Yes, it makes me chuckle, as it's a hollow and laughable argument in terms a legitimate look at the more pressing and substantial factors that played into her loss. It's like someone who's obese focusing on the fact they like to have the occasional ice cream cone and putting that on equal footing or ahead of the fact they drink soda continuously, eat fast food 4 times a week, never work out, and eat a snickers bar at lunch every day.
The disparity of men voting for Trump instead of her essentially the same that we saw in Bush vs Gore and in Bush vs Kerry. Her 13 point advantage in women was larger than Bush vs Gore or Clinton vs Romney. You can no more claim "misogyny" was a significant driving factor based on the numbers than you could say misanthropy was.
Am I suggesting that there were some people who were misogynistic that didn't vote for her? Absolutely. However, I'd suggest that many of those that were misogynistic and didn't vote for her likely still wouldn't have voted for her if she was a HE, and would've voted for her if she was an (R).
I chuckle, because it's basically an attempt to soft peddle and downplay her significant flaws as a candidate and in the campaign that were FAR more impactful in terms of the reasons for her loss. A sad and desperate attempt to play the victim card in order to attempt and protect her legacy as someone who had her chance at the Presidency stolen from her due to bigotry as opposed to because her campaign bungled their strategy. I chuckle a sad chuckle, because it's not any kind of honest attempt to raise awareness or actually show concern for true misogyny, but is simply using it for the emotional and political cache that comes along with it to suit her own selfish purposes.
Finally, part of the chuckle is because it makes me recall this incredibly interesting
social experiment that was conducted post election that's results were significantly shocking to those who put it together.
