It's the "after all, I'm not X-ist" part that bothers me. You inserted it in both of your comments. It strikes me as out of place.
It's not out of place, its accurate. Like I said if it makes
you personally uncomfortable, its projection on your part... you're feeling attacked because of things internal to you.
Oh, I see. I interpreted this: as meaning that nowadays some significant fraction of people who say they dislike Clinton for political or other non-gender reasons actually wouldn't vote for a woman at all and were just fooling themselves/others into thinking that their votes weren't because she is a woman, and that the same might hold true of other identities as well. If that were true, we'd expect to see measurable differences between results when a straight white Christian man runs and when someone else runs, but we don't really see that for most identities now. But apparently that isn't what you meant. The "not voting for a woman at all" group (whether they are being honest to themselves/others or not) is now pretty much 0, in large part due to Clinton and other female politicians of that time. Almost everyone would vote for a woman whose political ideology they supported, whereas that wasn't true as late as the 1980s or early 1990s.
No Boots you were right, I see now that we just disagree. I interpreted your statement as meaning that Hillary had produced/forced a change
in what people say, but you meant that she's entirely changed the way people
think and perceive women. I don't buy that and I'm not sure there is enough data to make the
bolded conclusion anyway,
especially not as it relates to the POTUS election, which is what we're talking about here. We've elected 44 Presidents and 43 of them have been "straight white Christian men" and the one who was "someone else" was straight Christian male... and even that variance created substantial, non-negligible suspicion that he was not in the second category, to his detriment... no Boots, the categories still matter I think. It seems pretty obvious.
But all that is beside the point. Part of the electorate thinks "Pfft, sexism doesn't even exist anymore, or its overblown" and part of the electorate thinks "As long as I'm theoretically open to electing a woman, there's no issue." You can't really tell the difference between a "I won't vote for a woman" vote and a "I won't vote for
that woman vote"... they both count the same. I've shared my observation here how I've noticed many husband-wife divides whereby the husbands seem irked by the "feminism" angle and thereby more sympathetic to Trump as a result of it. However, I cant say what percentage of voters are influenced by gender... in a sense it doesn't matter because you can't tell the difference. You seem to be saying sexism no longer exists as it relates to POTUS elections, because Hillary basically cured that... Is that right? Anyway, my point, which connects to yours, is that partly because of the stuff we're both saying, the feminism approach to the POTUS campaign is a failure and will continue to fail.
