Some questions for anyone who thinks sexism didn't negatively affect Warren's chances

[StarfishSaver]

If you really believe that sexism played no role in Elizabeth Warren's inability to stay in the race, do you believe that sexism no longer affects presidential politics?

If you think sexism does still affect presidential politics, why don't you think it didn't affect Elizabeth Warren's race?

If you think sexism doesn't currently affect presidential politics, do you believe sexism was EVER an issue in presidential politics? If not, what non-sexism explanation do you have for why no woman has ever been elected president, if sexism played no role?

If you think sexism doesn't currently affect presidential politics but did in the past, when precisely do you believe that sexism stopped being an issue? What specifically prompted the change from sexism being an issue to sexism not playing any role?

Thank you in advance.

[mcar]

1. I feel like we should be able to walk and chew gum at the same time, SS

Warren's campaign was not perfect (neither were Harris', Gillibrands', Klobuchars').

The male candidates' campaigns are not perfect.

One still can make the argument that the women candidates were held to a different standard. Here's an example: I think Pete B. is a great political talent, a good man and has a brilliant future ahead of him. But, Amy K (and several women mayors) were right: no 38YO female mayor of a small city, regardless of the # of languages she spoke or her veteran status, would have been taken seriously as a presidential candidate.*

*This is not bashing Mayor Pete; I'm offering a comparison and contrast.

Women are held to a different standard. I read somewhere: "Women are judged by their flaws; men are judged by their potential."

[alittlelark]

2. I will NEVER forget the 'Fritz and Tits' bumper sticker I saw in '81

I saw a few, but one - the first instance - truly had an effect on me.

[Kaleva]

3. Was it sexism that caused more women to vote for either Biden or Sanders on Super Tuesday?

[stopbush]

4. No, it musta been the misogyny.

[tonedevil]

5. Yes. /nt

[Kaleva]

6. Maybe? Maybe women can also harbor sexist attitudes towards other women,

[TDale313]

7. Agreed.

I don’t know why it’s still surprising to some that many women hold other women to a much different standard than they do men. Also, unfortunately, I think a lot of people, men and women, got skittish about supporting a woman in the primary after 2016. That if Hillary couldn’t get us past the finish line, it was “risky” to get behind another female candidate. I consider that sexism. But I heard it from more than one woman I know.

[StarfishSaver]

8. It's not just voters having sexist feelings toward female and minority candidate

The entire system disadvantages women and minorities while giving advantages to white male candidates - without individual voters having to engage in specific, personal acts of discrimination. That's the gravaman of institutional racism.

For example: Like many male politicians, Biden and Sanders have benefitted from having been able to build up a well of experience and goodwill as a result of getting into politics at a time when most women didn't have that option. Biden became a Senator when he was just 30 years old and spent the next 40 years developing his chops. Bernie became a Congressman and then a Senator when few women had that opportunity.

Elizabeth Warren, who is close to Biden's and Bernie's ages, had no opportunity to become a Senator in the early 1970s. Like many women of her age, she had to take a different path - in her case, she raised a family and then went into academia, a field open to smart, talented women when politics was still very restricted.

But while academia was open to women, like many endeavors that women were able to excel in, it is not treated as a "real" qualification for high public office. So, when Warren did finally get a chance to run for office, she had to start proving herself without the advantage of pointing to the previous 40 years of her experience, as Biden could do.

Biden had 40+ years and Bernie had three decades to establish themselves. Warren had to start from scratch only a few years ago.

And that additional time in the public arena bought Biden and Bernie a lot of goodwill and second chances that Warren (and Harris and Klobuchar) didn't have. When the the men made mistakes and gaffes, they were often brushed away with "Oh, that's just Biden!" and "We all know what Bernie meant." When the women did the same, they were criticized, scrutinized and subjected to endless discussion about whether they were ready or had what it takes. While it was assumed that, of course, the men could be taken seriously as candidates and they were able to focus all of their interviews and airtime on what they would do as president, the women had to spend a significant part of their interviews and airtime answering endless questions about whether America was ready for anyone of their gender to be president (and Kamala got the double whammy of having to explain, ad nauseum, why she thought America was ready for a black woman to be president).

These and other things handicapped the women and made it more difficult for them to get a foothold and deliver their message. Voters didn't need to engage in overtly racist and sexist decisionmaking in order for racism and sexism to affect the campaign and their vote.

[TDale313]

9. Well put and very true