That clip is more than a week old. Why hasn't it got more attention? I ran across it by chance as I was reading a piece in The Guardian titled "Why Hillary Clinton was right about white women – and their husbands/Conventional wisdom says women will show solidarity at the polls. But new research shows that for white women, having a husband trumped the sisterhood."
That headline and the idea it represents are so insulting to women. It's assumed that women are followers; the dispute is who is leading us ladysheep.
Last week, Clinton, who has had a lifetime to contemplate the women’s vote, copped to having a theory. “[Women] will be under tremendous pressure – and I’m talking principally about white women. They will be under tremendous pressure from fathers and husbands and boyfriends and male employers not to vote for ‘the girl’,” she said in an interview as part of a tour promoting her new memoir of the 2016 campaign....
[S]ocial science backs up Clinton’s anecdotal hunch. “We think she was right in her analysis about women getting pressure from men in their lives, specifically [straight] white women,” said Kelsy Kretschmer, an assistant professor at Oregon State University and a co-author of a recent study examining women’s voting patterns. “We know white men are more conservative, so when you’re married to a white man you get a lot more pressure to vote consistent with that ideology.”
पोस्ट्स
१११ टिप्पण्या:
We know white men are more conservative
Men vote on side effects and women vote for direct action.
Free stuff being a favorite.
Let women vote and the nation turns into Puerto Rico.
I thought Sailer's summary of the Guardian piece was quite LOL:
"If every woman in America came home to just a cat and a bottle of white wine, then Hillary would be President."
Slicing and dicing the electorate into neat and tidy racial and gender pie piecs makes it convenent for Canadian ad agencies to gin up anger and resentment but unfortunately for Hillary not votes on the right places.
Social science.
Not very social and in no way a science. The career choice of the eternally mediocre.
“We think she was right in her analysis about women getting pressure from men in their lives, specifically [straight] white women,” said Kelsy Kretschmer, an assistant professor at Oregon State University and a co-author of a recent study examining women’s voting patterns. “We know white men are more conservative, so when you’re married to a white man you get a lot more pressure to vote consistent with that ideology.”
I would be interested in the evidence for the bolded assertion that is not founded on assumptions of what he is trying to prove, but I don't expect to see it. Maybe if I am really bored today, I will read the actual study and be pleasantly surprised.
Straight white men, the new Juden.
The hardest part of doing math is not getting the calculations right, especially these days with spreadsheets. MatLab, etc... The hardest thing is getting the assumptions right. This is where bias gets you every time.
I am a woman, and I have a brain. I was smart enough NOT to vote for the lying corrupt Clinton. I didn't need my husband, my father or my brothers to tell me that. I have eyes and ears. She is an ASSHOLE for even suggesting that sexist creed that we were told how to vote by our men. WE DON'T LIVE WITH a rapist and cruelly go after the many women who he raped. SHE is an enabler...but only because she wanted to be president so bad, she had to keep him around. SHE is an embarrassment to real women.
Exactly what Wendybar said above. I am a white woman, married to a liberal white man who voted for Hillary. I did not vote for Hillary because I thought she was the worse choice of the two.
That clip is more than a week old. Why hasn't it got more attention?
Umm, because even her formerly adoring Mainstream Media wants her to go away? Maybe because delusion is unattractive? Who knows, but I did used to give Clinton a small modicum of credit for not being Anti-American by intention, not any more.
Maybe Hillary should have paid more attention to her own husband when he told her not to ignore the white working class voters.
>That clip is more than a week old. Why hasn't it got more attention?
It doesn't benefit Democrats.
Women who vote like men will see the benefit of not letting women vote.
If you are married, you are probably married to a 'marriageable man'. A man who is fully employed carrying the health insurance. He would also be capable of covering the bills if a woman had a baby and either had to divert funds to daycare/work fewer hours/choose to stay home all together.
Yes, we 'both' paid for day care. But we were paying day care for me to work, so 'doing the math' meant calculating whether it made more sense to for day care/ 2nd Shift/ or stay home.
Even without kids, if a woman makes 40k and her husband makes 60k, she still benefits economically without having to do 'more'.
A primary concern for a married woman, is her husband's ability to work.
Back to kids.
Abortion sucks.
Single parenting or co-parenting with an ex is very stressful, even when you want and love your children no less than a married couple.
Married life for a woman, when the two of you get a long, is well a very 'privieleged' life even at the lower end of the middle class if work is steady and realiable.
So if I were to be as cynical and shallow as Hillary and her supporters; wouldn't a vote for her from a married heterosexual woman tell the husband that his wife is fine with him getting a BJ from an intern? Because supposedly a vote from Trump meant a person with fine with grabbing a woman's pussy, so shouldn't a vote for Hillary mean it is fine to abuse woman in the workplace?
I just think she is phony. I watched the clip, and I suspect that question was setup, so she could deliver her rehearsed line "I ran against both of them". That's what we learned from Shattered, everything she does is calculated including skipping Wisconsin.
And all these years I thought that *I* was the one Lady Macbeth-ing my über-blue-cosmopolitan-background husband over to the Dark Side.
Straight White people are enemy #1 because they fight against their extermination. That is not news to any beings in the heavens or on earth. The news is that they are winning again. Read the Red Cap.
That headline and the idea it represents are so insulting to women. It's assumed that women are followers;
No, it implies that WHITE women are followers. The non-white sisterhood is filled with “wise Latinas” and “oh no you don’t” black women who won’t be pushed around by any man. It’s the privileged white women who need to get a spine, get emancipated, and get down with the global sisterhood.
And it’s going to be up to the woke white women who are already onboard to bully and shame them along.
"Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it." Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions.
The target is clear. They can’t win in 2020 without more white women voting against Trump.
Althouse is in the crosshairs.
Maybe Hillary should have paid more attention to her own husband when he told her not to ignore the white working class voters.
She didn't ignore them! She promised them high speed internet for their smartphones!
White women voting patterns used to be blamed on Soccer. Now it's blamed on men. Nice going, Hillary.
The whining will continue until morale improves.
Trump: Winning!
Hillary: Whining!
This reminds me of that photo you can't find anymore of Hillary holding up the Daily News with the headline "Bush knew!" after 9-11. Hillary is stupid, stupid and surrounded by sycophants is no way to go through life.
So a call to arms for the Left to oppose marriage? I thought that already happened?
Putin or Trump?
Depends
We know white men are more conservative, so when you’re married to a white man you get a lot more pressure to vote consistent with that ideology.
Do you get pressure to vote that way, or do you see the value of the conservative principles?
Not receiving attention because who wants to think of Hilary having sex?
My first thought on reading the header was one of disgust. I agree with Althouse--it's insulting; I also agree with Wendybar's comments. And--although my husband is not a "blue cosmopolitan" like Angel-Dyne's, he was a WI state employee whose voting record absolutely was blue--with one exception: I think almost everyone voted for Tommy Thompson regardless of political affiliation. Of course, I once was pretty blue myself. Mine has been a gradual shifting to the conservative side, but I brought my husband over with me.
This is outrageous and insulting. I have no allegiance to the "sisterhood", whatever that is. Ask any woman if women are "loyal" to any other (non-relative) women. Too much competition, especially as young women, for the attention of men for there to be any real solidarity across time.
Isn't the whole point of "emancipation" to have your own mind and be your own person? Maybe I married my conservative husband because i was already conservative.
Fully agree with wendybar, Syndey and Renee above.
Maybe secretly Hillary wants more Trump. 'Cause this is how you get it.
“We know white men are more conservative...
"White men" aren't more "conservative" than men of other races. White men, just like everyone else, vote their perceived interests.
It's just that, when some people demonize white men for years, and tell white men to their faces that dispossessing them and wiping them from history is the goal, white men, inexplicably, conclude that those people don't have the best interests of white men in mind. I know, it makes no sense, but I guess more studies are needed if we ever hope to fathom the irrational depths of white men's minds.
[S]ocial science backs up Clinton’s anecdotal hunch. with another hunch. It's hunches all the way down.
From the article:
The key distinction, according to Kretschmer’s research, is that single women tend to cast votes with the fate of all women in mind, while women married to men vote on behalf of their husbands and families
Remember the Althouse law that any research comparing men and women must be reported in favor of women? Here we have a corollary. Any research comparing women without men to women with men must be reported in favor of the women without men.
Married straight women siding with the economic interests of their husbands and families over the collective interests of women was something authors observed anecdotally during the campaign, too.
Bizarre. People with families are loyal to their families. Who knew?
Most striking of all, perhaps: the more educated women were, the less likely they were to say women being able to support a family was important.
The trend lines are disturbing
So white women are wrong to prioritize the economic security of their family. White women are also wrong to prioritize things other than economics. The trend lines are disturbing.
The other thing people with families don't take lightly is crime. Someone at the Guardian is working on that essay as we speak.
"...I suspect that question was setup, so she could deliver her rehearsed line "I ran against both of them".
Of course it was. That fat shebeast is too dumb to think on her feet. Every question was vetted and that one was planted.
What a disgusting piece of crap.
"So when you’re married to a white man you get a lot more pressure to vote consistent with that ideology."
So, Hillary can't even think on her own without Bill's help?
I don't get the question "Putin or Trump" what?
Clinton, who has had a lifetime to contemplate the women’s vote, copped to having a theory. “[Women] will be under tremendous pressure – and I’m talking principally about white women. They will be under tremendous pressure from fathers and husbands and boyfriends and male employers not to vote for ‘the girl’
Of course it's men's fault. Why would anyone think a woman can think on her own and make a decision?
Sheesh. What a piece of crap. It ignores how many thousands of women who have been elected?
Here's a Clue-by-4 for you Hillary: You weren't elected because you are patently, obviously corrupt. But PLEASE! Stick around. Keep sucking up all the oxygen.
“If your husband is willing to elect Trump, he either hates women or just does not care about them/you. Divorce him.” That’s a tweet by feminist writer Jill Filipovic
...
“If you vote for Trump, I will divorce you and move to Canada,” Kerry Maguire told her husband Thomas Stossel. When he “tried to laugh it off,” she doubled down. “I’m serious,” she said.
...
How odd that these women are so willing to abandon their marriages because of their husbands’ support of Trump, yet they’re willing to support a woman who has lied repeatedly to the American people, even to the point of costing Americans their lives. Habitual lying is a ghastly character trait, and to do it the way Clinton has throughout her political career is the last characteristic we should want in a president.
She has also failed to be a good feminist by attacking women her husband sexually abused. In this, she has proven to be the worst kind of sexist—turning on her own to support a misogynist male simply because it is politically expedient for her.
Clinton has also shown herself to be ill-tempered and even unstable by dismissing the seriousness of Benghazi, throwing up her hands and yelling “At this point, what difference does [four dead Americans] make?” Her behavior in the Benghazi committee hearing and her perpetual lying, even to family members of dead soldiers, shows a malignant narcissism that is well beyond even Trump’s.
Preach it sister!!!
“We know white men are more conservative, so when you’re married to a white man you get a lot more pressure to vote consistent with that ideology.”
Shouldn't an assistant professor dealing with sociology be a least a little bit acquainted with the causality/correlation conundrum?
"Shut up and go away!" We explained.
I supported Trump first. Husband and my father were won over by my arguments. Three votes for Trump due to me.
Hillary is one of the most dismissive people towards women on the national scene.
It's assumed that women are followers; the dispute is who is leading us ladysheep.
That's a big Fuck Ewes.
I guess when fish have bicycles, they're not the right type of fish anymore. So much of the biology I learned in school is obsolete, seemingly.
"But new research shows that for white women, having a husband trumped the sisterhood."
-- They're probably just standing by their man.
That may be so - if you consider all men in the world other than American large city blacks to be "white."
Maybe wives can't use the standard arguments against their husbands? Cannot expect to stay married if you call your husband racist, rapist, sexist, etc.
Would Lefty wives have to resort to *gasp* logic? Holy hell, the humanity!
Keep talking Hillary. Keep taking knees, NFL. Keep assaulting, antifa. It will all be worth it if we can reduce the Democrats to just their redoubts in California and New York.
Of course, I don't have any confidence in the Republicans being able to govern effectively, but first things first.
Or, come to think of it, American large city black men often do not get married, do they? So that lets a lot of black women escape being under that kind of pressure, anyway.
I don't get the question "Putin or Trump" what?
Just add in Bill and make it a FMK. Much funnier that way.
“[Women] will be under tremendous pressure – and I’m talking principally about white women. They will be under tremendous pressure from fathers and husbands and boyfriends and male employers not to vote for ‘the girl’,”...
Note also the comical premise that "white men" are more sexist than men of other races.
(Comical, yes, but also a central dogma. "Sexism" is an invention of white men. If men of other races treat women shabbily, it is a reaction to something white men did to them, or it is an alien prejudice introduced by white male colonizers into a previously sexually-egalitarian and woman-respecting culture.)
Shouldn't an assistant professor dealing with sociology be a least a little bit acquainted with the causality/correlation conundrum?
What? And spoil all of the fun!
A little bit acquainted, as in just enough to know to avoid thinking of cause-effect?
Yes. But why must you ask?
"Maybe Hillary should have paid more attention to her own husband when he told her not to ignore the white working class voters."
-- In her defense, after believing that he did not have sexual relations with that woman, she may have used up all her "Trust my husband" points.
This is the 56th usage of Althouse's "Hillary goes away" tag.
Add the obvious quip.
For context:
Althouse's "insect politics' tag has 57 entries.
One more, Hillary, one more, and the union will be complete.
I am Laslo.
Argh. Sorry about the blank space!
I am Laslo.
I don't get the question "Putin or Trump" what?
I assume it's which one she'd have sex with, but that's such an obnoxious question to ask anyone in public that I could be wrong.
hahaha
Here we have some lovely Gorillas in the Mist reporting. Leftists and social scientists (but I repeat myself) have never in fact met one of these mythical creatures called submissive white women who do what their men tell them to do, but they are certain, CERTAIN, that they exist and in fact lost the election for Hillary. Snort.
And these are our Sooper Smart Betterz.
If only we could destroy the family somehow, and free women from the grips of patriarchy!
No, it implies that WHITE women are followers. The non-white sisterhood is filled with “wise Latinas” and “oh no you don’t” black women who won’t be pushed around by any man. It’s the privileged white women who need to get a spine, get emancipated, and get down with the global sisterhood.
Which is pretty funny because it seems to me that most middle class and above white women are pretty good at getting their way with the men in their lives. Compare the success rates of wise Latinas/sassy black women to white women in getting men to marry them, stick around and raise their children, for example.
When you imagine man who is pussywhipped and does everything his wife tells him, they're both white, aren't they?
I actually live out here in Diversity Land, unlike the Doyenne of Chappaqua, and here's how it actually works: princessy white women do whatever the hell they want and their husbands smile and encourage them, while black and Hispanic women work their asses off at at least one and often two jobs to provide for their kids while their men spend weekends at the bar getting arrested for knife fights. And they don't seem to think they deserve any better; they certainly don't seem to withhold their favor from these losers who certainly don't respect them.
But yeah, white women are the submissive, dominated ones. Sure.
I cannot hate Hillary Clinton any more than I do.
Hillary's private server should land her in prison.
Trump's biggest mistake was Sessions and giving up on prosecuting Hillary.
We will have freedom when the Hillary Clinton drops dead. Soon! Please!
I personally cannot get over that Hillary was candidate who is so pathetically pandering that she would not use her own preferred name - Hillary Rodham Clinton - based on a strange political calculus that it might poll worse? How strong a feminist, or quite frankly a person, can she be if she won't even use her own name?
Wendybar @ 7:05.
This.
Instead of prosecuting HIllary for her crimes, we get to listen to WHITE leftwing corrupt Hillary yammer on endlessly about deplorables and females who refused to swallow the big lie that Hillary is not corrupt.
I'm a white woman who is no longer married but when I was married, it was I who dragged my husband to my point of view NOT the other way around. What a sexist assumption that married white women are somehow incapable of voting and making their own decisions.
I am a white woman. When I married decades ago my husband was middle of the road. Now he is a republican.
It is obvious to me that more Republican women are married because they have traditional values in the first place, and men don't want to marry women who hate them and believe they are the source of all evil in the world. Just a theory.
I live in a very leftwing town. I cannot swing a dead cat without hitting some variety of leftist(D). I was open about my hatred of corrupt Hillary. Friends and neighbors looked at me in shock when I spoke openly about the Clinton Crime Family. They never offered a word defending her. Yet - they all voted for her. I'd say the REAL sheeple are people who know deep down that Hillary is a gross corrupt power-hungry sociopath liar, and they all voted for her anyway.
shameful.
"We know white men are more conservative"
As a white male with children, I just understand the value of money and how easily it is spent. Maybe that's conservative.
This is so insulting. Especially coming from a woman with a such a long record of corruption and incompetence. Especially coming from a woman who is in the public sphere only because of who she is married to. Especially coming from a woman who actively covered for her husband's continuing abuse of other women. I think she's projecting - she is so dependent on the status conferred on her by reason of her marriage to Bill Clinton that she can't conceive that other marriages aren't as sick as hers and that other married women respect themselves and can stand on their own two feet.
LOOK AT THAT FUCKING THRONE!
"That headline and the idea it represents are so insulting to women. It's assumed that women are followers; the dispute is who is leading us ladysheep." Not insulting at all. They are just catering to women who think women are easy marks for pressure to be more caring and conformist.
People who watch Hillarywood TV adore her.
Cancel Hillarywood. It's bad for the brain.
Vote for Trump and make me a sandwich.
Like that.
I am Laslo.
Don't vote for the girl? I would very happily have voted for.....WANTED to vote for......Sarah Palin or Michele Bachman. But it was the white leftie women who savaged those ladies. Sliced them to ribbons. "Don't vote for those girls"' they said.
- Krumhorn
Her book tour continues through Dec. 13
https://www.hillaryclintonbooktour.com/
If Hillary Clinton's analysis were correct then one would expect to have seen a significant number of these women publicly declare themselves for Trump but then, in the privacy of the voting both, voting for Clinton.
Yet the disparity between polls and election outcome went exactly the opposite way, indicating that there must have been many who voted Trump but were unwilling to publicly say so.
So, perhaps all these "shy Trump voters" were men who hid their preference for Trump in order to avoid their wives' disapproval. But, that doesn't fit with Clinton's hypothesis either, as these men could hardly convince their wives to vote for Trump if they were unwilling to publicly declare for Trump themselves.
Considering that disparity between polling and outcome, Occam's Razor seems to favor the hypothesis that many Trump voters of both sexes had been unwilling to publicly declare for Trump before the election.
If one were to run a post-election "poll" in which the only question was, "Did you vote in the 2016 presidential election and, if so, who did you vote for?" perhaps we'd find out that Hillary Clinton actually won after all. Or that perhaps she would have, if the USA did not have the secret ballot. But it seems unlikely that we'd find all that many women who declared publicly for Trump but then voted Clinton.
"Faced with the choice between changing one's mind and proving that there is no need to do so, almost everyone gets busy on the proof." [John Kenneth]
Give it a rest you old hag.
I think my libertarian and conservative sisters would all agree with me in saying that our liberal female friends are the most goddamn bossy people in our worlds. They are the ones who will take any opportunity to tell us what to do, think, and say, and condescend and lecture us 24 hours a day if we let them. Certainly not our husbands.
Yes yes - the only women who count are corrupt ones with a capital D behind their name.
Kevin said...
I don't get the question "Putin or Trump" what?
Just add in Bill and make it a FMK. Much funnier that way.
9/26/17, 8:02 AM
FMK is the first thing I thought of, but I didn't think of adding Bill, I added Huma instead.
My oldest daughter has never married, is a lawyer and FBI agent.
She is also a lefty. We don't talk politics but she argues with her brother and she thought that KSM should have been taken to New York City and tried instead of Gitmo.
However, I asked her about Comey last year about this time and she said "I will not vote for Hillary."
She should have been the classic Hillary voter. My theory is that lower level FBI agents knew she was dirty and Comey did his July presser to avoid an agent revolt. Of course the top echelon of the FBI is corrupt like all other federal agencies.
The key distinction, according to Kretschmer’s research, is that single women tend to cast votes with the fate of all women in mind, while women married to men vote on behalf of their husbands and families (the study was based on a poll of straight women conducted in 2012, before same-sex marriage was legalized nationwide, and draws no conclusions about marriages where neither partner is a man). [emphasis mine]
So Kretschmer is saying that married women vote for the party with more family-friendly policies. Good God! I'm stunned. For Pete's sake don't tell Nancy Pelosi or Chuckie Schumer!
"They are the ones who will take any opportunity to tell us what to do, think, and say, and condescend and lecture us 24 hours a day if we let them."
Why do you think they are single ?
@Althouse, have you ever considered changing your tag from "Hillary goes away" to "Hillary is never going away"?
In my family of cousins there are several divorced women. One or two married men more interested in powerful fishing boats than paying for a decent house. The rest of the women were married to a man who shared their leftist beliefs. The women, though, were the ones strongly or hard core progressive.
I am really hating the latest Hillary resurrection. It's like a bad Zombie movie or vampire movie - what was once pathetic returns as rotten blood-sucking parody of its original essence. Instead of redemption, we get enthroned corruption.
I also find the latest extremely insulting to women, on so many levels that it is hard to grasp or express the full measure of the insult. I know I am not alone in this, and that Hillary's latest foray into politics will end like all the others - in failure. This cannot help the Democrats.
"It is obvious to me that more Republican women are married because they have traditional values in the first place, and men don't want to marry women who hate them and believe they are the source of all evil in the world. Just a theory."
Since we are batting theories around, here is mine. Glenn Reynolds has a column out today titled: It is time academics preach the virtues they practice that talks about what are called "bourgeois virtues”, which are essentially to finish school, get a job, get married, and have kids, in that order. I should add a fifth one, which is to stay married until the kids are raised. I read an article last week that pointed out that if you rank working aged adults by marital status, financially, the ranking is (if I remember correctly): married with shared children; married with unshared children; married w/o children; single male parent raising children; single male w/o children; single female parent; and single female w/o children. Likelihood of their childrens' success in life follow the same plan. Requires a lot of delayed gratification, which is why Reynolds is calling left wing academics hypocrites, because in order to have obtained their academic posts, they have had to practice extreme delayed gratification, most often not able to settle down until their late 20s, or later, with the requirements of a PhD, past-doc, and junior faculty researchn(and writing about it), but preach just the opposite, that the bourgeois values that they practice so assiduously are evil, or equivalent to others.
In any case, these "bourgeois" values are manifestly conservative - because they work. We live in a nice post-industrial society, with little starvation or other deprivations, with the Internet, cell phones, refrigerators, microwaves, automobiles, etc, because of those traditional Christian (and Jewish) White (and now Asian) bourgeois values. The best way to live a comfortable lifestyle and maximize the chances that your children and grandchildren will be successful, is to practice these bourgeois virtues.
Like marries like, esp for successful marriages. To practice these conservative "bourgeois" values successfully, both partners have to buy into them. Which ultimately means that there is a lot of assortative mating going on. And that is the weakness in Crooked Hillary's argument - she confuses correlation with causation. These married women didn't vote for Trump because their husbands told them to, but rather because they were married, which more likely means that they believe in, and practice, a traditional conservative lifestyle. Female Clinton voters tend to be just the opposite - more likely not married, possibly kids out of wedlock, etc. who have not delayed gratification, but instead expect instant gratification. They are the ones attracted to the Dems' promises of more and more free stuff, instead of working for it, etc.
Why do you think they are single ?
Or married to betas.
Years ago when I still read Slate, Hannah Rosin did this cringey feature in which she and her daughter 'debated' her husband and son over the proposition that females are superior to males. The audience thought it was just Soooper Awesome and when some in the comments said "I'm a well-adjusted and confident female and I don't believe one gender is superior, and I certainly would not humiliate my husband and son in this manner" they were ripped apart. It was an instructive moment in my path away from my youthful leftism. It also taught me a lot about the kind of men who are difficult to respect. I would never respect a woman who participated in such a demeaning exercise, as subject or perpetrator, either.
How insulting, to insinuate that married white women are so weak-minded, so unable to think for themselves, that they cave into pressure from their husbands.
Like the argument that voter ID laws are "racist" because black people cannot be expected to provide a picture ID at the polls, the line that married women can't think independently shows great contempt. The Left claims to champion women and minorities but treats them like mentally handicapped children.
Leftist women apparently don't mind that, however.
What this says about marriage in general: It is bad for women.
Is that what the sociologist really wants to say?
@Althouse, have you ever considered changing your tag from "Hillary goes away" to "Hillary is never going away"?
How about "The Curse of Hillary" ?
Pants said:
I would never respect a woman who participated in such a demeaning exercise, as subject or perpetrator, either.
9/26/17, 10:30 AM
I recently listened in amazement as a liberal woman of my acquaintance proudly described how she had read her husband the riot act after he had stayed out too late with his buddies.
"I asked him 'Who is the most important person in this house?' He said 'Hayden' (their 2 year old son). Then I said, 'who is the second most important person in this house?' He said, 'You are.' I said, 'That's right and don't you forget it - you come last."
Her girlfriends nodded approvingly while I sat there. I was too stunned to say anything. That is the sort of thing that gets applause from young women these days? What about the notion that the child comes first and the parents are equal partners?
The mentality these days seems all about vengeance and score-settling, not equality.
I'm curious, and serious. Is the lesson for those of us with an appendage that mem should vote in solidarity with and for men. Is there a special place in Hell for men who do not vote for men?
Its a good thing my male partner is half white half Asian. The two sides must war with each other as he never gets around to telling me who to vote for.
Its my day off - maybe I should email Kelsy at OSU and ask where on earth she gets that data from.
Can I vote "incredibly insulting" too? The idea that my father or my husband (both way more liberal than I, btw) would ever pressure me to vote one way or the other is unbelievably demeaning. If HRC is trying to bring us back to the days before the 19th Amendment, she's made a hell of a good start.
How about "The Curse of Hillary" ?
However much it might bother us that Hillary is still in the public eye throwing bullshit around without being challenged, it's a bigger problem for her own party that she's doing so. If this keeps up, she'll be running again in 2020.
Can you imagine the campaign slogan?
Hillary 2020: This Time White Women Had Better Fucking Vote For Her!
"And male employers."
What bullshit.
White women tend to have white fathers, white brothers, white husbands and white sons. Maybe when they hear white men being demonized, they get protective. Kind of like a mama grizzly. I suspect you can see a similar phenomenon with black women, Hispanic women and Asian women.
If I tried to pressure my wife in any particular direction, she probably would vote the other way. She did perceive, however, that the media were pressuring her (and everyone else) to vote for Hillary, which is a big reason she ultimately voted for Trump even though I didn't. (I voted for Johnson.)
"“We think she was right in her analysis about women getting pressure from men in their lives, specifically [straight] white women,” said Kelsy Kretschmer, an assistant professor at Oregon State University and a co-author of a recent study examining women’s voting patterns. “We know white men are more conservative, so when you’re married to a white man you get a lot more pressure to vote consistent with that ideology.”"
I am forced at gunpoint to pay this stupid whore's salary.
"I said, 'That's right and don't you forget it - you come last."
This reminds of the ex-girlfriend's rant, "All you care about is your fucking truck !"
He replied, "No, there are beer and guns. "
Of course, getting married puts more than "Hostages to fortune." There are balls at stake.
So that she is free to waste her time complaining that my wife would rather I were not forced at gunpoint to pay her salary.
I watched that clip without the sound on (I could lip-read the "Putin and Trump"). Without the sound, Hillary looks well into the Chardonnay--although she looks pretty good in fuchsia and should have worn more of it on the campaign trail.
I take a back seat to no-one on informed hatred of the Clintons, except maybe DickenBimbos@Home, but still my wife voted for her. Not for lack of knowledge of what a corrupt liar and criminally negligent politician she was. I was basically under immense pressure to vote for her, and didn't vote for Donny until I had stood in the booth for an extra minute, having filled out all of the other votes.
I still haven't told her that I voted for Trump, but I think she has figured it out and we leave it at that.
BTW, you use that "Hillary goes away" tag often, but I do not think that you know what it really means....
What gets me is that this is the same argument used against giving women the vote.
Random Walk in Three
Single women vote for their own interests; married women vote for the interests of their family members. Why does this happen? It is so wrong. Suggestion: married women should only get 3/5ths of a vote. That way this ridiculous business of voting for the common good could be neutralized, if not completely stamped out.
"Putin and Trump What?"
The hard-hitting interview from which the clip came consisted of asking Hillary which item of a pair she preferred, i.e., coffee or tea, Putin or Trump, drunk or sober, Bill or Vince, America or cash and so on. The above list isn't just the same as the one in the interview but you get the idea. 2 bottles of Chardonnay or three, data analytics or polls, democracy or dictatorship. It could work.
Hillary Goes Away
Why should Hillary go away when she hasn't had her turn? Don't be so mean. I'm all in for her to be the Democratic candidate in 2020. Run Hillary Run and .... don't stop believing, don't start listening
"But new research shows that for white women, having a husband trumped the sisterhood."
They needed to research that??
“If you vote for Trump, I will divorce you and move to Canada,” Kerry Maguire told her husband Thomas Stossel. When he “tried to laugh it off,” she doubled down. “I’m serious,” she said."
A real man would have shown her the door.
Man I bet she can fart up a storm. I'm picturing her cupping a fart, throwing it in Bernies face and blaming Trump. After all, what difference does it make at this point?!?
I must be missing something. How can you pressure someone to vote a particular way when we have secret ballots? If I tell you I voted for someone, you have no way of knowing whether or not I actually did.
Normally in the scientific method, the data collection is one of the later steps. Here they started with the data then molded in their prior assumptions. Perhaps one should have told Hilary that she needed to talk with white males so that she would get more votes from white married women.
But let's take the data and put different assumptions and see if maybe this sounds more likely:
People, (especially white women) who are more tolerant and accepting of different viewpoints, are more likely to meet and form relationships with people outside of their tribal affiliations. Including males. These truly liberal women are more likely to end up married and have a more heterogeneous outlook on cultures and life. They listen and learn, while at the same time, teach others from different tribal groups.
The repressed, narrow thinking people tend to be xenophobic and seldom venture into new cultures and thinking. They are more likely to be single and stay in their homogeneous tribal groups. As a result, they are more likely to vote on issues based on the effect on their tribe. And, as discussed in What's Wrong with Kansas, by Frank, they often do not vote in their own best interests. Tribal affiliation for such people trump rational self interest. Perhaps they are lower on Maslow's Hierarchy and overly concerned about social relationships while the more worldly liberal types (who voted Trump) seek self actualization.
Sound more plausible?
If HIllary had her way - there would be no secret ballots.
Citizens would not be allowed to Unite against dear Hillary - or say a bad word about her corruptness. Free speech - dead. But please, right a check to the Foundation, where you will find salvation.
btw- the she-hag refuses to write a clinton foundation check to help hurricane ravaged Caribbean islands. Noted.
Tim - our hatred of corrupt Hillary is evidence based.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा