Women are expected to change that choice - because of course we expect them to do everything

Women are expected to change that choice - because of course we expect them to do everything

Judy Kleiman, leftist constituency voter, helps early voters through the process at St. Catherine Laboure Catholic Church in Maryland. (Jahi Chikwendiu / The Washington Post)

Tuesday! Angry. Guys, we've been spending the last two years climbing a political mud, but now we have the split times ahead of us and after Tuesday we should at least know which direction the country is heading. And, behold, the Lodestars in this venture should be female voters, if you believe in unrestrained political analysis.

Powered by #MeToo, President Trump, Brett M. Kavanaugh, and the climate-changing oceans that are preparing to lift us all, the suburbanites – White Predominantly women in the suburbs will tear themselves away from their marathon runs "Killing Eve", get to the polls and change this country,

"There is a key group of voters that both sides urgently need support for: women in the suburbs," announces MSNBC.

"The competition … is likely to depend on the voices of white suburbanites," Houston Public Media writes of a congressional race.

Which – good. All options depend on someone. November 2000 stranded us in Broward County for months; In 2016, a hundred dissertations on forgotten miners from Appalachia started. Now, if we want to talk about white women in the suburbs and how their voices could be influenced by current events, let us do that.

But the path Journalists and forecasters are doing it seems. I wonder where men should be in this equation.

The New York Times recently published a story about whether Trump's nationalist tendencies would constitute a "break point" for women in the suburbs who, according to the article, reject a "divisive language regarding race and gender."

I'll go out on everyone's lips and say it's great that women in the suburbs do not like racist, sexist speech. I'll keep on tiptoe to say it strange this racist, sexist speech would not disturb male voters either.

"President Trump's personal attacks on women fuel the GOP's fear that the party may lose voters in the suburbs in November," Hill said in October after President Stormy described Daniels as "Horseface."

I'm not saying that the descriptor "Horseface" was not offensive. I wonder about the implication that it was only women offensive. Do not men care if the president calls the people Horseface? Men should only take care of others Men Hot Horseface?

When Trump criticizes male opponents ("Lyin 'Ted", "Rocket Man"), we have discussions about how rhetoric undermines land and office. We know that the language is bad for everyone. But when Trump insults women, the narrative gets a twist: "Is Trump trotting women away from the GOP forever?" Politico asked after mocking Kavanaugh's accuser Christine Blasey Ford at a rally in October.

If I were thinking of leaving a political party, what would marginalize me would not be a politician making fun of a woman. It would be presumptuous that the men in the party would be cool about it – that the party leaders might be worried about my exodus, but the men's confidence would remain.

Mark Harris, a Republican candidate for the North Carolina Congress, is a pastor whose sermons have encouraged women to "submit" to their husbands. Pooh. A Politico reporter wrote a whole story talking to the women in the district to see how language and race had influenced them.

But should not language disturb even male voters? Should fathers not wish independent daughters and husbands wives who are equal partners?

For all of this, I'm doing something for the same reason I was worried about liberals looking for Sens. Susan Collins (R-Maine) and Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) to prevent Kavanaugh's Supreme Court nomination. Since women are women, they should think that they should be sensitive to sexual assault or the future of women Roe v. calf, As if men could not be thoughtful and human about these issues. As if men could not "remember the ladies," as Abigail Adams incited her husband in 1776.

"Be more generous and cheaper than your ancestors," she begged the future president. "Do not give unlimited power into the hands of husbands."

There was a time when some right that women possessed was held in the hands of white men. And these white men somehow managed to look beyond their own interests. They succeeded in recognizing that the rights of women and colored men were indeed the rights of others.

We should think about it now. Every time we impose the burden of choice on suburban women, we should ask ourselves why we do not remember the men either.

Monica Hesse writes as a columnist on gender and its impact on society. For more information, see wapo.st/hesse.

Leave a comment

Send a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.