On the White Women Who Voted for Trump

[Content Note: Racism; misogyny.]

This is a terrific piece by Amy Alexander on the racial motives of some number of the white women who voted for Donald Trump.

Exit-polling data from CNN tells the tale:

  • Total percentage of white women who voted for Trump: 42 percent;
  • White women ages 30-44 who voted for Trump: 42 percent;
  • White women ages 45-64 who voted for Trump: 53 percent;
  • Percentage of white women with college degrees who voted for Trump: 45 percent.

...The patriarchal motif looms large in attempts to answer the question of what white female supporters hope to gain by voting for Trump. It isn't strictly a zero-sum game of reaping "gains" per se, as much as it is holding ground that some white women perceive as being theirs alone: The white women who approved of Trump as leader of the free world are betting on his ability to preserve their protected status.

Whether they acknowledge it or not, white women do enjoy a higher rung on the social and economic order in the U.S. than do black and Latino women. The perceived "halo effect" of being in close proximity to powerful white men appears to be at the least a subtext of what drove some white women to vote for Trump.

I'm not qualified to make a deep dive into the history of psychosocial causal factors for why some white women apparently still harbor such virulent fear and resentment of black men. And it also must be said that by now, versions of this resentment are directed at black women. This dynamic likely did inform the decisions of millions of white women who voted for the GOP candidate Nov. 8.
All of this is spot-on. (And please click through to read the whole thing.) I also want to add that, in addition to the racism that may have motivated (or at least certainly wasn't a deal-breaker) for Trump voters, a deep misogyny was at work, too.

Some observers have already noted the internalized misogyny potentially at play, including Aphra, but we need to be honest about the overt misogyny expressed by lots of white women, too.

Particularly in the direction of Hillary Clinton.

In my experience, the women who are most likely to express overtly misogynistic statements about Clinton—she's a "horrible woman," a "bitch," and worse—are the women who share the most in common with her: White, cis, straight, Christian, married, mothers/grandmothers, with a career.

Now, to be abundantly clear, I'm not suggesting that women who are nonwhite, trans, queer, non-Christian, unmarried, not parents, and/or not doing paid work have never expressed overt misogyny toward Clinton. Nor am I suggesting that every white, cis, straight, married, moms doing paid work have expressed such.

After all, minus the Christian and parenting parts, I am one of those women. And I've spent as much time as anyone else (and way more than most) defending Clinton from misogyny.

What I am saying is that the women whose identities most closely align with Clinton's generally tend to be the ones from whom I've heard the most vicious naked misogyny. (This is about proportionality; not universality. There's no need to point out exceptions in comments. That would be derailing.)

This correlation is not a coincidence. Women are socialized to relate to each other competitively, and to regard each other with suspicion, as we are urged to see each other as competitors for the same limited resources.

And we are more subtly socialized to regard the women who are the most like us as our chief competitors.

Thus, women who share the most in common with Hillary Clinton are more likely to regard her with both suspicion and disdain. Which inevitably spoils into sour resentment, when she achieves things they have not.

What did that bitch ever do to deserve what she's got?

And one of the things women who internalize these views are disposed to resent is support, because it's one of the resources women, all women, are most likely to lack.

Intersectional feminism is the cure for many of these ills, but, as we are all too well aware, the majority of women are not intersectional feminists. And so, stuck with the divisive misogyny with which our patriarchal culture socializes us, they gaze at an ambitious and successful woman, who is buoyed by millions of enthusiastic supporters, and they boil over with resentment.

A toxic envy that she has something they believe they never will, because such resources for women (they believe) are finite. And she took too much for herself. Fucking cunt.

Worse, they saw her talking about what she would do for people of color, for LGBTQ folks, for disabled people. But what was she promising to do for white women? Lots, as it happens. But none of it sounded like she was promising to protect white women from those other people. (Because she wasn't.)

So here we are, at the intersection of racism and misogyny. Just like a lot of the white men who voted for Trump.

This shit is ugly. And it's going to take a long time and a lot of work to dismantle. But it starts with speaking frankly about what it is.

And the truth is, a lot of white women are rank misogynists. And they voted against Hillary Clinton, in part, because of that.

Open Wide...

This Is Very Troubling


This is extraordinary on a number of levels, not least of which is that Trump's kids will still be running his business.

And, on a side note, even a blind trust wouldn't solve the massive conflict of interest problem, because Trump's portfolio of equity and assets isn't a bunch of diversified investments, but mostly his own real estate property and product lines. Even if it were all dumped into a blind trust, he'd still know where he owned hotels, golf resorts, etc. and where his apparel etc. are manufactured. The only solution to this humongous conflict of interest is complete divestment, which has never been on the table.

Anyway.

It's deeply concerning that Trump would even be asking for top secret security clearances for his children, given the provisions against nepotism in the White House. Especially because there's zero chance he'll abide by existing regulations and norms.

So his kids will be running his private business while also privy to the nation's most sensitive classified information.

This is a major security concern.

It is also, to be totally blunt, a feature of despotism.

And, once again, I'll wonder aloud why it is that this nation's power brokers are taking the position that we must give Trump a chance.


Or, you know, than in Hillary Clinton's entire career. Which you wouldn't know, given the election coverage. During which the media reported endlessly about appearances of conflict regarding the Clinton Foundation, while lazily ignoring the glaringly obvious actual conflicts of interest awaiting Trump if he reached the Oval Office.

Which he will. Since no one with any power seems concerned with raising any of the number of disqualifying issues that have emerged even in the last week.

Open Wide...

Open Thread

Hosted by a turquoise sofa. Have a seat and chat.

Open Wide...

Question of the Day


How are you?

Open Wide...

Two-Minute Nostalgia Sublime



Jason Chu featuring Sarah Jake: "Marvels"

[My profound thanks to Shaker aforalpha for passing this along.]

Open Wide...

The Monday Blogaround

This blogaround brought to you by mint.

Recommended Reading:

Jennifer: What the Protestors Hope to Achieve

Meghna: [Content Note: Bigotry; privilege] Hey White People: You Need to Start Doing the Ugly Work That Isn't Safe for Us to Do

Fannie: [CN: Bigotry; bullying] Election 2016 Fallout Part 1: On Bullying

Ragen: What Do We Do Now?

Cat: [CN: Fat hatred] On Fat Girls and Social Justice

Amie: [CN: War on agency] What Will Reproductive Health Access Look Like Under a New President?

Leave your links and recommendations in comments. Self-promotion welcome and encouraged!

Open Wide...

Open Thread: Obama's Press Conference

President Obama is currently giving a press conference about the transition of the presidency. Here is a place for discussion.

To put it politely: I am very concerned about where this is going.

Open Wide...

RIP Gwen Ifill

image of Gwen Ifill
[Photo via Wisconsin Public Television.]

Legendary newsperson Gwen Ifill, a trailblazing Black female journalist, has died at age 61. My condolences to her family, friends, colleagues, and fans.
Ifill, the host of PBS' Washington Week, was a veteran Washington journalist who covered seven presidential campaigns and moderated the vice presidential debates in 2004 and 2008.

Ifill was also the best-selling author of The Breakthrough: Politics and Race in the Age of Obama.

In 2013, Ifill was named co-host of the PBS NewsHour. In an interview with The New York Times, she reflected on what her appointment could mean to a new generation.

"When I was a little girl watching programs like this — because that's the kind of nerdy family we were — I would look up and not see anyone who looked like me in any way. No women. No people of color," she said. "I'm very keen about the fact that a little girl now, watching the news, when they see me and Judy [Woodruff] sitting side by side, it will occur to them that that's perfectly normal — that it won't seem like any big breakthrough at all."
She was really extraordinary, and I will miss her work a great deal.

Ifill died in hospice after battling cancer. I had no idea she was ill; I don't believe it was made public. A number of people (myself included) questioned why she was not chosen as a debate moderator this cycle, and I guess now we know. I am so, so sad that she's gone.

Open Wide...

More of This, Please

Democratic leader Rep. Nancy Pelosi issued a statement on the president-elect's hiring of Steven Bannon as his Chief Strategist:

After winning the presidency but losing the popular vote, President-elect Trump must try to bring Americans together – not continue to fan the flames of division and bigotry.

Bringing Steve Bannon into the White House is an alarming signal that President-elect Trump remains committed to the hateful and divisive vision that defined his campaign. There must be no sugarcoating the reality that a white nationalist has been named chief strategist for the Trump Administration.

Democrats are committed to finding common ground for hard-working families. But we will stand our ground and strongly oppose attempts by this Administration to scapegoat and persecute Americans because of who they are, how they worship, or who they love.
Well. That's a start.

Open Wide...

They Rise and Fall with Us

[Content Note: Bigotry.]

I've got a new piece at Shareblue about the urgent need to cultivate empathy with marginalized people:

[I]n the wake of this election, in which white supremacy, patriarchy, heterocentrism, Christianity, and able-bodiedness were centered — and divergence from those privileges devalued — we must urgently focus on the cultivation of empathy with marginalized people.

And we must do it not just because it is the principled thing to do, but because we are one country — like it or not — and we are all in this thing together. We must demand empathy with us out of self-interest, and make clear that it is in the self-interest of people who resent us, too.

We are all in the same leaky, creaky, unreliable boat. And knowing that means understanding even the most voracious self-interest is best served by egalitarianism: A fortune is worth nothing at the bottom of the ocean, less than a single penny carried safely to shore.
There is much more at the link. And this is, in case it isn't evident, an upturning of the expectation that we empathize with Trump supporters.

And I will say once more: We will be light for each other in these dark times, and I commit to centering my love for you and myself in my resistance.

Open Wide...

Daily Dose of Cute

image of Matilda the Fuzzy Sealpoint Cat and Sophie the Torbie Cat lying on the floor with a pink plushy toy between them
At least there are cats.

As always, please feel welcome and encouraged to share pix of the fuzzy, feathered, or scaled members of your family in comments.

Open Wide...

Recommended Reading

[Content Note: Misogyny; racism; queerphobia; Islamophobia.]

Rebecca Solnit in the Guardian: "Don't call Clinton a weak candidate: it took decades of scheming to beat her."

Jonathan Capehart in the Washington Post: "Why millions fear the looming Trump presidency."

Nell Irvin Painter in the New York Times: "What Whiteness means in the Trump Era."

Open Wide...

A Few Things

For those who aren't on Twitter, here's a catch up of some of the stuff I was talking about this weekend.

Open Wide...

"I told the truth; I didn't come to fool ya."

For anyone who may have missed it, this was the cold open on Saturday Night Live this weekend: Kate McKinnon, in character as Hillary Clinton, who she played throughout the campaign, at a piano, playing and singing "Hallelujah," the song by Leonard Cohen, who just passed away.


Lyrics here. At the end of the song, she turns to the camera and says, "I'm not giving up. And neither should you. And live from New York, it's Saturday night."

Just when I think I'm done crying, it turns out I'm not even close to being done.

Open Wide...

Open Thread

image of a purple sofa

Hosted by a purple sofa. Have a seat and chat.

Open Wide...

The Virtual Pub Is Open

image of a pub Photoshopped to be named 'The Beloved Community Pub'
[Explanations: lol your fat. pathetic anger bread. hey your gay.]

Belly up to the bar,
and be in this space together.

Open Wide...

On the Agenda So Far

[Content Note: Privilege; classism.]

1. Dismantle net neutrality.

2. Reverse course on climate change.

3. Lower taxes.

4. "Phase out Medicare and replace it with private insurance for retirees." And disabled people.

They're not just going to roll back progress of the last eight years. They're going to roll back everything since the New Deal.

And who's going to stop them? I keep seeing people talking about "checks and balances," but we are on Day Three and those are already a quaint relic of the past.


This is what happens when people demonize "the establishment" with broad strokes, suggesting that the entire system is irredeemably corrupt. The door is opened for someone who has no interest in fixing the pieces that are broken, but instead wants to demolish the entire thing and erect his own ego in its place.

If anyone who wanted "change" because "the establishment" had been "corrupted" by "elites" thinks that Trump's plan to stack the deck with a bunch of authoritarian millionaires and billionaires just like him looks like an improvement on the admittedly flawed system we already had, what they wanted wasn't change but a doubling-down on everything they claimed to despise.

And by the time Trump is done, their sniveling worries about brown people and uppity ladies and kissing boys will pale in comparison to the shit their dear leader gives them to deal with.

Unfortunately, we'll all be dealing with it, too.

Open Wide...

Thank You, Harry Reid

Outgoing Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (who is retiring) has a few thoughts on the election:

I have personally been on the ballot in Nevada for 26 elections and I have never seen anything like the reaction to the election completed last Tuesday. The election of Donald Trump has emboldened the forces of hate and bigotry in America.

White nationalists, Vladimir Putin, and ISIS are celebrating Donald Trump's victory, while innocent, law-abiding Americans are wracked with fear – especially African Americans, Hispanic Americans, Muslim Americans, LGBT Americans, and Asian Americans. Watching white nationalists celebrate while innocent Americans cry tears of fear does not feel like America.

I have heard more stories in the past 48 hours of Americans living in fear of their own government and their fellow Americans than I can remember hearing in five decades in politics. Hispanic Americans who fear their families will be torn apart, African Americans being heckled on the street, Muslim Americans afraid to wear a headscarf, gay and lesbian couples having slurs hurled at them and feeling afraid to walk down the street holding hands. American children waking up in the middle of the night crying, terrified that Trump will take their parents away. Young girls unable to understand why a man who brags about sexually assaulting women has been elected president.

I have a large family. I have one daughter and twelve granddaughters. The texts, emails and phone calls I have received from them have been filled with fear – fear for themselves, fear for their Hispanic and African American friends, for their Muslim and Jewish friends, for their LBGT friends, for their Asian friends. I've felt their tears and I've felt their fear.

We as a nation must find a way to move forward without consigning those who Trump has threatened to the shadows. Their fear is entirely rational, because Donald Trump has talked openly about doing terrible things to them. Every news piece that breathlessly obsesses over inauguration preparations compounds their fear by normalizing a man who has threatened to tear families apart, who has bragged about sexually assaulting women and who has directed crowds of thousands to intimidate reporters and assault African Americans. Their fear is legitimate and we must refuse to let it fall through the cracks between the fluff pieces.

If this is going to be a time of healing, we must first put the responsibility for healing where it belongs: at the feet of Donald Trump, a sexual predator who lost the popular vote and fueled his campaign with bigotry and hate. Winning the electoral college does not absolve Trump of the grave sins he committed against millions of Americans. Donald Trump may not possess the capacity to assuage those fears, but he owes it to this nation to try.

If Trump wants to roll back tide of hate he unleashed, he has a tremendous amount of work to do and he must begin immediately.
fire emoji

Open Wide...

The President-Elect's Cabinet

As part of his transition, the president-elect will be starting to select people to fill his cabinet. And, as you'd imagine, the possibilities are terrifying.

A new report suggests, for example, that Rudy Giuliani, who was being floated for Attorney General, is now being considered for Secretary of State. The other name being floated for State is Newt Gingrich.

Utterly appalling.

Here are a couple of articles on the other names being floated for various cabinet positions: [CN: disablist language] Tim Murphy at Mother Jones: "Trump's Cabinet Is Going to Be as [Indecent] as You Thought," and Nancy Cook and Andrew Restuccia at Politico: "Meet Trump's Cabinet-in-Waiting."

And then there is this:


I said from the very beginning of this campaign that part of assessing candidates is looking at their campaigns to see who might end up in the White House.

In the president-elect's case, he surrounded himself with nightmare dregs of conservatism and was repudiated by the intellectual wing of conservatism—economists, intelligence officers, military strategists. I fundamentally disagree with those folks, but I also respect the fact that they're career bureaucrats who don't want to destroy our democracy. And when they rejected the president-elect, that mattered.

He's picking people based on fealty and surrounding himself with dangerous sycophants who will absolutely not keep him in check.

Many of the people who voted for him had this bullshit fantasy that, even though he's clearly erratic and unprepared, he'd "surround himself with smart people." No, he won't. And he was never going to.

That was manifestly obvious. And anyone who ever believed otherwise was catastrophically misinformed or deluding themselves. Or both.

Open Wide...

Veterans' Day

image of three US veterans: a Latina woman, a Latino man, and a black man

Today is Veterans' Day in the US.

Veterans' Day is a weird sort of day for me to recognize, because I don't feel like I'm honoring our servicemembers to treat them as a monolith with an easy catchphrase like, "I support the troops."

I remember seeing a segment on CNN, on Veterans' Day several years ago, about a young man getting the Medal of Honor, who said quite candidly that he was angry to be getting it, because it comes at such a cost. Some generic, feelgood, unqualified, blanket statement about supporting the troops doesn't get at that complicated reality; its vagueness feels like cowardice.

On the other hand, I don't feel like I'm particularly honoring them by pointing out that among the troops are war criminals and thieves and miscreants who harm their fellow soldiers, whose behavior I categorically do not want to support, or by using this day to talk about my objections to the multiple wars and not-wars we're currently fighting, even as I acknowledge the soldiers who honorably staff those wars don't have a choice where they're sent.

It's easy to politicize this day, especially right after an election, to talk about meaningful proposals, or the lack thereof, to begin to address some of the ways in which we've let down our veterans, or express concerns about the bellicose grandstanding that suggests we will never not be at war, ever again. But I don't want to do that, either. Not today.

Which always leaves me not really knowing what to say.

So I'll just say this: Thank you to all the women and men who have served this country with decency in a military capacity, who have been willing to risk their lives to defend its borders, resources, and people.

And this: When I write about social justice issues every day, I'm advocating for veterans.

I'm advocating for veterans whose bodies and/or minds were changed by war when I write about disability and healthcare access. I'm advocating for veterans who were sexually assaulted when I write about the rape culture. I'm advocating for veterans who are not allowed to serve openly when I write about LGBTQIA rights. I'm advocating for veterans who are denied opportunity and equal pay when I write about gender equality. I'm advocating for veterans when I write about visibility of people of color. I'm advocating for veterans who are not getting adequate healthcare, who are homeless, who are unemployed, when I write about funding a comprehensive social safety net. Whenever I'm writing about people in need in the US, I'm necessarily writing about veterans.

If we center that idea, if those of us who are not veterans or active military ourselves vigilantly remember that veterans are part of our community, not a community separate from our own, and that when we advocate broadly for social justice we advocate for veterans, every day really is Veterans' Day.

Please feel welcome and encouraged to drop suggestions in comments for how to teaspoon on behalf of veterans today and every day.

I will suggest making a donation, if you can, to the Pets for Vets program, which trains and matches shelter animals with veterans, for companionship and/or service.

Open Wide...

Back |