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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Who says they're against her because she's a woman? Maybe they don't like a lying, conniving, corrupt, ethically bankrupt PERSON as president, and have decided she is worse than Trump. No good choices in this election.

Just like everything isn't about race, not everything is about gender.

OP here. But like I said, same can be said about Trump. He is just as morally bankrupt, hypocritical, conniving, and a liar as much as she is. Is that it's ok for a man to be like this because it shows he's tough, but if a woman has these traits, she's just a bad person?

So if I can flip the question on you, OP, why are minorities so afraid of a male POTUS?

See? The question makes no sense.

[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.

OP here.. I think ardent HRC supporters are pretty blind to her faults, too. I am not one of them. Like I stated, I am reluctantly voting for her.

But, looking at your last statement in bolded, my gut feeling is that there are many men who subconsciously aren't voting for her because she is a woman . Obviously, neither you nor I really know. I just wonder about it, and wonder if some men don't even realize it. Again that comment about HRC not smiling during the CIC forum made me really wonder.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Who says they're against her because she's a woman? Maybe they don't like a lying, conniving, corrupt, ethically bankrupt PERSON as president, and have decided she is worse than Trump. No good choices in this election.

Just like everything isn't about race, not everything is about gender.

OP here. But like I said, same can be said about Trump. He is just as morally bankrupt, hypocritical, conniving, and a liar as much as she is. Is that it's ok for a man to be like this because it shows he's tough, but if a woman has these traits, she's just a bad person?

So if I can flip the question on you, OP, why are minorities so afraid of a male POTUS?

See? The question makes no sense.

I don't think minorities are afraid of a male POTUS since many voted for Obama. That flipped question makes no sense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

OP here. But, why do so many of the ardent HRC haters hate her for the very same type of behaviors that Trump exhibits -- lying, conniving, arrogance, hypocrisy?

[Anonymous]

You would be wrong, haven't you got your finger on the political pulse of this country. This is about sex, race or religion of a candidate, people who aren't voting for HER simply are sick and tired of the same old stuff. That old school way of thinking that men see women as a lower version of themselves is so done. The people who are voting for HRC don't like the person, not the woman. God, get over yourselves. Women have got to stop whining, and this is from a woman. Stop it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You would be wrong, haven't you got your finger on the political pulse of this country. This is about sex, race or religion of a candidate, people who aren't voting for HER simply are sick and tired of the same old stuff. That old school way of thinking that men see women as a lower version of themselves is so done. The people who are voting for HRC don't like the person, not the woman. God, get over yourselves. Women have got to stop whining, and this is from a woman. Stop it.

LOL. Yeah, sexism is "done". If you say so.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You would be wrong, haven't you got your finger on the political pulse of this country. This is about sex, race or religion of a candidate, people who aren't voting for HER simply are sick and tired of the same old stuff. That old school way of thinking that men see women as a lower version of themselves is so done. The people who are voting for HRC don't like the person, not the woman. God, get over yourselves. Women have got to stop whining, and this is from a woman. Stop it.

I think you are deluded if you don't think there is still rampant sexism (and racism) in this country. Women still make less for the same work than men in this country.

[Anonymous]

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

Why not? It's a pretty stupid, racist and sexist thesis. Yes all white (racist) men(sexist) behave the same(stereotyping)...they are all a like. You know against women. I am a victim of white males. When I don't get a promotion it's because a white male took it. It has nothing to do with my performance..just ask me. This line of thinking(if you can call it that) absolves one of all responsablity. It's not my fault, it's those white males that's why I am a losers. All white males will not vote for Hillary because they are afraid of a female potus LOL. I have never heard anyone say that let alone white males. But please continue your racist sexist circle jerk. Oh make sure you bully a few people...that way you will be the same as Trump.

[Anonymous]

Well, you obviously believe all the liberal spin that you have been drinking. I, however, live in reality and your facts are old school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

OP here. But, why do so many of the ardent HRC haters hate her for the very same type of behaviors that Trump exhibits -- lying, conniving, arrogance, hypocrisy?

I weighed in earlier in the thread: it's because men hate "bitches" and they perceive her as one.
Of course, there are men who disagree with her policy, and so they wouldn't vote for a Democrat no matter. Fine. pass.
But, for Democrats or Independents who have voted for candidates of similar political leanings...many of them don't like her bc "there's something about her" or "she's not trust worthy". Many of them voted for her husband (a well-documented cheater), and are now twirling with the idea of voting for Trump (who has a long history of lying and misbehavior). They get passes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

Why not? It's a pretty stupid, racist and sexist thesis. Yes all white (racist) men(sexist) behave the same(stereotyping)...they are all a like. You know against women. I am a victim of white males. When I don't get a promotion it's because a white male took it. It has nothing to do with my performance..just ask me. This line of thinking(if you can call it that) absolves one of all responsablity. It's not my fault, it's those white males that's why I am a losers. All white males will not vote for Hillary because they are afraid of a female potus LOL. I have never heard anyone say that let alone white males. But please continue your racist sexist circle jerk. Oh make sure you bully a few people...that way you will be the same as Trump.

Because racism and sexism doesn't exist in this country, therefore we needn't bring it up in regards to a presidential race?

Have you heard anyone call a man a "bitch* for being assertive in the work place? I have been called a bitch for being assertive, and this was in HS.

[Anonymous]

Men don't like powerful women. They don't like bitchy, overweight, old women who are no longer beautiful. They don't like women who may be smarter than they are.

C'mon OP, male fear and resentment towards women's power is as old as humanity, does this really need explaining?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Men don't like powerful women. They don't like bitchy, overweight, old women who are no longer beautiful. They don't like women who may be smarter than they are.

C'mon OP, male fear and resentment towards women's power is as old as humanity, does this really need explaining?

OP here.. I brought up the point that the UK has had many a strong female leader, and even Asian and Muslim countries have had strong leaders too, just not us.

[Anonymous]

Because POTUS is the last bastion of white make supremacy. Once a woman is elected POTUS it may be 500 years before a male of any race is ever elected again.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You would be wrong, haven't you got your finger on the political pulse of this country. This is about sex, race or religion of a candidate, people who aren't voting for HER simply are sick and tired of the same old stuff. That old school way of thinking that men see women as a lower version of themselves is so done. The people who are voting for HRC don't like the person, not the woman. God, get over yourselves. Women have got to stop whining, and this is from a woman. Stop it.

If that is the case then shouldn't every incumbent, no matter the political party, be in danger of losing the next election? that would mean the next Congress should be controlled by the Dems.