Letter: Women don't vote for looks Beware foolish assumptions
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.I am as irritated as Geraldine Curtis by the assumption that women vote for men on their looks (Letters, 17 November). Women vote for the party which appears to accommodate their needs the best - or, as has been the case, the least worst. Why else, in the presidential election of 1960, would more women in America have voted for an ill-at- ease, pallid, balding and unshaven Richard Nixon than for the handsome, hirsute, confident, athletic Jack Kennedy?
There is a "women's vote" but it is issue oriented and increasingly targeted. It is foolish for any party to make assumptions about why women vote the way they do, rather than discovering what they would vote for.
Lesley Abdela
London W1
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments