Women candidates get asked different questions than male candidates—that's just a fact. Kamala has a whole team around her ready to handle queries about her ambition and the racist and sexist attacks. But this 100-day sprint also gives Kamala an advantage: an opportunity to show that she is the tougher, stronger, and more prepared leader. Jennifer Palmieri joins Tim Miller.
show notes:
Jennifer's book, “She Proclaims: Our Declaration of Independence from a Man’s World.”
Jennifer's book, "Dear Madam President: An Open Letter to the Women Who Will Run the World"
Bulwark piece on former New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern
Tim's playlist
No doubt Jen Palmieri finds talk of clothing infuriating, but Harris seems to wear almost always the same style suit in a narrow range of colors. It feels like a uniform. I'm sure there is thought put into what photographs well etc., but it seems outdated & kind of insecure.
Hillary overdid the pantsuits. Nancy Pelosi always gets clothing right.
I know, stupid comments.
As part of her message of Freedom, Harris should also emphasize Freedom for Ukraine!!
Who oversees the electoral vote cert of Harris isn't VP? I believe that it the president resigns then president Harris would appoint someone who is approved by Congress. So forget it.
“Let’s say… every day, George Soros sends a 747 to Columbus to load up disproportionately black women to get them to go have abortions in California, and of course the left will celebrate this as a victory for diversity…”
Huh? I’m not following this.
1. if Ohio banned abortions, but some Ohioans avoided the ban by going out of state (regardless on whose planes) I could see anti-choice folks like Vance being angry at being foiled like that. But no, he claims instead that…
2. Dems would want to fly pregnant woman to other states NOT to help them make the personal choice we think is their right, but because it would be a “victory for diversity”? HOW?! In that fake scenario, wouldn’t the outcome be less diversity?
3. But since that’s what he’s saying, is he suggesting that he is anti-diversity, so that’s why he’s anti-choice?
What am I missing?
re: The He-Man's Women Hating Club
The pre-Boomers, Boomers, and anyone else who were fans of the 1930s the original "Little Rascals".
The character Alfalfa organized the club because he was spurned by Darla.
KAMALA HARRIS IS GENERATION X.
She wasn’t even conceived yet when JFK was assassinated. The divide between Boomers and Xers is whether you were old enough when that tragic event happened to have personally experienced and understood it and can recall it today. Thanks for attending my Tim Talk.
Buckle up kids, this may not be pleasent.
Here's something that's been sticking in my craw for a while ... Can we admit that Dems propped biden up from the start? They completely ignored the voters by having everyone drop out early in the 2020 primary so that Biden could get his "turn". Because he was "entitled" to it. Or "owed" it. Or both. I believe he was 5th In the race? Pete won iowa... then he's given a position as transportation secretary. I mean...Come on. This isn't the only incident of taking away the choice from the voters. Al franken (my elected senator). Hilary Clinton v. Bernie. The list goes on... and I gotta say, this wound is deep. The thought that trump is enough to force democrats to vote for a candidate they dont want is tragically similar to the right and as undemocratic as it gets. Also, strategically irresponsible and disastrous. This strat failed once in clinton v trump, and instead of learning from this and tapping in to who the voters would get behind, history was repeated.
So, why bring this up? Look at what we have been through so far. The decision to back hilary caused trump to be elected in 2016. This caused irreversible damage to be done (and continue) via the supreme court, terrible policies, a deadlocked congress, weirdos like mtg... to name a few. Then, the 2020 election which should not have need close, was barely won. And ofcourse, today...The slow moving (avoidable) trainwreck that just happened. Meanwhile, every year that has passed, people have become more divided, more angry, more distrustful of government and the democratic system. Is there any wonder why?
Kamala is an extension of all of this. It's not her fault, and so far, she's hangin in there. But... if we don't call out this hypocrisy and work towards candidates that people are clearly excited about i.e. shapiro, buttigieg, etc. In the current vp situation, then god help us. Also, I think it is clear at this point, how terrible democrats are at strategy, decision making, and reading the electorate. The sense of entitlement I have seen...what kamala deserves, what joe deserves, what a hero joe is, and how great they are. Ignoring the fact that in mere months we could find ourselves in some kaufkaesq irreversible nightmare. Who cares if harris doesn't like her vp. I didn't like joe or democrats and I voted for them twice. Problem is, many voters dont see the gravity of the threat and many, are rightfully pissed off. We have to do the research and push the vp candidates that have the best chance at filling in the weaknesses of harris, are strong speakers, and appeal to the most voters. If she picks say, Kelly, the old white dude from AZ, who would put a senate seat up for grabs, when we have better options, that's on brand for dems, but its dumb.
The path forward is simple. If its based on any dem strategy from the past, it's not gunna work. We need the best vp we can get and that requires thinking outside the box and reviewing the data. Let's put our "what ifs" and prejudgements aside and look at what the voters are telling us for once.
No. I disagree with you. I am mid-to late Gen X and in 2020 I happily voted for Biden in the primaries.
That's cool. Not at all related to what I was talking about though.
The Dems decided to rally around Biden in the 2020 primary because he was seen as the best bet to pull in centrists and Never Trumpers and thereby defeat Trump. That's why Clyburn gave him a critical endorsement and it's the reason everyone else willingly stepped back and threw their support to him. And it worked. Biden won 306 electoral votes and carried Arizona and Georgia. He took the popular vote by 7 million votes. That's not "barely" winning, especially against an incumbent with a rabid base of support. And there was not a single candidate in the primaries who could have done better.
As for Harris, she's pulling in an enormous amount of money from small dollar donors, so I don't quite get the argument that there's no enthusiasm for her. I see plenty of enthusiasm out there.
HRC is a different matter. I won't argue that her nomination wasn't something of a coronation, but it's not at all surprising that the Dems would favor an actual, stalwart member of the party over a guy who hopped on board just so he could run for president. And I say this as someone who voted for Bernie in the primary and has never been a Clinton fan. The fact, as JVL often observes, is that parties choose their nominees. It was true in 2008 when some people got the panties in a wad because Clinton was edged out in favor of Obama. This is just how party politics works. And it bears mentioning that Clinton decisively won the popular vote in 2016 and lost the electoral votes she needed by very narrow margins. She was not a stupid choice. The idea that Bernie would have done better against Trump is not based on much except wishful thinking.
Hi Maria. Thanks for sharing your thoughts.
The thing is... People (including myself) rallied around biden because that was our option after everyone dropped out. The fact that it happened so early in the process and it was clearly reflected in the votes up to that point that biden was not favored to win the primary, is a complete disregard for the primary process and the right to pick our candidate. I disagree that others wouldn't have done better, given the information we had. That said, I am not saying that there wasn't a part of the electorate that favored biden over the other candidates. That is also true for the rest of the candidates as well. Everyone had a favorite. This is why it should have played out. The purpose of primaries is to narrow down the candidates until a winner emerges that has the backing of the majority of americans. We will never know who should have won, because the dems cut it short. This is different than a candidate dropping out because they don't have the support. The opposite thing happened, a candidate who was behind, had everyone else drop out. As to Clyburn, if his endorsement was that critical, does that speak to bidens strength or weakness as a candidate? The election was indeed close 154 million voters turned out for the 2020 election. 7 million votes means that biden won the popular by just over 4%. The electoral college also come into play, which is why close elections when trump is involved is scary. Hilary also won the popular vote by 2.4million, but lost the electoral college. I am not disputing that given the final choice, more people voted for biden, but that we should have been allowed to make our choice for the nominee. When that is stripped away from us some may be fine with it or not notice, but I did and I do care. This is one of many mistakes dems have made sewing distrust among the voters and it should be called out, for their sake at winning future elections, and ours.
I was not making the claim that there is no enthusiasm for harris. Donors played a large part in getting biden to drop out so it was expected that they would throw money at harris. People are relieved (myself included) that biden decided to drop out. However, enthusiasm is often short lived and all candidates have weaknesses. She was also not elected and is tied to biden. My point is to not pull another biden or Hilary for the vp slot. This requires balancing out weaknesses and vulnerabilities harris has, and casting as wide a net as possible to bring people that are undecided, didnt like trump or biden, voters that left dems, etc. The "gettable" voters. A strong vp that brings skills kamala doesn't have, appeal to voters she doesn't, and has different weaknesses than her, will be crucial to maximize votes. This is all about making the best team possible applying logic, fresh strategies, data, and learning who voters are gravitating towards.
Most importantly, we saw what trump did in 2020 with contesting the results, jan. 6th, and denying he lost (to this day). Where they have been able to, repubs have put hard core trump supporters in positions where if Trump does this again, we may not have Republicans that will do the right thing. Add to that, the Supreme court being what it is, makes a close election less likely to succeed. A terrifying thought indeed.
Lastly, my whole point of contension is that democrats chose their nominees over the voters. Making the whole process of a primary a game of giving the voters the "illusion" of choice. How can that same party then, make the case that democracy is at stake and your vote matters? How can they continue to do this and expect people not to leave the party, quit voting entirely, or worse... vote for trump out of spite? How can dems be surprised when this results in a low trust of government, and a sizeable chunk of the electorate going for a guy that wants to throw it all away? Why wouldn't people want to walk away from democracy if its all a lie? The primary is an example, but there are many things that have lead to this moment. This is something BOTH parties own. Repubs will not change because they openly want this and don't care. Nor does their base. That leaves the dems, the only party left, to right these wrongs, recognize their mistakes, and rid themselves of the same corruption they accuse the other party of. Don't get me wrong, I will vote because I know what the alternative would be and I think democracy is worth saving. But many don't... yet. I dont blame them. That being said, we ALL deserve better and this is what needs to happen if democracy is survive long term.
P.s. As odd as it may seem, bernie and trump represented the same thing from two radically different intentions. A better America, a system that works for the working class people. Draining the swamp. Etc. This is why some voters went from bernie to trump. The route of meaning was consistent, its just one candidate was telling the truth and one was telling lies. It would serve dems well to reflect on this.
Warren, Sanders, and Bloomberg all stayed in the race through Super Tuesday, and Biden won 10 of those 15 contests. The effectiveness of Clyburn's endorsement does not suggest that Biden was a weak candidate. On the contrary, it suggests that voters actually had little appetite for the scrum you would have preferred. They wanted to get the nomination settled, and Biden was clearly the best bet. He was not my candidate, but I'm very glad we didn't slog it out and reach the convention with no clear consensus. The Clinton/Sanders convention kerfuffle in 2016 helped no one but Trump.
I live deep in the heart of Trumplandia, and trust me when I say I know exactly what's at stake this time around. I'm also realistic about this country, and while perfect exercises in democracy unsullied by money and special interests sound lovely, we've never had them and they aren't going to happen now. And even if they did, I don't see any particular reason to think they would reliably give either of us what we're hoping for.
It's consoling to believe that what ails the American electorate is all the fault of feckless Democrats or a generally corrupt political system, but the truth is that Trump, like many a demagogue before him, has simply tapped into ugly, eternal human impulses. People's vulnerability to the demagogue's message waxes and wanes, but we see this shift to nationalist / anti-"elitist" sentiment happening all over the world at present. It's a global trend. And the only way to combat it is create broad alliances in support of liberal democracy. So while I too would love to see us have the luxury of lively yet genteel primaries where everybody hugs it out at the convention, I care a lot more right now about getting a standard bearer who can take the fight to the opposition. Harris is clearly well equipped for that job. I think we should get behind her whether we like her or not. Ditto her VP, whoever that winds up being. As it happens, I do rather like Harris, and since I voted for Biden in the primary, I don't in any way feel that I've been robbed of a voice here and don't understand why others do. We all knew they were a package deal, and he's endorsed her. If anything, a mini-primary at this point would have been a negation of our votes.
There are many ways to fix a corrupt system. Im not talking about a perfect system, but one that prevents this monster threat on democracy. To deny it exists and it has had no impact on what has lead up to this moment certainly can't change things. You like the Bern, he and Warren are all about getting money out of politics and curbing corruption. I agree it's about greed and crappy people in roles of leadership, which is why there need to be checks in place to keep this cycle from repeating. Nothing is ever perfect but this for sure isn't working. I see nothing wrong with holding leaders accountable and asking for workable solutions.
If you are content with fake primaries and a small fraction of people deciding every election, that's a different system then what we have set up. If thats the case, why do primaries exist? Scrap em if its not up to us and atleast that would be honest. Model after the uk or if repubs have their way, Russia in which case, fake elections are right up their ally.
We both have the same short term goal to see harris elected. I also see what lies ahead if we don't attempt to fix the errors of the past and put systems in place to keep this from happening again. The route cause is money and power imbalance. Which has had a domino effect over recent decades. Things don't just stop with trump. It's not just trump. It's not just Republicans although I'd argue they have been the largest offenders and certainly are now. Even so, If we don't get a grasp on the issues and think through workable solutions, I fear we will be constantly putting out these fires until the flames consume us. This is why it's important to address this concern now and... it would work in kamalas favor if she recognized this and campaigned on solutions to get to the heart of these problems.
There's nothing fake about our primaries. The U.S. didn't even have a system in which voters had direct influence on the nominee until the 1970s. There were primaries, but they weren't determinative as they are now. Parties have always chosen their candidates. I'm not saying I want to go back to the old way, but the purely popular system you are longing for has never existed, and as I said above, I wouldn't be too confident about what such a system might deliver. Sometimes the people collectively make great choices, sometimes they don't. There are no guarantees.
I'm sure you and I want broadly the same things, and I too would like to see less money and corruption in politics. I would love to see Harris champion some real reforms, though unless the Dems get both the Senate and the House, there's not a lot she can actually make happen.
I dunno. Maybe fake is the wrong word. Misleading? I am aware of the old system and why they changed it. You probably know the reason it changed. It didn't end well. As we know, the popular vote indicates that majorities do tend to deliver votes in the right direction. Historically as well. Im not suggesting we toss the system out, rather that it is improved. The electoral college for example, could be updated to reflect current population and geography. I can say current times reflect that the party choosing their candidates is not working well. I'm not saying every president has been garbage, we have had many great ones. Sometimes things that worked in the past don't work in the present, the parties have evolved into what works for them over the people and that's not good if they are choosing the candidates. It's also about the message it sends to the people and winning future elections. Sometimes change needs to happen for the good of everyone. You are right, there are no guarantees, but the current system has lead to this.
That said, I have enjoyed our chat. We do want the same thing over all. It's more the approach that we differ on. Ill gladly admit I don't know everything, and I like to learn from people that think differently. Definitely gave me some things to think about. One thing I know is we will be side by side doing what we can to make sure kamala and vp lay the smackdown on trump. That is comforting. Thanks Maria.
Likewise! Here's to victory in November. :-)
Anyone fit this mold beyond Shapiro and Buttigieg? (I personally would be thrilled with either of them, they’re my top two as well.)
I think they are the top but like I say... its all about who can bring in the votes I am HOPING beyond all hope that they are polling the voters. I'm open to anyone that can bring in the votes but these guys seem the best suited for the moment.
Oh and...I love my governor walz he's done a phenomenal job. But I don't think he's as energizing as the other two. I also admit selfishly, it would make me nervous if he left for vp unless we had a strong replacement. This is one huge plus in the pete column, cuz he doesnt take a senate seat or a governor.
James Donald David Bowman Hamel Vance doesn't seem very Constitutional to me. We need to see some documents!
Maybe Peter Paul Montgomery Buttigieg would kick his rear end?
...like maybe his long-form hillybilly certification form?
Hey Tim, I’m hoping I just missed hearing that you know where “the he-man, woman-haters club” reference came from! Loving the show by the way - and the music!
Had to google it 🤦♀️
Years ago, my evangelical relative was fully enmeshed in his church but left when the pastor's unmarried daughter became pregnant. Relative spouted that same "if he can't be head of his household, he can't be head of a church" line. I was gobsmacked; not only had he pulled his family out of their small church, but he deserted his friend (the pastor) in his time of need.
Didn't strike me as Christian.
Wow. But yeah, I can recall similar experiences. I'm not a judge over anyone's faith but my own. Like you, I can see what's in front of me and I can smell hypocrisy when it's evident. Some people pick ONE issue, then throw out the entirety of Jesus two primary directions:
Love god with all your heart, and love your neighbor as yourself. That's generally been enough for me to go on.
He also told a parable to clarify "who's your neighbor?" pretty well for anybody who didn't quite get the point!
Why would any stake holder in this country give the reins of power to JD Vance?
Tim, I want to thank you for remembering the women who did not choose to be child free. I am one of those women. JD Vance's remarks leave me sad and even more angry. And I am one of the lucky one's. I can work with children and youth at church. For so many women, it is a white hot pain that they cannot have children and even being around children is so traumatic. JD Vance's comments must be like a knife through the heart.
The idea that I have no stake in the future of this country is ridiculous. I have a niece and nephews that I care about very much. I have children and youth I've worked with who are now young adults that I also care about very much. I very much care about the future of this country for them. I also care about it for me. I am firmly in the GenX category, so I am not planning to kick the bucket any time soon. So, I care about the future of the country for me too.
Now, I am totally worked up about this again and it's almost Midnight. I'm never gonna fall asleep. :)
Thank you for sharing your kind thoughts about others' pain & loss, and your own vulnerability to Vance's graceless views. I'm a geezer but also hoping to do no bucket-kicking anytime soon 😊...and I still care about the future too!
I'm writing this 12 hrs after you did. I hope you were able to rest well cuz you deserve peace & joy!
It's nice to be able to listen to the Bulwark again. I missed it. I had to take a break after the debate from listening. It's not because I disagreed with you like some of the listeners. I agreed. I was just despondent and had to take a mental health break from politics for my own happiness. Walking willing into a Trump presidency was just intolerable. I haven't felt so powerless and I am a stay at home special needs Mom so that's saying something. Anyway it's good to be back. I am clear eyed but hopefully in a way I haven't been since the campaign started. I am a Joe fan but I've also been so angry with him too. It's always hardest to be angry with someone you like. It's good to be back! No turning back!
Me too Shanna! I actually canceled my membership a few days after the debate, they were killing me! But now I’m back :) :) :)
Biden was literally my eighth choice in 2020 (Harris was my 1st choice), but he did a great job! Even so, I was disappointed that he chose to run again, then happy with the State of the Union, then depressed by the debate and its aftermath and finally sad to see him leave even though it was for the best. I was happy to see Harris's debut, now I'm nervously waiting for the other shoe to drop. It’s been a rough year.
I was Kamala For the People 2020 too! The moment she suspended her campaign I knew Joe would win and she would be his VP. I switched over to volunteer with Biden for America 2020 even before he named her, I just knew he would. After the debate, I knew Joe would step down and endorse Kamala, and I knew Democrats would instantly all assemble together to support her. I didn’t expect the support would be this intense, but I’m so completely thrilled and not otherwise surprised at all. I’m a white female San Franciscan so am biased (but also right).
I missed Adam this week; he's my fav!
He's been sick and his voice was kind of rough, that may be why
Tim, it's great to hear you in such high spirits. We've all needed a boost after the post-debate deathmarch seemed unstoppable.
As the Robert Earl Keen song says, "it feels so good feelin' good again."
JD is guilty of sectional assault.
Tim's comments about the "bros" who might see they have a stake in women's right to control their own reproductive care - yeah, that's a worthwhile outreach effort even to the fancied Vance/hillbilly demographic. Let alone to any voting-disengaged bros on campus.
A different but related outreach can be to hetero married guys since their wives & daughters have a personal stake in women's healthcare too. Per the NIH, "the rate of reported miscarriages increased by about 1.0% per year" from 1970 to 2000, and have only dropped slightly since then. If you've had a miscarriage in your family, you know the pain and loss. When extremist restrictions are imposed by Project 2025 advocates, wives & daughters are at risk for major complications all the way to death. So you can feel the risks of that potential government interference As a guy, I'm saying I won't stand for right-wing extremists to dictate my family's health care that way, and a lot of men feel the same once the risks are clarified. Have an obstetrician target explanations to men.
And let's talk about the threats to IVF too. There are men who'd like to have a child who will understand & object to this interference in family medical rights.
I'm already putting together my Halloween costume - Childless Cat Woman Against Fascism. My choices on Amazon has one option which comes with a whip. We are not going back!
Great pod. Tim Ryan was briefly mentioned. Why isn’t he a VP candidate? They can rerun the OH senate race
because he lost that race and he’s boring
I don't think he is boring, I think he is pretty good
Wait - women at a Kari Lake/Kristi Noem event thought Blake Masters was scary & off-putting? And that WASN'T what they were looking for? Maybe I've misjudged my Republican neighbors. Maybe they do have SOME limits??
Huh...
And a puppy killer and a trump fellator aren’t?!?
I am at serious risk of coming across as a blowhard on my Social Media accounts. But I was so moved by the White Women for Harris Zoom call yesterday I felt compelled to post this, and so far, my friends from my former home state Utah haven't flipped out on me:
Last night I joined the ‘White Women for Harris’ Zoom with 146,000 other women. This is a tricky topic, it can be triggering. But they shared some interesting data that I didn’t know. We, as white women, are actually the largest voting block. And historically, we largely vote Republican. It could be said that white women actually played a decent role in electing Donald Trump in 2016.
I was actually really surprised to hear this, it got me thinking a lot. What I know for sure is that whatever historical/biological forces are at play here, they’re largely subconscious, they’ve been inherited and engrained.
So, here I am on my small platform again :) In my humble opinion, we are truly at an historic crossroads this election, one that is not about Democrat vs. Republican. One that is about maintaining a safe system of government. And in this moment, it is worth all of us opening up this topic and really breathing through it, exploring it, challenging any old ideas and feelings.
I’d also humbly ask you to watch to things.
Watch Donald Trump’s recent rally in North Carolina. He says again and again that Kamala Harris is a socialist socialist socialist (not true, she is manifestly a centrist working on kitchen table issues for Americans). But more than that, there’s a moment when he says ‘This country is not going to elect a socialist. Especially not a woman.” Listen to the way he says ‘woman.’ It is literally dripping with disdain. My Sisters, those are the attitudes – that’s what this is about.
And then, please watch VP Harris’ speech to the Teacher’s Union yesterday. Her competence, her strength, her optimism. Her leadership. She has been showing up since Roe v Wade was overturned, representing our rights. Ensuring we aren’t being controlled by the government. Leading for us. Remember when she asked Brett Kavanaugh in his hearing, “Do you know of any laws that give the government the power to make decisions about the male body?” He stammered a while but then ultimately answered that no, no he couldn’t.
Kamala Harris was an Attorney General, a Senator, and is now a Vice President. She has a platform that is about kitchen table issues, protecting the middle class. She is eminently qualified. She is our ally and our Sister.
European countries have elected female leaders multiple times. There is absolutely no no no reason why we can’t too. I personally hope we can all seize this historic moment and make our country safe in the process.
Thank you so much for hearing me.
“It could be said that white women actually played a decent role in electing Trump in 2016.” No Sarah, white women DID elect Trump in 2016 - 53 f-ing percent of them. And it wasn’t just the stupid ones, the religious ones, the FOX filth eating ones or the ones browbeaten by their husbands. I thought I was friends (past tense) with many of them who refused to vote for Hillary out of sheer, petty jealousy. We’re talking about accomplished lawyers and other professional women who couldn’t stomach the idea of Hillary outshining them or surpassing their own accomplishments. I was simply astonished and thankfully many with this mindset are dying off (Baby Boomers and older). I have to believe the younger generations of women have each other’s backs and my 35 year old architect daughter believes that to be true. Donald Trump and his Republican Party are misogynistic, hypocritical, mendacious, women controlling, self hating, morally, ethically and intellectually bankrupt idiots incapable of governance - and have been for well over 50 years. I’m truly delighted you finally figured that out. Kamala Harris is the one who will actually make this nation great again because she has the brains, the skills and the fight to fix all the horrors the Republican Party, the minority party, has inflicted upon us for over half a century.
Preach! Thank you for your clear headed insights. I’ve also seen 30-something and younger folks who were sorta disengaged taking a new interest especially this week.
“There’s something happening here… 🎼”
There was an excellent, if brief, recap of the event on Deadline White House this afternoon. In my own personal observation, many white women are financially dependent to at least some extent on white men (or they'd like to be) and that leads to their internalization of white male supremacy. Overthrow of Roe appears to be the hammer that broke through.
Thanks for this, Suzanne. I'll look for that because it feels like we could make a big difference in the election if we could somehow break through on this. Another big aspect of what they talked about last night is what amazing organizers black women are and how as white women we have a responsibility to be joining them in it. It was very inspiring, but I fully recognize none of this is easy -- these are long-standing and I think largely subconscious attitudes. I'm encouraged to hear your thinking that Roe is breaking through, I'm keeping the faith that our collective voices can make a difference.
Yes, subconscious is the key word. I think the availability of legal abortion made it very easy for many white women to not recognize their second-class status in American conservative/Republican 'thought.'
Yes yes yes
From my own personal experience, I am a white woman (stay at home mom) and am financially dependent on my husband's salary. We have a severe non verbal child, so my staying at home was largely beyond my control but I view it differently. I grew up in a small town in west Texas. So I am pretty familiar with the white, woman voter that supports Trump. I think it has more to do with Evangelical teachings and Christian identity, than with financial dependence. There are still a lot of churches out there, especially in the south, that teach woman are meant to be subservient to their husbands. I know plenty of very accomplished white women, who vote Republican and sort of hold this view of being put on Earth to support their husbands. My die hard Republican sister in law is one of them and she is a rocket scientist at Rathion. I am not saying that being financially dependent isn't a factor, it's that the driving force is their Christian belief system.
I do think that Roe is something that breaks through though. Even with women who are largely against abortion. These women are typically against abortion as a method of birth control but understand that abortion is more complicated than that. When we had Roe, they were able to say they were pro life because they viewed abortion as something irresponsible women did as a means of birth control. Having to get one because of a medical complication didn't count. Now, that Roe has been over turned, there is no meaningful distinction. The morality of an abortion changes when you are choosing between the life of your daughter, who has become septic because of a fetal complication.
Obviously some of the GOP are very concerned about women. That's why there is Project 25 and vice presidental candidates like Vance. They see women as a threat to their power. Historically, men have always tried controlling women with reproduction. I think there is a big concern among some conservatives over reproductive rates going down among white women. They resent working women because of this and why these types are now pushing the idea of Trad wives and saying truly vile things about women without children.
Dear Shanna - first, you are an absolute hero for being a mom at home tending to a disabled child. My sister has a nonverbal, severely cognitively disabled son, and honestly, I don't know how she manages. It is a feat far behind the capabilities of my own patience and forbearance.
As for financial dependence and Christian teaching, don't you think they are intertwined? I was raised Catholic but have been an atheist as long as I have been sentient so have never been motivated to read the Bible cover to cover, but is there anything in there that supports the idea that women should be subservient to men? Or 'complementarian,' which I believe is the preferred language of many American Christian churches. I'm not an expert on Christian doctrine by any means, but from what I've read, this language is fairly specific to American evangelical churches, and it appears to me that it has been developed specifically to keep women believing that they are dependent on men, financially and otherwise, regardless of their education levels or earning potential.
You are spot on with the concerns among many white men about white women's reproductive rates - this has been going on since the 90s, when Rush Limbaugh was ranting about 'the wrong women having abortions.' Absolutely disgusting stuff, but it was very easy for many white women to look away from it and not see how that rot was taking over the formerly GOP until now.
Like you, raised Catholic, parted ways. In my 8 years of Catholic school we didn't read much bible (were just told what was in there). Have read more in the past few years; don't like to quote scripture at people though.
There are passages that show Jesus' examples of elevating women beyond what that time & culture accorded, according them equal treatment, honoring their wisdom and faith.
I'm no expert either. I am willing to follow the ways of Jesus on this: "love your neighbor as yourself"- a remarkably simple guide. Admittedly hard to do, easy to slip, but there's nothing there that excludes any gender.
LOL, we didn't read much directly from the Bible, either, in my weekly Catechism classes. But no one ever suggested that literally everything in the Bible was true - that would have been considered seriously fringe, if not deranged. And there was no crazy talk about 'End Times' - sure, the Last Judgement was a thing, but pretty vague and the main message was more along the lines of 'be a good person and you'll go to heaven.'
Re: Jesus and women - from a number of things I've read, in its early decades, Christianity was in fact seen as a religion for women and children, specifically because it called for protection of the weak and those in need. 'Real men' worshipped Jupiter and Mars, lol. Somehow, things seem to have gotten reversed, at least in the American evangelical version of Christianity.
I have a relative who lives in the sorta environment you describe. Somehow she grew out of her man’s influence but would never risk telling him! She confided to me that it’s been a comfort to her to know she’s canceling out his vote.
Thank you for sharing your story and insights. Blessings to you and yours.
Thank you for sharing your story and it's really interesting to hear your thoughts. I appreciate it and yes, I hope Roe is breaking through.
So nuanced and well said Shanna. Thank you.
Eloquent & heartfelt, mi amiga. Thank you.
Please reframe one thing: you're aren't "hoping" we can seize the moment. Last night on that call, today posting your encouragement for us - you ARE seizing this moment!! You are doing the WORK!! And WE are NOT going back!
Thank you :)
I think that every Democrat surrogate in the next couple of months should memorize and continually use the phrase, "J.D. Vance and his Incel Army"!
"They're kinda WEIRD"
We talked about this a bunch over on JVL's Triad today, but it should be noted how closely tied MAGA's stance on abortion and selective tax/voting rights for parents are linked to the Great Replacement Theory. They desperately want more white women having kids--through legal force and cultural pressure--to keep the demographic profile of the country as white as possible for as long as possible. GRT and white panic about demographic shifts are a very large component of the right's weirdness.