• EleventhHour@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    128
    arrow-down
    29
    ·
    edit-2
    24 hours ago

    Not to defend “them”, but I really do believe that very little of this has anything to do with the fact that she’s a woman. It’s a red versus blue thing, democracy versus fascism. At this point, it doesn’t really matter who runs for president, wrt gender or even race. Trump has attacked her race far more than mentioning anything about her gender. Nonetheless, Trump just sees the dems as “the enemy“, and has convinced all of his cultists to view things in the same terms.

    Any other Republican of this current generation would probably attack her on her gender as much as her race, but for some reason, Trump only attacks things he doesn’t understand such as biraciality (biracialness? Biracitude?).

    • xenoclast@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      55 minutes ago

      I’m sure it has much nuance, but all things being equal. If she were a 45 year old white man, I believe it would be a lot less close.

    • merc@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      5 hours ago

      I believe that a lot of it has to do with her being a non-white woman.

      Obviously, something like 30-40% of people had already picked a side and were going to vote either Trump or whoever was not Trump on the other ticket. But, there are still plenty of people in the middle. Given how extreme the US is, the “middle” isn’t reasonable, thoughtful people. They’re all voting for the democrats. It’s racists who don’t think abortion should be banned. It’s sexists who are concerned with corruption. It’s people who are in the alt-right bubble and think that George Soros and Bill Gates are using mosquitoes to infect people with 5G… but who think Trump is a Freemason, so you can’t vote for him.

    • Riven@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      110
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      23 hours ago

      They’ve attacked the fact she’s a childless woman plenty. Like if it mattered for her policies. I doubt they’ll straight up attack her for just being a woman much because they still want the conservative woman vote but they’ll sure as shit attack her for woman things.

      • PresidentCamacho@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        7 hours ago

        I think what he is saying is sexism is at play much less than tribalism.

        I dont think any sane person can say that sexism is not at play at all.

        • Riven@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          7 hours ago

          That’s fair enough. Really it’s a travesty at all that we have to rank what’s being attacked, especially when it has nothing to do with policy.

      • some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        22
        ·
        17 hours ago

        Hey, that lady hasn’t had kids. I haven’t had kids, but that’s ok because I’m a man. Fuck that bitch, she doesn’t have kids, she can’t be an american. /s

      • EleventhHour@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        64
        ·
        23 hours ago

        They’ve attacked her because she doesn’t have any biological children, not because she’s a woman. Although they may be related, the attacks were very specifically against her, not having any biological children.

          • EleventhHour@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            56
            ·
            22 hours ago

            They certainly make it as difficult as possible for game to adopt children.

            Stop trying to make this simple and black-and-white as they want you to think it is. They’re playing into their bullshit.

            • conciselyverbose@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              42
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              22 hours ago

              What?

              Nobody has ever called out a male politician for not having kids. Attacking her for not having kids is literally exclusively about gender.

              • EleventhHour@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                4
                arrow-down
                58
                ·
                22 hours ago

                Nobody has ever called out a male politician for not having kids.

                You don’t know that. And if you’re claiming that’s a fact, then prove it.

                When you have to invent things just to make your point, you can’t have a very good point.

    • themeatbridge@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      50
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      23 hours ago

      Trump and his reich frequently attack her for being a step mother, accuse her of using sex for professional gain, and call her a cat lady. What the fuck are you talking about?

    • BanjoShepard@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      27
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      23 hours ago

      While I agree that at its heart it’s a red vs blue issue, I’ve seen more than enough explicitly sexist commentary from Trump supporters, most commonly suggesting that Kamala has attained her status via sexual favors rather than years of public service.

    • FlexibleToast@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      23 hours ago

      To add to that, calling them sexist further entrenches them. A big part of that movement is a reaction to being called sexist, racist, etc… All you’re doing is playing into their own propaganda. That’s why the “weird” moniker was so much more effective.