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)
That really depends on your definition of success. My wife was a stay at home mom for 22 years. She managed the house, 3 kids, church secretary and a side business (hobby for profit). Now she is the office manager for a medical office.
I consider her to be successful for how she kept our house together, managed the finances and raised our kids.
I see no way she was successful. She is/was an empty pantsuit who managed to be able to speak of multiple abject failures of hideous consequence as if they were galactic triumphs of spiritual munificence. She was barely successful at being able to physically stand on her feet FFS.
Hitlery saw Obama get elected by a pretty good margin because he was perceived as being “the first black POTUS”. She felt that being perceived as “the first woman POTUS” would automatically entitle her to the office.
Unfortunately, for her, Obama caused real Americans to wake up politically placing her smack in the path of the Trump juggxrnaught. Bad for her, but great for America. She cannot come to grips with what really happened to her.
What should happen to her is prosecution and jail.
She is talking about being a successful woman.I am just taking that statement.If your successful you have to boss people around.They don’t like it so you are less likable.It’s a lame statement.She could have said something stronger but she’s lame.
Her supporters saying she had more votes than Trump and therefore was victimized is akin to a losing baseball team saying they had more hits then the opposition and therefore should have won the game.
Why do you think it has to do with looks?
Dunno about that, but the more like Hillary a woman is, the more unlikable she becomes.
What has she ever been successful with? Everything she touches turns to $hit.
I’ve said this plenty of times.
HRC managed to sour tremendous numbers of women who would have enthusiastically (if naively) voted for her when she revealed through multiple actions that she was a pathological lying sociopath. She combined the instinctive lying of a guilty child with the spin of a cynical politician obviously coached in the art of denial.
By the time she was done, she far more took on the qualities of a lying, cheating, philandering boyfriend/husband rather than a motherly nurturing wymon and the idea that wymyn would want that is inane.
Then how does she account for own unlikabilty? ;/
The more evasive, misleading, criminal any person is, the less likely they will be liked.
Hillary, you should be in prison.
She must be talking about Sarah Palin.
“Weelll...I’ve successfully blamed everybody and everything but me for my loss.”
More accurately:
The more a woman talks, the less likeable she will be.
I’ve known lots of execs with poor character like that. Eager to be in front of the parade beating their chests when they are winning. But, as soon as there is the slightest hint of emerging problems, they begin framing the unsuspecting scapegoats to take the fall.
There is a real difference between assertiveness and bitchy. That’s why. It’s tangible.
I know women who are assertive and not bitchy. I hate it when guys who should be assertive, act bitchy like a woman. Really a turn off.
We can all cite anecdotes. I had a woman boss once, who was the biggest bitch you can imagine. I considered quitting to get away from her. I didn’t have to, because she left the job, so i was free of her.
Then I had a male boss who was overbearing and obnoxious. I considered quitting on him too, but didn’t have to, as he left.
Then I’ve had men and women bosses who were tough but fair and not over the top mean or obnoxious or overbearing.
Then I’ve had men and women bosses who were kind and generous and a pleasure to work for.
Are bad women bosses tougher to work for than a bad male boss? That’s an interesting question.
Would H! say this about Oprah? She IS stupid; Bannon’s right.
Golda Meir
Margaret Thatcher
Sarah Palin
There are many other women who were both influential and liked - a woman can be powerful and popular. What she cannot do is side with democrats or with any other form of pure evil and still be liked. Despite their ongoing efforts, the Left has not yet eradicated the bias against Satan and his minions.
Then for how unlikable she is, she should have become Queen of the World, cured cancer, solved poverty, found an endless supply of cheap energy and kicked Ryan and McConnell out of their seats....
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.