It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

Why are feminists voting for Hillary ?

page: 6
25
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 5 2016 @ 01:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: Gryphon66

The Cosmo article.




It has taken nearly 170 years for the liberal feminist project to have a woman as major party presidential candidate. This is telling. So for those of us who are radical feminists, those of us who want to see the total transformation of oppressive social structures, this is a reminder that if it has taken this long for the liberal feminist project to reach such a milestone, our radical feminist dreams will take longer. But it is also a reminder that if feminist movements can't even elect a woman president, then we haven't moved the needle nearly enough on patriarchy.

Those feminists who act like this is possible are not being honest about what the structural transformation of systems looks like.

To me, it looks, in part, like electing a woman president.



Not at all. No reasonable person reading this article could come to the conclusion that the author is voting for Clinton MERELY based on her sex.

For example ...



But I support Hillary Clinton because I think she is the best, most qualified candidate for the job. I support her views on family leave. I think her plan to force states to return to funding public colleges and universities and to make them affordable again is far more pragmatic and achievable than Bernie Sanders's free college plan. And I think that forcing states to refund public universities will strike a critical blow to the ways in which neoliberal policy agendas approach privatization as a sacred and unassailable social good.




posted on Sep, 5 2016 @ 01:10 PM
link   
I don't think the "feminist" vote will make much difference.

The women voting for a vagina will be cancelled out by the men voting for a penis.



posted on Sep, 5 2016 @ 01:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: JDeLattre89
Well as my brother-in-law said the other day: "We (as a nation) are voting for Hillary's vagina instead of voting for a candidate."



... and it's not sexist at all to refer to a woman by a certain body part?

Good gravy.



posted on Sep, 5 2016 @ 01:14 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

No, you're right. But then again, no reasonable person will say it isn't a factor.




It has taken nearly 170 years for the liberal feminist project to have a woman as major party presidential candidate. This is telling. So for those of us who are radical feminists, those of us who want to see the total transformation of oppressive social structures, this is a reminder that if it has taken this long for the liberal feminist project to reach such a milestone, our radical feminist dreams will take longer. But it is also a reminder that if feminist movements can't even elect a woman president, then we haven't moved the needle nearly enough on patriarchy.

Those feminists who act like this is possible are not being honest about what the structural transformation of systems looks like.

To me, it looks, in part, like electing a woman president.



posted on Sep, 5 2016 @ 01:15 PM
link   
Would voting for a man over a woman in this election be considered misogynistic?



posted on Sep, 5 2016 @ 01:21 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

You read too much into things. Statement not meant to be sexist, simply stating fact.



posted on Sep, 5 2016 @ 01:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: butcherguy
a reply to: AboveBoard

You didn't address the one about Hillary defending the honor of her serial rapist husband.


Bill Clinton is a horn-dog, or at least he was. That much is obvious to everyone.

Here is an article that breaks down the he said/she said of the accusations by Juanita Broaddrick, looking at both sides of the issue. LINK

The Clintons have been accused of all manner of things that turned out to be manufactured or false -- of course, many people still believe those things and dredge them up repeatedly.

As to whether or not Bill Clinton raped someone, I don't know. He has never stood trial for it, and it is important to distinguish his affairs/one night stands from rape accusations.

Do you think Hillary believes he actually raped someone? She obviously knows he's slept around more than once, but rape? That's a different thing altogether. If she believes he raped someone, then she is guilty of defending his guilt. If she doesn't believe it (and none of its been proven, so she can still claim the benefit of the doubt), and believes rather that the women accusing him have agendas to smear him or frame him, then why wouldn't she defend him?

She's human. Perhaps Bill is her blindspot. Perhaps she is right that the women have reasons to falsely accuse him. Until a court of law demonstrates his guilt, she can claim he is innocent. That's how the law works.

edit on 5-9-2016 by AboveBoard because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 5 2016 @ 01:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: JDeLattre89
a reply to: Gryphon66

You read too much into things. Statement not meant to be sexist, simply stating fact.


"not meant to be" is sort of irrelevant in this case.

Stating that the American people are electing a body part instead of the person ... sexist anyway you look at it.

/shrug



posted on Sep, 5 2016 @ 01:28 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

Even by that excerpt you can tell that she put a lot more effort into saying that its important to have a female president. And come on, we know how humans more typically operate with their political views and I do have to assume that she is trying to justify Hillary over Sanders without looking like a sexist rather than really looking deeply into how she feels about college funding.

'Cause Sanders is a man, men running the place would be the "patriarchy" she alleges, and she is self-proclaimed to support "radical changes" be made against the patriarchy.

Doesnt really matter what else you can quote about her I think we all know more than one person who will vote for her because "it's about time" etc., and that seems to be popular among feminists.
edit on 5-9-2016 by DeadFoot because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 5 2016 @ 01:30 PM
link   
a reply to: Blue_Jay33

Shouldn't the question be .."Why is ANYONE voting Killary"?

What a disgusting human being.. and the term is used loosely here!



posted on Sep, 5 2016 @ 01:33 PM
link   
a reply to: DeadFoot

No, I don't see that from the article. She lists multiple reasons why she's voting for Clinton having to do with experience, policy positions.

Those who read something like that and still only see "someone voting for a woman" are dealing with their own filters, not reality.

It doesn't matter to you what the author of the article actually says, because you know what she really means?

Textbook confirmation bias.

/shrug



posted on Sep, 5 2016 @ 01:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krahzeef_Ukhar
I don't think the "feminist" vote will make much difference.

The women voting for a vagina will be cancelled out by the men voting for a penis.


I disagree here overall, and not saying I think Hillary is the best or worst candidate. just commenting on this.

Most men you will meet really dont care about the gender of the candidate. its policy. sure, some twat sexists still are out there in the woodwork, but overall most dont care.

Women however..I have noticed an amazing amount of women wanting to vote for the woman simply because it is a woman, they dont even know the policys (for better or worse). They just see it as female empowerment, sticking it to the patriarchy, etc etc...

So no..that is incorrect...actually, the new hip thing for the 20 something beardos is to self identify as a neutered male feminist that should help women smash up the "mans world" by doing whatever the official feminist push tells them to do..be it voting, which movies to watch, which video games to protest, etc.



posted on Sep, 5 2016 @ 01:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
"not meant to be" is sort of irrelevant in this case.

Stating that the American people are electing a body part instead of the person ... sexist anyway you look at it.
/shrug


How is discussing peoples motivations for voting sexist?

Is suggesting that some people voted for Obama because he was black racist?



posted on Sep, 5 2016 @ 01:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krahzeef_Ukhar

originally posted by: Gryphon66
"not meant to be" is sort of irrelevant in this case.

Stating that the American people are electing a body part instead of the person ... sexist anyway you look at it.
/shrug


How is discussing peoples motivations for voting sexist?

Is suggesting that some people voted for Obama because he was black racist?


Referring to a woman only by her vagina and suggesting that as a reason for doing anything is sexist.

I suppose it is necessary to attach the codicil "in my opinion."
edit on 5-9-2016 by Gryphon66 because: Noted



posted on Sep, 5 2016 @ 01:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: rigel4
a reply to: Blue_Jay33

Shouldn't the question be .."Why is ANYONE voting Killary"?

What a disgusting human being.. and the term is used loosely here!


Because, well it comes down to policys.

Vote for a serial killer who has fantastic policys to put in place
or a stand up salt of the earth person who wants to bring forth the apocalypse.

Voting is about policy..you push your agenda, and try to stop the opposing agenda. Sometimes you back angels, sometimes demons..either way, its bigger than the person.

This is something the right will forever struggle with it seems. Policy is where its at...for 3 election cycles now they focus 100% on the person, pretty much ignoring the rather popular policy stances they have..and they lose..they lose bad..and wonder why their character assassination techniques failed.

Its simple..shoot all you want, but unless you are offering something policywise that is also counter to the popular policy claims of the other..you are shooting blanks.

What does Trump want to do? build a wall, not let muslims in from the middle east, and...thats about it..talk tough to China or something..nothing much more is being pushed by him and his team.
And thats all to take from it....meanwhile, he makes it really easy to hate him.
WE WANT DEAL!!!



posted on Sep, 5 2016 @ 01:47 PM
link   
a reply to: SaturnFX
You may have a point there, I didn't consider the SJW angle.

Trump better start chatting to David Duke. Maybe he can solidify the racist vote to counter the sexist vote.



posted on Sep, 5 2016 @ 01:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
Referring to a woman only by her vagina and suggesting that as a reason for doing anything is sexist.

I suppose it is necessary to attach the codicil "in my opinion."


I can't follow that line of thought.
If people are voting for her because she is a woman only (which this topic is about) then discussing it is not sexist.

Referring to voting for a vagina is not sexist when that is the situation.

It may be insensitive to the transgender community, but not sexist.



posted on Sep, 5 2016 @ 02:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krahzeef_Ukhar
a reply to: SaturnFX
You may have a point there, I didn't consider the SJW angle.

Trump better start chatting to David Duke. Maybe he can solidify the racist vote to counter the sexist vote.





Trump would have a better chance at the presidency if he had of picked D. Duke for his VP.

Pence is trying to be the moderate in Trumps campaigner. Trump would have been more successful going full bore racist instead of flip flop back and forth.

Transparent pandering to the Blacks and Mexicans just makes him look weak.


edit on 5-9-2016 by olaru12 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 5 2016 @ 02:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: DeadFoot

Textbook confirmation bias.

/shrug


Oh give me a break. The thesis of her entire article is that Hillary Clinton is a woman.



We can't claim to support a progressive agenda if we have not proven that we trust a woman to lead our country.




Thus, they suggest that we should not be seduced into thinking that Clinton's womanhood is consequential for social progress.

I disagree.




And any Bernie Bros, be they black or white, who think going hard at racism and capitalism makes them more progressive than those of us who care about electing a woman, need to procure a better analysis of identity politics. Yes, identity politics matter to me. As Netflix says, I like "strong female leads."

Deal with your own illusions.

Confirmation bias indeed.
edit on 5-9-2016 by DeadFoot because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 5 2016 @ 02:07 PM
link   
a reply to: Blue_Jay33

Face the facts. Feminists support HRC, not because they like her, but because they hate men. So, its as much a vote against men as it is a vote for HRC.

Not complicated.




top topics



 
25
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join