Posted on 09/13/2017 6:54:01 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
I was prepared for her book tour to be a cavalcade of blame-shifting but I was not prepared for how much blame she’s been shifting to the public itself for her loss. Blame Comey, blame Trump, blame her campaign staff, blame the media, blame Anthony Weiner — sure, fine, we all knew that was coming. Sniping at voters who didn’t turn out on Election Day? That’s … a little more surprising, but okay, sure. We can indulge her some basic sour grapes against no-shows.
What the hell is *this* about, though?
Sheryl [Sandberg] ended this really sobering conversation by saying that women will have no empathy for you, because they will be under tremendous pressure — and I’m talking principally about white women — they will be under tremendous pressure from fathers and husbands and boyfriends and male employers not to vote for “the girl.” And we saw a lot of that during the primaries from Sanders supporters, really quite vile attacks online against women who spoke out for me, as I say, one of my biggest support groups, Pantsuit Nation, literally had to become a private site because there was so much sexism directed their way.
Women who dislike Hillary, including women who supported Bernie Sanders in the primaries, are semi-helpless tools of their male relatives’ sexism? What?
Watch the clip below from this morning’s “Today” show in which she insists, citing Science, that women become less likable the more professionally successful they are. That’s a convenient self-serving bit of sociology to explain away a defeat that’s widely and properly attributed to Clinton simply being a terrible retail politician in a hostile populist climate with no national vision beyond “Trump is evil.” It’s true that there was a study done in 2003 and popularized by Sheryl Sandberg in her book “Lean In” that showed that female bosses were rated less favorably by employees than male bosses were. You can imagine why that might be true — an assertive woman might be viewed as “bitchy” rather than as “commanding,” men might resent taking orders from the so-called “weaker sex,” etc. But there’s a problem. Per a 2013 story in the Atlantic, other studies have questioned the findings.
A 2011 study published in Human Relations surveyed 60,000 full-time workers on their attitudes toward male versus female managers. At first, its conclusions seem to bolster Sandberg’s claim that people are more accepting of successful men than successful women: Of the 46 percent of respondents who expressed a preference for their boss’s gender, 72 percent said they wanted a male manager. But another aspect of the results highlights a flaw in the Heidi/Howard study: People who actually had female managers did not give them lower ratings than people who had male managers. That is, though many people preferred male managers in theory, in practice those gender biases did not play out…
In a recent segment for his show, CNN’s Anderson Cooper had New York University’s business school repeat the Heidi/Howard study, now ten years after it was originally conducted. This time around, students rated the female entrepreneur as more likable and desirable as a boss than the male…
Fifteen years ago it may well have been the case that Americans were less comfortable with women in command than they were in 2016. As it was, she still won the popular vote and almost certainly would have won the election if her completely needless self-inflicted email scandal hadn’t driven public perceptions of her honesty into the toilet. For all the whining she’s done about Comey this week, the plain fact remains: No homebrew email server with classified information on it, no Comey investigation, no eleventh-hour Comey letter reopening the investigation. A woman with Hillary’s credentials and without her scandal baggage may well have taken 350 electoral votes.
But there’s another problem. If people dislike professionally successful women, how do we explain this?
(TWEETS-AT-LINK)
Right, right, just because a small part of the public admires Hillary *a lot* doesn’t mean she isn’t widely disdained for being such a supposedly awe-inspiring professional success. We’ll put that to the test when another woman is nominated for president, which could happen as soon as 2020 with Kamala Harris, Elizabeth Warren, or Kirsten Gillibrand. For all her fame and historic import as the first woman presidential nominee, Hillary was actually a terrible test case for how reflexively reluctant the American electorate might be to elect a woman president. The irony of her presenting herself as some sort of stand-in for Women writ large is that her image is defined by so many other things — she’s a tornado of Clintonian drama, Wall Street money, establishment clingers, soft ideology, and corruption-related debris. The real gut-check for voters will be when the country gets its first *strong* woman nominee. Clinton’s place in history as the first woman nominee is secure, at least.
(VIDEO-AND-TWEET-AT-LINK)
Hillary Clinton: unsuccessful AND unlikeable.
Successful?..... yeah at eluding jail....so far
This woman is the consummate bitter clinger.
I agree with her.
Hey Hitlery... if you’re talking about yourself, name a single success.
Someone find me the patriarchy that these feminists say exists and controls everything.
I think that Hillary’s most endearing quality is that she has people killed so she can get rich.
“We came. We saw. He died. (cackle, cackle)”
I’ll bet that’s a question at most of those matchmaking sites.
“Do you want someone who has people killed so she can steal their money?”
Golda Meir, Indira Gandhi and Margaret Thatcher were not exactly attractive women, but they weren’t off-putting.
I liked Sarah Palin just fine. Very successful woman.
The Left hated her.
This was posted at the time, but maybe it deserves its wown thread again.
Excerpt: We heard a lot of “now I understand how this happened”—meaning how Trump won the election. People got upset. There was a guy two rows in front of me who was literally holding his head in his hands, and the person with him was rubbing his back. The simplicity of Trump’s message became easier for people to hear when it was coming from a woman—that was a theme. One person said, “I’m just so struck by how precise Trump’s technique is.” Another—a musical theater composer, actually—said that Trump created “hummable lyrics,” while Clinton talked a lot, and everything she was was true and factual, but there was no “hook” to it. Another theme was about not liking either candidate—you know, “I wouldn’t vote for either one.” Someone said that Jonathan Gordon [the male Hillary Clinton] was “really punchable” because of all the smiling. And a lot of people were just very surprised by the way it upended their expectations about what they thought they would feel or experience. There was someone who described Brenda King [the female Donald Trump] as his Jewish aunt who would take care of him, even though he might not like his aunt. Someone else described her as the middle school principal who you don’t like, but you know is doing good things for you
Okay, I won't miss her not one little bit, but just sayin'...
Her claim is absurd.
Corporations are on the hunt for women executives.
Actually, I don’t think it has anything to do with “success”.
Sarah Palin is very successful, and extremely likeable. A former Governor, a former VP candidate... and she did it on her own, not riding her husband’s coattails.
But, but... to be fair, Hillary HAD to ride Slick Willy’s coattails, because there was no room in the front of him with his cavalcade of interns on their knees there...
Just sayin’, all kinda sorta like an’ stuff....
And - forgot to mention the fact that Ol’ Hill’s just about as likeable as bread mold on a limburger cheese sandwich on a hot July afternoon.
Again, just sayin’....
I know someone just like her. She sees herself as a victim and blames everybody else for her problems. Will never take responsibility for anything only success. Any failure is not hers. If good things happen she was there and was a part of it. They are removed from reality. These people are sociopaths. Only they are right. Will not listen to anybody and they have to have the last word.
It is comical dealing with these people because they are so predictable. They have to be the first no matter what and they have an opinion on everything. They might not have any idea what people are talking about but they have to make a statement. Most of the time they are completely off the wall. Yet they think they are very smart. You cannot disagree with them or they get upset and sometimes violent. I call them Wile E. Coyote personalities. They are complete failures but never see it because of their seff agrandizing personalities.
Hillary is chasing the White House just as Wile E. Coyote is chasing the road runner. Will never get it but the schemes are always amazing and bigger and better every time. Hillary is just like the coyote, just inches away from the prize but will never get it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.