less likely to like strong women.

Psst: She was unappealing because Clinton is NOT a strong woman. She can't do anything on her own. She is the very sort of woman who would obey her husband's command to vote a certain way.

I'm a former R, and did not ever support the Clintons. I voted for both Bushes, but one thing I would never say about HRC is that she is a weak woman. No, she is a very strong woman, and though I may not agree with her, that is one thing I have often admired about her.. how tenacious she is. Even Trump admitted to that.

-signed a woman

Well, she fiercely defended her rapist husband so there's that.
She's strong - not ethics - but "strong" I suppose

If a woman accused your DH of rape, I'm going to assume that you love him so you would fiercely defend him. That doesn't make her "weak".

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Seriously? You just can't admit that women decide for themselves who to vote for? The most sexist attitude of all comes from you liberals who insist white women must have been persuaded, coerced, or bullied into voting for Trump - against their wishes, of course.

If anyone is setting back women, it's the left with their infantilizing of educated white women (and women in general).

It's appalling that you're actually blaming white women for HRC's loss, rather than taking a good, hard, dispassionate look at HRC herself and asking yourselves: why did my candidate lose? And then coming up with the correct answer, all on your own. She lost because she was an unappealing candidate. Own it and move on.

She was unappealing because of sexism. People are less likely to like strong women.

People are also less likely to like people who whine about being a victim constantly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Seriously? You just can't admit that women decide for themselves who to vote for? The most sexist attitude of all comes from you liberals who insist white women must have been persuaded, coerced, or bullied into voting for Trump - against their wishes, of course.

If anyone is setting back women, it's the left with their infantilizing of educated white women (and women in general).

It's appalling that you're actually blaming white women for HRC's loss, rather than taking a good, hard, dispassionate look at HRC herself and asking yourselves: why did my candidate lose? And then coming up with the correct answer, all on your own. She lost because she was an unappealing candidate. Own it and move on.

She was unappealing because of sexism. People are less likely to like strong women.

Psst: She was unappealing because Clinton is NOT a strong woman. She can't do anything on her own. She is the very sort of woman who would obey her husband's command to vote a certain way.

I'm a former R, and did not ever support the Clintons. I voted for both Bushes, but one thing I would never say about HRC is that she is a weak woman. No, she is a very strong woman, and though I may not agree with her, that is one thing I have often admired about her.. how tenacious she is. Even Trump admitted to that.

-signed a woman

Well, she fiercely defended her rapist husband so there's that.
She's strong - not ethics - but "strong" I suppose

First of all, there is no evidence that Clinton raped anyone, just as there is no evidence that Trump sexually assaulted anyone. All heresay. But, let's say both are true... what is worse, voting for someone who supported her husband from accusations of rape, or voting for someone who actually raped or sexually assaulted someone?

[Anonymous]

So it's OK to blame women for HRC's loss, but you can't blame HRC herself, because that would be sexist.

Wow, gotta give the libs credit for thinking out of the box.....

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So it's OK to blame women for HRC's loss, but you can't blame HRC herself, because that would be sexist.

Wow, gotta give the libs credit for thinking out of the box.....

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:From the article: "Given the opportunity to make history by electing the first female president, women didn’t take it. And ironically, the women who bore the most resemblance to Clinton – white, heterosexual and married – were less likely to vote for her.”

Did you ever stop to think that maybe it’s because we saw right through her?
We saw who she was and didn’t want it.
We saw what she stood for, and didn’t want it.

I think it’s humorous that these people are still trying to cast blame and make excuses for Hillary’s loss.
It’s simple really. We rejected her and her politics. I know the liberals don’t want to admit that.

No, you were stupid. She stood for progress and equality, diligence and hard work. I'm a heterosexual, happily married, well educated, UMC white woman and I voted for Hillary.

You voted for a treasonous rapist. You must be so proud.

As opposed to someone who lets her husband rape other women and then scold the women?

As opposed to someone who committed treason against her country numerous times?

See how stupid my comments are. Your comments are equally stupid. Take a knee while you take a deep breath and come to terms with the reality that your Democratic Party caused Trump's election by forcing a woman on the public who was a joke. You must be so proud.

STFU, Dotard. Go worry about your own marriage.

[Anonymous]

You Trumpkins think men should rule everything. Poor dears...stupid...please go to college

You're husband is a beta male and you have no respect for him.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am a white married woman in her 50's and many of my friends are similar. None of us voted for Trump.

Unless you were in the voting booth with them, you don't know how they voted,but I can see why your friends might have lied to you, you arrogant sack.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You Trumpkins think men should rule everything. Poor dears...stupid...please go to college

You're husband is a beta male and you have no respect for him.

It's "your", Dearie.