<<< can you explain to me why then if most people are doing this is anyone at all concerned about whether a woman is "likeable"? How does that affect her ability to serve in any position other than Miss Congeniality? And why does a man's likeability matter so much less? How about the inferred correlation between height and leadership ability? >>>
We agree. I just don't think likability is an issue. Trump got elected and even his supporters think he's an asshole. I don't watch much TV. Who is most people? The talking heads on the propaganda mills that falsely call themselves news? They are not most people, but they are trying to influence people. I've never heard the likability issue from people I talk to (yes, I know, small sample size) but I would caution that if you are thinking most people, based upon the assclowns on FOX, CNN and MSN you could be being deceived.
<<<Your pissing me off a little bit here with your mind reading comment.>>>
My apologies, that is certainly not my intention. I think where some of my thoughts come from "systemic" racism, sexism, dominance hierarchies, etc. are faceless abstractions. As a young man I was indoctrinated to go fight a faceless abstraction; "the enemy." When I saw the face of the enemy he was a kid like me. His mother was waiting for him to come home but he was full of holes and broken. My mother was waiting too. I have accepted that the dominance hierarchy exists. Life as it is, opposed to how we wish life might be. I am oriented toward dealing with the world as it is. If I wasn't, I'd already be dead.
Equality of result is a cruel hoax for people to believe in. We are not all equal. People below the mean want equality of result, or so they say, but you didn't bust your ass in school or work to gain expertise in something to be equal with those who didn't. Men and/or white people have no monopoly of the quest for power, or in achieving it for that matter.
<<<And you've read most of those articles so you know that I didn't read one story from one person and then just decide that's how things are.>>>
We both seek to understand how things are. Our difference could probably be reduced to our reaction to what we see.
<<<Again, I'm not trying to be combative here, but in the face of that just saying, "I don't really think it's that" without providing the same level of research and analysis doesn't really cut it.>>>
I have no interest in trying to prove you wrong and therefore have no inclination to research in an effort to do it.
<<<And using your cat as an example of the "law of the jungle" would seem to defend discrimination and bullying of all sorts as being inevitable and defensible because the strong prevail and the weak get eaten. I know you well enough to know you do not condone discrimination, but when you say things like that, other people might get the wrong impression.>>>
The law of the jungle is not a defense of discrimination or bullying, it's just an acknowledgement of it's reality. Not assigning a value judgment on the nature of a cat and a coyote doesn't imply that I do not put a judgment on bullies and people who unfairly discriminate. How do we deal with that? I could have joined the PTA and gone to meetings about dealing with bullies, but I chose to have my daughters learn to fight in competitive martial arts. It may be why I'm a bottom up, rather than top down libertarian thinker. I've got no control over the people at the top of the pyramid, but they also don't know or care about me. Not my fight.
<<<And I also didn't say that it's a hard and fast formula, or that no men vote for women -obv. I'm saying that among swing voters and some core Democrats, this subconscious comfort with the known hierarchy is going to play a part. And I also didn't decide that social stratifications and classes of various kinds began with patriarchy (dominance hierarchy). That's an established and nearly universally held anthropological theory.>>>
I already acknowledged that we agree on that.
<<<And I'm reminding you again that conscious thought makes up only 2% of cognition. Almost everybody is 98% run by things in their unconscious minds (like who seems the most presidential because they are the tallest, and the implicit biases that come out of long-term cultural messaging).>>>
I think it circumstantial. If you are solving a calculus problem I would think that you are running on far more than 2% conscious thought. I've repeatedly said that background and life experience creates bias filters and the two of us has different filters with different controlling biases. We have them because they have served us in the past, or we think they have. We agree on more than you think, we just don't agree on the ratios.
<<<Saying that people elect a candidate based on their policies and then trying to make it an asset that Trump actually didn't stand for any real policies is a spin worthy of Washington. Why is it so difficult to concede that I made a valid point? Dominance hierarchy zero-sum dynamics perhaps? 😉>>>
I agreed with you that he doesn't stand on real policies. It is neither spin of defense of him to point out that it might not disadvantage him like you think it should. It's reality.
<<<You can certainly disagree with both her proposed policies and her previous ones, but again, that's not what this story was about. It's not about her actual merits, because in truth, they are not the main thing that is at issue for many voters.>>>
I don't know how many many is. We seem to have a different idea about that number.
<<<If they were, why would the Republicans be fishing around right now trying to get something negative about her to stick?>>>
That's the reality of politics. It's not like the left hasn't spent four years trying to make something stick to Trump. The world as it is.
<<<Remember that despite all the open dislike for Clinton, it was still widely assumed that she would win in a landslide, but she didn't>>>
And this time around there is an even larger number of people who are going to vote for Trump who won't talk about it beforehand than the last time around. I'm sure you know the old adage that if you assume you make an ass of u and me. I pay no attention to the pundits, they are wrong too often. We don't know who the voters are for until they vote.