RightNation.US
News (Home) | Righters' Blog | Hollywood Halfwits | Our Store | New User Intro | Link to us | Support Us

RightNation.US: Democrats Just Can't Stop Playing Their 'Woman Card' - RightNation.US

Jump to content

Page 1 of 1
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

Democrats Just Can't Stop Playing Their 'Woman Card' Rate Topic: -----

#1 User is offline   pepperonikkid 

  • Trucker
  • Group: Silver
  • Posts: 12,892
  • Joined: 03-September 03

  Posted 06 February 2019 - 11:10 AM

Democrats Just Can't Stop Playing Their 'Woman Card'




https://www.americanthinker.com
By Veronika Kyrylenko
February 6, 2019


Article:

According to the legion of leftist pundits, America has suffered a loss due to Hillary Clinton's defeat in the 2016 Presidential elections. According to them, and Mrs. Clinton herself, one of the reasons this gruesome mishap has happened, is a sexism of Americans.

"I started the campaign knowing that I would have to work extra hard to make women and men feel comfortable with the idea of a woman president," Mrs. Clinton told CBS's Jane Pauley, when reflecting on the causes of her defeat.

Many feminists agree that it was a rampant sexism of voters that cost her the presidency. "What actually happened to Hillary Clinton reeks of misogyny," wrote Rachael Revesz in The Independent. "It reeks so badly that you can smell it stronger than a sniffer dog can suss out crack cocaine." Later, Hillary complained that women don't support each other as much as ethnic minorities do – which allowed for Obama's election, but not hers. The other problem, as indicated by Mrs. Clinton, was that women let themselves be pushed around by their husbands, fathers, boyfriends and male bosses "not to vote for the 'girl'."

Hillary, who deliberately emphasized her gender during the campaign and positioned herself as a champion of women's rights and vigorously played the "woman card," found herself a victim of negative gender stereotypes. Undoubtedly, in the heated struggle of 2016, Hillary was judged by her "woman" attributes – such as style, facial expressions, and "shrill" voice – but does it mean that it was the primal factor that "stole an election" from her in favor of "toxically masculine" Donald Trump?

Political scientists will tell you that women do just fine at the ballot box. "Being a woman doesn't hurt you in an election," says Kathleen Dolan, professor of political science at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee. When women run for political office, they win at about the same rate men do. Likewise, a candidate's gender doesn't seem to affect the amount of money she is able to raise for her campaign – and Hillary proved it herself. And, should she fumble in her leadership, she isn't judged more harshly than her male counterpart

Monica Schneider, associate professor of political science at Miami University, points out at that numerous studies that found that, while Americans hold gender stereotypes about women's traits and they hold gendered ideas about certain political issues, neither of those things seem to affect the way people vote. "On the whole, sexism doesn't have a huge impact on whether women get elected," Schneider says, "Instead, political party is the primary factor people consider when voting, followed by incumbency."

Thus, it wasn't Hillary being a "girl" that made her lose, even despite her outraising and outspending her opponent by hundreds of millions of dollars and having commercial airwaves practically all for herself – it was her being a deeply corrupt and power-hungry Beltway insider. She lost as a candidate, not as a woman-candidate. Americans, those pitiful deplorables, were wiser than Hillary thought of them and saw her through.



Full Story

0

#2 User is offline   Howsithangin 

  • It's OK To Be White
  • Group: +Bronze Community Supporter
  • Posts: 26,976
  • Joined: 07-March 08

Posted 06 February 2019 - 07:12 PM

 pepperonikkid, on 06 February 2019 - 11:10 AM, said:

Democrats Just Can't Stop Playing Their 'Woman Womyn Card'


edited for clarification
0

#3 User is offline   MontyPython 

  • Pull My Finger.....
  • View gallery
  • Group: Gold
  • Posts: 56,173
  • Joined: 28-February 03

Posted 06 February 2019 - 08:09 PM

Democrats just can't grow the F up.

Democrats just can't wake up and smell the coffee.

Democrats just can't stop pissing into the wind.

Democrats just can't stop lying.

I could go on and on, but you get the general idea.

<_<
0

#4 User is offline   Ticked@TinselTown 

  • Unimpressed with Celebutards since Always
  • View blog
  • Group: Platinum Community Supporter
  • Posts: 28,306
  • Joined: 01-April 03

Posted 06 February 2019 - 08:14 PM

Democrats don't seem to be able to get a handle on presenting a candidate who can do the job well for EVERY American without having to use a special interest tag, like their sex, their race or their lifestyle choice, as if ANY of those things could ADD any superior qualification for their doing the job of POTUS.
0

#5 User is offline   grimreefer 

  • U.S. Merchant Marine
  • View gallery
  • Group: Diamond Community Supporter
  • Posts: 5,483
  • Joined: 18-December 03

Posted 06 February 2019 - 08:19 PM

Quote

WALSH: The Terrifying And Dangerous Transphobia Of The Democrat Party

The Daily Wire
Matt Walsh
February 6, 2019

excerpt:

After President Trump's State of the Union Address, which included a compelling section calling for the prohibition of late-term abortion, senator and presidential candidate Kamala Harris took to Twitter to register her objection. "Politicians should not tell women what to do with their bodies," she wrote, eloquently emphasizing each word with little clapping hand emojis. It was the most transphobic statement ever tweeted. I, for one, was devastated.

Harris knows as well as anyone that gender is a social construct. Issues of reproductive health are not exclusive to women. Why would she assume that Trump was telling only women what to do with their bodies? Men can get pregnant, too. Men can have uteruses. Man can have ovaries. Men can give birth. Just as a woman might have a penis and no ovaries. Any anatomical combination is possible with any of the 346 genders. Kamala Harris knows this. All modern leftists know this. Yet, in an act of unspeakable bigotry, revealing her own ingrained prejudices, she associated pregnancy only with women. Harris single-handedly transported us back to the dark ages.

In fact, the entire night was one huge display of transphobia and cis-het chauvinism on the part of biologically female Democrats. They even dressed in an exclusionary manner, donning white pantsuits in celebration of women's suffrage or something. Notice how only biological females were invited to participate in this demonstration or protest or whatever it was.

To make matters worse, the entire white pantsuit brigade erupted in raucous applause to celebrate all of the "women" elected to Congress in 2018. They didn't want to applaud unemployment or sex trafficking prevention, but they did take advantage of the opportunity to give themselves a standing ovation. But, again, it was a highly discriminatory display. How can they applaud the achievements of "women" when the word "women" is just a social construct and has no discernible meaning? A woman could just as easily be a man and a man could be a woman. A member of either biological group could be genderless, or pan gendered, or tri gendered, or gender questioning. When the Democrats "celebrate women," they are merely celebrating the meaningless and arbitrary biological XY framework upon which any gender might be built. But to celebrate the framework is to negate the importance of a person's true gender, which may bear no relation to biology at all.

This is their own logic. I'm just accepting it. For the sake of argument, anyway.


*SNIP*

LINK

:sailor:
0

#6 User is offline   BootsieBets 

  • <no title>
  • Group: +Silver Community Supporter
  • Posts: 522
  • Joined: 13-August 18

Posted 08 February 2019 - 11:37 AM

 Ticked@TinselTown, on 06 February 2019 - 08:14 PM, said:

Democrats don't seem to be able to get a handle on presenting a candidate who can do the job well for EVERY American without having to use a special interest tag, like their sex, their race or their lifestyle choice, as if ANY of those things could ADD any superior qualification for their doing the job of POTUS.

Being a woman or a man has nothing to do with whether I vote for a particular candidate for any position. I vote for the person who has the most views I agree with or the most important positions I agree with. I don’t think I agree with 5% of Hillary Clinton’s political positions, so why would I vote for her? Just because she is a woman? Meh.

Besides, how about all this support for women like Sarah Palin or Kelly Ayotte or Michelle Backman or Nikki Haley? They only get scorn and contempt from democrats. So, it’s not really anything to do with women, it’s only party politics as usual.
0

Share this topic:


Page 1 of 1
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

1 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users