Trump Was Elected Because of How Feminism Backfires Over Time - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Mild necroposting has been permitted because it has always been mild but since it is growing into a bane it will no longer be tolerated.

Moderators are therefore advised to initially move necroposts into stand-alone threads and for repeat offenders to hand out official warnings if said posters continue the practice.
All general discussion about politics that doesn't belong in any of the other forums.

Moderator: PoFo Political Circus Mods

#14789943
http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/03/20/the ... tionalism/

Here's an excellent article that proves what's said in the title in light of how a majority of white women voted for Trump, especially from the following points:

Later, there were more thoughtful attempts to understand the women who supported Trump — and who, as a post-election survey by PerryUndem Research/Communication confirms, defy easy categorization. A sizable minority are ultraconservatives strongly skeptical of the feminist revolution that has become a part of mainstream Western culture. Thirty-one percent agree at least somewhat that women should return to traditional roles, compared with 21 percent of all women in the survey; one in four believes that men generally make better political leaders, compared with 3 percent of Clinton voters. Still more extreme traditionalism can be found on the alternative-right fringes of Trumpism, where women like Lana Lokteff, host of a “pro-white” (and pro-Trump) internet radio show, regard even women’s suffrage as destructive.


The bolded shows how traditional gender roles and preferred male leadership were not primary motivators since they leave 69% and 75% of those surveyed still unexplained.

“When he got in the race, I thought, ‘You know, he would really be a disruptor,’” says Ann Stone, the political activist and businesswoman in Virginia. “He would really allow us to shake things up, shake the party up. And that was something I was looking for.”

Stone, a brash, super-confident dynamo at 64 and a Reagan Revolution veteran, is in many ways the anti-Schlafly: a pro-choice, pro-gay, feminist Republican harshly critical of GOP orthodoxy on social issues. Almost 30 years ago, she founded the Republicans for Choice political action committee; last year, she co-founded the Women Vote Trump super PAC. Stone, a marketing consultant on Trump’s 1989 to 1992 airline venture, the Trump Shuttle, says the experience left her with a very positive impression, “especially [of] the way he treated women in business.”

To Stone, Trump is a “modern pragmatist” whose ideas on trade, immigration, and foreign policy are adapted to present-day realities, and who has a unique ability to connect with the ordinary man — and woman. “He’s not a politician,” Stone says. “They feel that as obnoxious and as vulgar as he can be, he’s genuine. He doesn’t hold back, he has no filters, so you hear what he’s thinking. He’s not BS-ing you.”


The anti-idealism and amoralism that feminism has emphasized for years, decades, and generations enabled Trump to win due to his pragmatic and vulgar personality.

Indeed, some voters interviewed for this article link their support for Trump to their commitment to women’s rights. Nomani agrees with Trump’s claim that “political correctness” has prevented liberals from confronting radical Islam, an attitude that she sees as condoning women’s oppression. Ann Stone, a veteran GOP activist and businesswoman, believes that Trump will have unique opportunities to work for women’s advancement on such issues as tax reform and family leave.


Yet a third of female Trump voters in the PerryUndem survey identified themselves as moderate or liberal — and an overwhelming 77 percent wanted to see Trump and Congress advance equality for women. Many of these voters may reject what they see as the excessive hypersensitivity of modern feminism — 53 percent agreed that women often misinterpret innocent situations as sexist — but they do not reject equality. And while 39 percent of them found Trump’s comments about women upsetting, their queasiness wasn’t enough to sway them.

This suffocating strain of political correctness on some college campuses is not limited to the issue of Title IX legislation. “Hanna” and “Julia,” who are Trump supporters and seniors at a large East Coast university, feel compelled to hide any political views that are out of lockstep with the majority. They asked that their names not be used for this article. Both are science majors and first-time voters at 21; both mentioned the much-discussed problem of “political correctness” as an issue that influenced their vote. For Hanna, it was the issue. While she mentions Trump’s plan to invest in the infrastructure as a plus, she mainly saw a Trump victory as a strike against “PC culture.”


Hanna’s and Julia’s fear of backlash if they were publicly known as Trump voters is justified, says Toni Airaksinen, a junior at New York’s Barnard College and an Ohio native who grew up on food stamps. A disenchanted former social justice activist, Airaksinen says she is often assumed to be a Trump fan because she has criticized “political correctness” and written for such right-of-center websites as The College Fix. (In an email, Airaksinen said she did not vote but understands how “PC culture” could motivate some to vote for Trump.) She says she has repeatedly experienced verbal harassment on campus — such as being called “Trump trash” — and received abusive online messages.


Political correctness that feminists have advocated has been treated as hypersensitive.

__________

The bottomline is that if you're a feminist, then you are at fault for enabling Trump to win.
#14789978
I also disagree. People who know what feminism actually is, aren't afraid of it. Cowardly cucks, are.

As the PM of Canada said when asked why he had a gender equal cabinet, "Because it's 2015".
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/pol ... e27119856/

MistyTiger wrote:A true feminist will not support a bully and pervert accused of sexually assaulting women.
QFT.
#14790143
Honestly It's more to do with the decline of middle class manufacturing jobs than anything. Sure there are vocal groups complaining about "PC SJW's" and all that, but those people aren't new. They've been around forever. He won because he appealed to blue collar workers who are loosing their jobs in places like Pennsylvanian. Economics trumps everything else.

For all that Identity politics is a huge fight on and off PoFo for people like us, most people only care about feeding their families and having a secure job and future.
#14790156
I don't think you can view these issues in isolation. At the very least, the group of people who have seen a decline or stagnation in their living standard have been neglected, taken for granted or sometimes even vilified as a voting block and this treatment depends on how we view and organise our societies, where currently this group is way down on the priority list of elected officials. If politicians have to make the right noises with respect to an ever growing list of minorities/identities and their issues dominate the debate, people will not only feel resentment but also make the connection to PC/identity politics. For instance, in the current climate, they may feel they don't have more rights and aren't more important than illegal immigrants.

Of course, in economically good times many issues can be masked and people are more inclined to overlook and ignore them. However, that doesn't mean they don't exist. They will tend to surface under certain circumstances and we can neither completely control these conditions nor will they necessarily stay the same over time. One of the most important characteristics of a well-functioning society is that it doesn't disintegrate in hard times. Currently, times aren't exactly hard, they just aren't particularly good, yet fault lines seem to be already opening. In my view, this is not a good way to organise our societies, neither in a strategic nor a moral sense.
#14790443
MistyTiger wrote:I disagree. The women in the South made Trump's win possible. Southern belles tend to like overbearing, mean sounding men. They probably grew up around big meanies. They do not know better.

A true feminist will not support a bully and pervert accused of sexually assaulting women.


Not sure how you came to that conclusion considering how the south predominantly supported Ted Cruz first. If anything, it's the north that had that attitude in contrast to the gracefully religious south.

Godstud wrote:I also disagree. People who know what feminism actually is, aren't afraid of it. Cowardly cucks, are.

As the PM of Canada said when asked why he had a gender equal cabinet, "Because it's 2015".
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/pol ... e27119856/

QFT.


Feminism is an ideology that treats the rule of law and order as patriarchic, and confuses the real value of redistributive justice. It enables people to play the victim at the expense of innocent others just because they're similar to actually victimized or victimizing people.

Redistribution is supposed to be used to compensate victims of negligence where retribution hasn't happened. It's not supposed to be used to neglect retribution in the first place.

That said, your statement comes off like a neocon who uses feminism to advocate the conservative value system of abuse, negligence, blaming of victims, and telling victims on a ruggedly individualist basis to deal with it and pull themselves up by their bootstraps.

Heck, the cuck comment is exactly what Trump supporters often said during the election. You just proved the point.
#14790461
Dubayoo wrote:Feminism is an ideology that treats the rule of law and order as patriarchic, and confuses the real value of redistributive justice. It enables people to play the victim at the expense of innocent others just because they're similar to actually victimized or victimizing people.

...


No, you seem to not understand what feminism is.

Why people actually voted for Trump:
http://www.cracked.com/blog/6-reasons-t ... lks-about/
#14790466
Feminism is an ideology that treats the rule of law and order as patriarchic, and confuses the real value of redistributive justice. It enables people to play the victim at the expense of innocent others just because they're similar to actually victimized or victimizing people.


Feminism is not about patriarchy. I am pretty sure that feminists find patriarchies to be overbearing and unfair to women. Patriarchies are not known for recognizing the rights of women so women want to overthrow the patriarchal societies to enforce equal rights for women.

Definition of patriarchy

Definition of patriarchy
plural patriarchies
1
: social organization marked by the supremacy of the father in the clan or family, the legal dependence of wives and children, and the reckoning of descent and inheritance in the male line; broadly : control by men of a disproportionately large share of power


https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/patriarchy
#14790900
Kaiserschmarrn wrote:Not sure how significant it is, but the backslash against PC and identity politics is almost certainly one part of the phenomenon.


I agree that there is a backlash against PC, but is there really one against identity politics? Instead the response seems to be a continuation of identity politics through its embrace by the right. If one wants to argue that Trump's election was due to racism (I don't believe it was) then it was an expression of white interest and white identity politics.

Backlash against immigration, multi-culturalism etc is fundamentally about identity. The right just seems to be on a path towards embracing identity politics.

What I've been seeing from both sides lately is a fight over radicalism. Online figures on both sides of the aisle persistently cherry pick the most outlandish, caricatured examples of their opponents and then attempt to label the entire movement as having equally extreme beliefs. Whoever wins the battle of labeling their opponents as extremists/radicals will probably win, at least in a US context.
#14791186
warsmith17 wrote:
I agree that there is a backlash against PC, but is there really one against identity politics? Instead the response seems to be a continuation of identity politics through its embrace by the right. If one wants to argue that Trump's election was due to racism (I don't believe it was) then it was an expression of white interest and white identity politics.

Backlash against immigration, multi-culturalism etc is fundamentally about identity. The right just seems to be on a path towards embracing identity politics.

What I've been seeing from both sides lately is a fight over radicalism. Online figures on both sides of the aisle persistently cherry pick the most outlandish, caricatured examples of their opponents and then attempt to label the entire movement as having equally extreme beliefs. Whoever wins the battle of labeling their opponents as extremists/radicals will probably win, at least in a US context.

I agree that we are seeing some signs that the right - or perhaps it's more accurate to say a substantial part of the majority - is starting to act like a special interest group, although I think this is largely a reaction rather than an embrace. Today, if you cannot claim to belong to some kind of "victimised or oppressed" group you will by default end up in the group of the privileged in whose favour society is presumed to work. At this stage, people are predominantly just rejecting this idea and being more vocal about it. PC is closely related to this, since political correctness is largely used to protect and favour victimised and oppressed groups.

Personally, I think for the right, or worse the majority, to adopt an identity politics approach is a bad idea and potentially dangerous. As I said elsewhere on here, it would be a regression to something more akin to tribal societies.
#14791445
Kaiserschmarrn wrote:I agree that we are seeing some signs that the right - or perhaps it's more accurate to say a substantial part of the majority - is starting to act like a special interest group, although I think this is largely a reaction rather than an embrace. Today, if you cannot claim to belong to some kind of "victimised or oppressed" group you will by default end up in the group of the privileged in whose favour society is presumed to work. At this stage, people are predominantly just rejecting this idea and being more vocal about it. PC is closely related to this, since political correctness is largely used to protect and favour victimised and oppressed groups.

Personally, I think for the right, or worse the majority, to adopt an identity politics approach is a bad idea and potentially dangerous. As I said elsewhere on here, it would be a regression to something more akin to tribal societies.


I wouldn't use the term special interest to describe a majority. The majority ceased thinking in terms of ethnicity, other groups embraced and weaponized identities against majority and the majority responded. Overall, this is a net positive. I don't see any trend toward anyone majority, or minority giving up on identity politics. This will likely cause an increasing number to take part. In many ways its what has been seen for most of human history.

I agree that there could very well be a trend toward tribalism. I'm not sure that it can be avoided, however. For it to be avoided it would require many groups to entirely cease attempts to improve their position within society, and require the majority to make attempts at leveling the playing field. In the US this would likely need to take the form of massive education reform, in addition to other programs. I just don't see this as likely.

This whole situation is slowly weakening my belief in civic nationalism, though I remain hopeful.
#14791466
For all the complaints about identity politics destroying America I really think it's all hot air. People have always fought for their interests, how is it strange that LGBT people ban together to support their interests? Or minority groups to support theirs?

You can level complaints that their ideas on privledge are wrong, but they certainly believe them. Most people who are in these minority groups do actually care about the society they are in. They simply see problems that they wish to see fixed.

I for one, as one of those dirty identity politics people, genuinely believe that I'm trying to make America better.
#14791469
Racism, sexism, homophobia, religious bigotry, and all the other traditional forms of discrimination that have traditionally existed in western societies are all identity politics.

For those who are critical of identity politics, can we count on your support for ending these forms of discrimination?
#14791472
mikema63 wrote:Many people opposed to identity politics that I have met either do support ending those but disagree with how identity groups think it should be done or they believe that it's already dealt with.


People who believe it is already dealt with think that there should be no further work done on it, and thus oppose equality movements.
#14791525
warsmith17 wrote:
I wouldn't use the term special interest to describe a majority. The majority ceased thinking in terms of ethnicity, other groups embraced and weaponized identities against majority and the majority responded. Overall, this is a net positive. I don't see any trend toward anyone majority, or minority giving up on identity politics. This will likely cause an increasing number to take part. In many ways its what has been seen for most of human history.

I agree that there could very well be a trend toward tribalism. I'm not sure that it can be avoided, however. For it to be avoided it would require many groups to entirely cease attempts to improve their position within society, and require the majority to make attempts at leveling the playing field. In the US this would likely need to take the form of massive education reform, in addition to other programs. I just don't see this as likely.

This whole situation is slowly weakening my belief in civic nationalism, though I remain hopeful.

I don't think that any group would have to completely give up advocacy or lobbying. It is only a problem if the group identity becomes the most important defining characteristic for people or in other words when loyalty and solidarity are predominantly confined to "your own". It's worse if identities are established almost entirely based on past and current grievances, regardless of whether these are perceived or real. An aggravating feature of our western societies is that there isn't a fixed set of groups but that new identities can quite easily be added, and that progressives have an incentive to do so. The latest addition seem to be illegal immigrants and with them an assault on the basis of national sovereignty, i.e. the privilege of citizenship and legal residence, and open defiance of the rule of law.

As you mention, we do have a reasonably effective antidote to tribalism in nationalism/patriotism, but we refuse to use it. It's quite ironic that nationalism-phobia, originally devised to be imposed on axis countries post WWII (very successfully in Germany, less so in Japan), has taken hold in allied countries as well. You guys have come to believe your own propaganda, while countries like Japan have turned out to be relatively immune to it.
Bombings in Manchester

@Suntzu for a second time please cite a (credibl[…]

YOU ACTUALLY MADE ME GO BACK AND STARE AT THE MAN'[…]

What ISIS Really Wants

Cause Japan has been a long standing enemy of the […]

Assange and Kim Dot Com: two on the level dudes w[…]