Hillary became "unlikable" when she became successful in her own right. It's all about sexism.
Last edited Tue Jan 2, 2018, 03:42 PM - Edit history (1)
Many people didn't know or don't remember that in her second term as First Lady, she had approval ratings as high as 80% . As popular as Bill Clinton was, she was MORE popular. So how come so many view her as unlikable now?Those people are revealing their sexism. Between 1999 and 2016 she went on to become Secretary of State, Senator from New York, and to run for President. A large body of research shows that for women, with power and success comes "unlikability" -- though those qualities are viewed as fine in men.
https://hbr.org/2013/04/for-women-leaders-likability-a
As a sociologist who focuses on gender, work, and family it is always nice for me to hear when things are going well for women at work. I mean wouldn’t it be great if this one analysis could disprove decades of social science research — by psychologists like Madeline Heilman at NYU, Susan Fiske at Princeton, Laurie Rudman at Rutgers, Peter Glick at Lawrence University, and Amy Cuddy at Harvard — which has repeatedly found that women face distinct social penalties for doing the very things that lead to success.
SNIP
The psychological research on success-likability penalties tells us that women and men can be viewed as similarly competent, yet still receive different likability scores. Scientific research also tells us that male and female leaders are liked equally when behaving participatively (i.e. including subordinates in decision making), which seems consistent with what Zenger and Folkman observe. But when acting authoritatively, women leaders are disliked much more than men. To be clear, it is not that women are always disliked more than men when they are successful, but that they are often penalized when they behave in ways that violate gender stereotypes. Being aware of this is important to truly evaluate what is really happening in companies and organizations — like the New York Times.
What is really going on, as peer reviewed studies continually find, is that high-achieving women experience social backlash because their very success – and specifically the behaviors that created that success – violates our expectations about how women are supposed to behave. Women are expected to be nice, warm, friendly, and nurturing. Thus, if a woman acts assertively or competitively, if she pushes her team to perform, if she exhibits decisive and forceful leadership, she is deviating from the social script that dictates how she “should” behave. By violating beliefs about what women are like, successful women elicit pushback from others for being insufficiently feminine and too masculine. As descriptions like “Ice Queen,” and “Ballbuster” can attest, we are deeply uncomfortable with powerful women. In fact, we often don’t really like them.
SNIP
= new reply since forum marked as read
Of course! 
Nothing to see here. 
Or you are just making shit up.
The IWR vote has been an issue for every single person that voted for it and Kerry spent a huge part of his candidacy trying to justify it. Far more than she did as it was much fresher in people's minds.
Seems you see sexism in everything even when it doesn't exist.
As far as teeth gnashing.
I have to wonder why you are wasting your time with someone you think is "making shit up" and "sees sexism."
You could be over there talking about how you really schooled me.
But you keep coming back, in that attempt to get in the last word.
I'm flattered.
Are you sure you're not looking to post on JPR?
You might find some comfort there in that echo chamber.
Menopause?
Or do you think that going to Wellesley did it?
I have to wonder, because neither Biden nor Kerry had the misfortune of either for theirs.
And why don't you show me a politician who doesn't change their mind with the polls?
I mean even Bernie refused to back marriage equality in VT after he voted no on DOMA during a re-election year because "it was too divisive..."
So I guess there weren't any acceptable candidates for you in 2016?
Very hard having those kind of "standards," isn't it?
some very, very deep issues that express themselves with anger at older women in politics. Successful ones, anyway.
See what I did there?
Now hurry along back and tell them how you put me in my place...
You sound so much like the right wingers who denied that there was any racism in their dislike of him.
You must be very young not to remember that....
So saying that you were "not enthusiastic" about Bernie can be debunked or verified with a few simple strokes on the keyboard, and your own bullshit can be called out.
Maybe you are too young to know about that?
Maybe you want to go back and edit that subject line?
You really are skittering away now.
I implied doubt that you were "not enthusiastic about either candidate in 2016" and you frantically bring up John Kerry.
Sounds like you have even more issues than I thought.
(another desperate attempt to appear superior and nonchalant in 3...2...1...)
This thread ring a bell?
https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1280&pid=90667
'splain us some more bout your "lack of enthusiasm" for "either candidate," bro... PLEASE. I love watching someone keep trying to baldface their way out of something they said.
She's the only one who should be criticized for it because.........
I got nothing. 
for doing the same things men do.
By the way, I agree with your OP
I think we'll see anti-'libral!' bias and backlash when the GOPers run a female candidate. Think a Condi Rice or someone. Then it'll be "proof!, we were never sexist!"
That whole "being grandma's age" just needed to change in order to get those young white straight male voters to "like her."
Younger totally needs to be a "skillset" for women if we are going to get that all important white straight male voter.
Or if she just had a sex change. That would have worked, too.
especially those with Mommy Issues.
because making the same stupid mistakes again and again is "icky" to you...
By exaggerating, misrepresenting, or just completely fabricating someone's argument, it's much easier to present your own position as being reasonable, but this kind of dishonesty serves to undermine honest rational debate.
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/strawman
You're welcome.
Because I'm going to guess that you really have no idea what she said, because well, some people need a punching bag.
In the excerpt, Clinton describes herself now as being "far-removed" from the struggles of middle class life and acknowledges "a growing sense of anxiety and even anger in the country over the feeling that the game is rigged." She does say that she had a "solid middle class upbringing" that she hasn't forgotten.
Clinton also spoke of the "rigged system" in another 2014 speech to Deutsche Bank, saying, "If the perception is that somehow the game is rigged, that should be a problem for all of us, and we have to be willing to make that absolutely clear."
In public, Clinton has acknowledged that many voters feel the system is rigged against them. Just last week, she pointed to the Donald Trump's recently leaked 1995 tax returns as a sign that he embodies "the same rigged system he claims he will change."
The NERVE of that woman.... pure avarice!
https://www.npr.org/2016/10/08/497170981/wikileaks-releases-alleged-clinton-wall-street-speeches-in-batch-of-campaign-ema
Got it.
No surprise. Resorting to generic cliches when you have nothing left is a sign that you have quit actually discussing the topic. Trying to pretend that a gutteral response to someone is about intellect is usually futile.
Emotion trumps intellect in most people, but the start of overcoming that is to admit it.
There is no way to combat systemic racism and sexism until we acknowledge it in ourselves- it's there on both the left and right.
You can start now, here, with your own.
Sounds like you have even more issues than I imagined.
Perhaps a glass of wine and a hot bath would help you get over it.
There's also the ignore feature, if you need that. And it sounds like maybe you do.
Are you going to flick boogers now?
That's usually what boys do when they can't pee on the object of their wrath. Amirite?
Why is it that so many boys have so few tools to defend themselves against intelligent discourse?
Oh, honey, you are adorable, but you just don't learn very fast.
(another attempt to get in the LAST WORD in 3...2...1...)
The only one in the 2016 election who actually walked the walk on that.....
And was excoriated because of it.
No wonder her opponents didn't dare open their own financial records to that kind of scrutiny, even if they were yelping about financial "ethics" and "accountability": being the litmus test of a "true progressive."
Not to mention refusing "secret money" for "PACS." That certainly didn't last long for her challengers, did it?
http://prospect.org/article/nonprofit-structure-backfires-our-revolution
Oh wait.
Hey I know, lets ignore the guy with the fake charity that has never helped anyone and criticize the HELL out of the married couple who have a charity that helps MILLIONS.
They hate assertiveness in women, even some in their own party. Southern men in particular are misogynistic. And even the women bash other women who are successful!!
Welcome to DU!
...something about the Iraq War vote and the men who voted aye, but received little flack. At the time, if she would have voted against, she would have been portrayed as weak by the men preparing to run against her... and, I think it would have worked. She would have been less successful.
I think she's much more progressive than her reputation among progressives. Hillary believes in governing. She is calculating - perhaps too calculating, yeah... but without the calculating, she would never have gotten as far as she did...
Her effect on women in politics will be long-lasting and positive.
...not disputing you, but I did not mean to associate "calculating" with a specific gender. After thinking about it, I suppose I might associate it as masculine. I think of calculators and computers... Perhaps "calculating" has an older connotation - "calculating female"? I would say that "conniving" would be a poorer choice of words...
I like "tactical" and "strategic" though... but, not quite what I meant. Maybe with "safe" added... Hillary was strategically safe. I recall her mentioning this in an interview about Trump lurking around during a debate. She played it safe, but wondered about saying something like, "Get out of my space!" My feeling is that she made the correct, strategic choice, then. Hillary had a rougher road, but she handled it exceptionally well. I think history will rate her much higher than Crooked Donald.
If that is true, it would be the SS 's determination. Not hers.
She never regarded herself as a Queen for fks sake.
That regard comes from the "coronation" crowd in the primaries & general election.
Wow!
These are all RW talking points. She was First Lady, Senator and SOS. Secret Service has procedures and protocols for such people. To blame it on her? 
