How had we gone from anticipating a woman would become the first president of the United States to having a sexual predator in the White House?
Well, a couple of reasons:
- We had a sexual predator in the White House in the 1990s, and his party told us to stop being so puritan, that it was no big deal.
- Said president’s wife was running for president as well in 2016. Said president’s wife ran the slut-shaming operation for said president in his defense, and thus her creds to be the “first woman president” or a “feminist” were a bit sullied. To say the least.
And of course there were other reasons. Let’s not digress.
How had they carefully weighed a choice between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton and decided a man like Trump was the lesser of two evils?
See above. However, it should also be pointed out that today we vote less for the person but vote for their party, which explains most of it. There are reasons for this. some of which are regrettable and perhaps should be addressed, but addressing them is not easy. Again, let’s not digress.
Why would so many women choose to vote against their own interests?
Nobody did. They perceived their best interests were the person they voted for. See above.
How can 57% of white women in Alabama watch those photos parade across their TVs and remain staunchly convinced that voting for Moore is the moral choice?
You keep asking the same question in different ways. I doubt anyone thought that Moore was a “moral choice”.
The tide is turning towards justice for women who have not only endured centuries of oppression, but some survivors who have lived with secrets and shame for decades.
Don’t you wish we had been able to turn this tide 25 years ago, rather than defending Bill Clinton? Trump never would have gotten past the first primary, and tens of thousands of women nationwide might have been saved from abuse by a more socially aware view of the matter.
The tendency of women to perpetuate rigid gender roles and to oppress other women is referred to as internalized misogyny.
Do you have any statistical evidence as to what percentage of American women actually believe in rigid gender roles and actively oppress other women? I suspect this number to be pathetically small, based on my own lifetime experience and study.
It’s in the conservative Mom who thinks she’s helping young women learn modesty by policing their hemlines or in the way we always open conversations with little girls by complimenting cute clothes or carefully styled hair. It’s the way we admonish women to be considerate, to subjugate their own needs for those of others. It’s a thousand little gestures and subtle signs our society sends out like flares, lighting up the path of propriety for women to walk.
Nonsense. That’s absurdly vague, and I believe intentionally so. If you throw out something so vague as the above, then nobody can prove or disprove your theory.
But in many ways, the idea of free agency or choice is an illusion.
Chuckles. Well, this is a philosophical debate which has been engaged in since the invention of philosophy, and you’re not going to solve it here. You don’t have the final word on it; great thinkers for millenia have been engaged in it and still it rages.
For those who are not up on this sort of thing, the debate is typically known as free choice vs cause and effect (determinism). The former camp holds that we have choice; the latter camp holds that choice is an illusion, that all of our decision are forced by causality. It was actually discussed and illustrated, in a popular movie, HERE: (start at the 2 minute mark)
Obviously, there are things that we do (I did not say ‘choices’, please note) that are dictated by necessity. The larger question is if things we believe to be choices are themselves dictated.
I would point out here that neither “example” (period shaming or purity balls) addresses the larger question as to why people make the voting choices they do,or even alludes to it. Obviously, a minor child is advised by her parents, and the fact that you do not want to advertise your period to the world does not logically mean that you are ashamed of it.
We might say it is a daughter’s choice to participate in rituals like these. But is it? When we’ve raised girls to believe that their value lies in their appearance, that their virginity is a commodity, and that their experiences as sexual beings belong to someone else, it’s hard to argue those women can turn into healthy adults capable of making informed choices.
Obviously true. However, musing about it does not address the larger question on the table, which is how many women are actually raised to believe these things in the 2010’s? Without addressing THAT, all that you’re doing here is putting two different things next to each other and hope that nobody notices that you haven't connected the dots.
Their duty as wives is their first loyalty and it will not allow them to admit a sliver of doubt even in the face of unrelenting evidence. Take for instance Roy Moore’s wife Kayla and her Facebook campaign to spread fake news about her husband’s accusers.
It does not logically follow that the behavior of a wife can be imputed to all other women in her entire state. (However, the similarities between the referenced stories regarding Mrs. Moore and the defenses raised by Mrs. Clinton are rather striking.)
Evangelical women spend a majority of their lives in communities that glorify the role of mother and wife but demonize the woman who dares to extend the sphere of her influence beyond her own household.
Stereotyping. Generalizing. There are several dozen types of evangelical denominations in the US which follow a range of beliefs regarding women’s issues. The common denominators would be glorifying the role of wife and mother (which our entire society does, btw — not just evangelicals: Mother’s Day is a BIG FUCKING DEAL AND DON’T YOU FORGET IT, while Father’s Day is a gift card to Home Depot that you get on Father’s Day if you’re lucky, usually the week after) and the belief that abortion is murder.
Bottom line here is that you’re stereotyping and issuing broad generalizations. If you go to an urban megachurch like Johnson’s Ferry in Atlanta or Lakewood in Houston, you’ll be sitting with affluent, educated women who are doctors, lawyers, CPA’s, and business owners. They are co-breadwinners in the family. What they are not is feminists, because they reject the implied requirement that equal opportunity for women requires engagement with liberal or progressive politics.
Now, if you go to a rural evangelical church, sure, you;ll see some of what you say. But it’s unusual nowadays for evangelical women, as far as my association with various women who self-define themselves as such goes, to find evangelical women who don’t support equal opportunity for women, or women who would not support their daughters in the educational or professional endeavor of their choice.
While middle-class white women struggled with their own misogyny, women of color overwhelming voted for Hillary Clinton.
Well, you certainly haven’t proved that middle class white women are mysogenistic by any means.
After an election, we always “explain” the voters who disagreed with us by insulting either their intelligence or their morals. There is of course no DATA to base that one, but virtue-signalling exercises are pleasurable, eh?