Greedy Goblin

Friday, November 11, 2016

Oh, we misogynistic pigs

At least anti-racists are silenced by the fact that President Obama was black and got much higher votes in the battleground states (and slightly higher overall) than Hillary Clinton. Beside the most bigoted Black Lives Matter members, everyone understands that people didn't turn from Obama voters to Ku-Klux-Klan members in 4 years. But feminists are all out with their despair and (self-)hate and finger-pointing to the source of all bad things in this World: man. Men, in their misogynistic rage voted for Trump because they couldn't possibly accept a woman having the highest position of politics.

"Men didn't vote for Clinton because of her gender" is the easy to disprove. All you have to ask the Feminist how did she vote [would vote if she was American] in 2008. The answer will be - obviously - Barack Obama. Then you can go on and rant:
You voted against the McCain-Palin ticket for only one reason. You are sub-consciously misogynistic, and didn't believe that a woman is ready to break the glass ceiling of being Vice President of the USA. You were intimidated by the idea that a powerful, outspoken woman full of ideas and strong beliefs will take this high office which would defy the male-centric focus of our society.
At this point she either burst out of laughter realizing how dumb she was, or doesn't. In the latter case you can explain her that just as she saw Sarah Palin as an unfit candidate regardless of her gender, voters were entitled to see Hillary Clinton as a corrupted warmonger instead of "a woman".

Oh, and if she deflect with that latest wave feminist nonsense that even white women are not good enough and "we" must listen to women of color and LGBT women and whatnot, just point her at the stellar approval rating of Michelle Obama. She was out campaigning for Hillary, which means that Clinton campaign also agreed that this "woman of color" is more accepted by the "deplorables" than Clinton herself.

It was just Clinton's strategy to position herself as "a woman", having no better characteristics. She wasn't "a woman", just like Sarah Palin wasn't. They were politicians with agendas, qualifications and less then perfect history behind them. They were judged accordingly.


PS: I defended Anita Sarkeesian many times, because she has many valuable finds and huge amount of compilatory work. But even I couldn't stop laughing on her Sion-on-book level of tears over this election. However if you google "SJW tears Trump" you can find hours of compilations of human beings raging and crying over this election. It's probably funny to watch them for some. For me it's just very sad.

PS2: Ann Coulter never fails to deliver, now on the perspective of female presidency:
>

13 comments:

dobablo said...

Trump won a narrow majority of the white female voters. That demographic, with a 10% swing from Obama to Trump, was one of the biggest movers of the election (and probably a key constituent of the 16% swing in the <$30k group).
You do seem to spend a lot of time and gain a lot of enjoyment from tears.

Gevlon said...

Yes, women votes for Trump hurt SWJs more than anything (black votes also increased, but still very low, so that don't hurt that much). SWJs believe that "feelings matter" and think that no woman (or non-sexist man) shall vote for someone who was mean to women. Real people on the other hand care about real things and most women cared more about their jobs and health care premiums and national security than what a dude they'll never meet SAYS about women.

I usually don't collect tears. But these people were not arguing with me and people like me. They dismissed and looked down on me and people like me. They didn't say "you are wrong because of X", they said "unhinged crazy". Seeing them all wrong is vindication, especially when I (and many like me) told told them they were wrong and they refused to listen.

This is why I like Anita, despite I disagree a lot with her, she at least bothers to argue and bring material instead of all these SWJs.

Anonymous said...

Clinton positioned herself as a woman and it was a massive mistake. Trump used it at his advantage, he said "If she wasn't playing the woman card she wouldn't even get 5% of the vote." To what Hillary responded "If fighting for women's rights and equal pay is playing the woman card, then deal. Me. IN!"... She never mentioned anything about men right or gender equality, from there it was simple for trump to get men vote who didn't see themselves in Clinton and at the same time women votes who didn't vote for a president because of gender.

Anonymous said...

these social justice warriors evaded arguments and facing facts. Them rioting the streets like upset toddlers .. it seems like every hope for them becoming adults is gone. I really don't see how to change these peoples mind. On that note https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GLG9g7BcjKs

Sample size over 24k people in the Exit Polls .. this seems rather low. Can these numbers be used at all? http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/11/08/us/politics/election-exit-polls.html.
Will Trump be worse then g.w.bush? I really can't see how Trump can be more fucked up as Bush. And why are these rioting people so mad? Be mad about 20T debt! how the fuck do US citizens think this would change under Clinton? So even if voting trump was a hail mary attempt for change. maybe it will be not the worst like the whole world painfully experienced with G.W.Bush.

Hanura H'arasch said...

"At this point she either burst out of laughter realizing how dumb she was, or doesn't."

Yeah, like when you explain to a creationist that we have countless pieces of evidence that the world is older than 10 000 years he'll suddenly believe it.

More realistically she'll blame the patriarchy for brainwashing her into thinking that Palin wasn't an option.

And that's what makes discussing with feminists and most SWJs so frustrating. They made their believes part of their identity, like Christians, and don't want to be convinced.

Which is a shame, because feminists are right in one aspect: there is still sexism, even in the first world. I suspect you Gevlon, are seeing this even more commonly than I do, living in Hungary, which is probably the reason you are supporting them. Though then again, sexism is written in laws in my country as well ...

Gevlon said...

@Hanura: for a career feminist it's true (though I never heard the patriarchy brainwashing version, I only heard the Palin betrayed her gender by running for beauty queen at the age of 19). But most feminists are just people who live a normal life and listen to reason. Just like most Christians are not bigots blowing up abortion clinics. Even the pope accepted evolution!

nightgerbil said...

My response is: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GLG9g7BcjKs
basically this, only he says it better then I can.

Phelps said...

The funny thing is the NYT exit polls show that Trump only got 1% more of the white vote than Romney. It was the non-white vote that put Trump over the top.

Samus said...

This line of argument is only possible because Trump won by such a small margin. If 1% of the voters had voted Clinton instead of Trump, she would be president-elect right now and we'd all be talking about how right the projections were in yet another election. I have no doubt Clinton did lose some votes for being a woman, and given how close the election was maybe that was enough. But there are a hundred more things you could say that about, none of them are "the one reason" she lost.

You and the guy in nightgerbil's video probably have it the most right. Clinton was the insider with a huge donor advantage, and just assumed her money combined with the supposed Democrat Electoral College advantage meant she couldn't lose. She provided nothing to vote FOR, no real message or platform. Trump actually got 1.9 million fewer votes than Mitt Romney did in 2012, but Clinton got 5 million less than Obama did. Turns out, accepting only liberals and calling everyone else stupid or racist isn't the best campaign strategy.

99smite said...

Hey Gevlon, you really should do better research... Anita Sarkeesian does not provide facts for her arguments. She makes things up that fit her narrative. Many people have repeatedly proven her wrong.
She just uses a method of "being scientific" and "doing research" while in fact, she isn't...

She is constantly whining about being convicted of lying and when people call her a liar she calls that harrassment, you know, in her narrative,they call her a liar because she is a powerful woman, telling uncomfortabel truths, while in truth, she is just a fraud who collects money from rich people who want to support feminism, but end up providing for her luxurious life...

Anonymous said...

Clinton didn't lose because she is a woman. She lost because she is Hillary Clinton and nobody actually likes her. Trump got ~60m votes, the same as Romney and McCain got. Hillary got 6-10m fewer than Obama did. There was no rush of anti-woman voters to Trump, he got the same people that always vote (R).

As people have said for years, "Democrats fall in love, Republicans fall in line." The people who vote republican held their noses and voted party like they do every year, while democrats just didn't vote. Democrats' problem has always been getting people to actually show up and vote, and they ran possibly the most uninspiring candidate possible. *Grumbles about Sanders getting railroaded*

Yaggle said...

I was a Hillary supporter but the more the election went on, I did not notice her saying she would do anything for a 48 year old single middle-class, blue-collar male worker like myself. I heard a lot of talk of helping children of illegal immigrants, women, families. Some vague things about how important the middle-class is. Not anything whatsoever pertaining to me. I did not like Trump appealing to low-intelligence people who think their problems are because of Chinese, Mexicans, and Muslims or ridiculous claims how he would cut everybody's taxes including corporate taxes, without ideas how to pay for things or how to cut all that money out of the federal budget. 8 years ago I helped vote in a lot of liberal politicans including Obama who said the middle class was important. I saw my wages hardly go up at all but a lot of welfare for poor people including soon even more raises to the minimum wage(liberals just passed raise from $8.00/hr. to $12.00/hr. where I live), and a lot of wealthy people become more wealthy from the stock market. So I did the 'terrible' thing and did not vote for either Hillary or Trump. If Trump can fulfill most of his campaign promises while not running up the federal deficit awfully much, I will be happy with him. At least he is not cronyist like you said.

Anonymous said...

The pendulum swings back and forth. But the long arc of history bends towards our side, as MLK said.

Even the modern fascist movements have had to water themselves down. Compare Marine Le Pen's position with that of the senior Le Pen.

Unfortunately the millennial liberals tried to go too far and too fast, and have provoked a backlash, or a whitelash as some are calling it. They just need to relearn that "softly and gently, catches the monkey".