Opinion: Women don’t vote against Trump just to ‘cancel out’ their husbands

To the editor: “Gender gap widens, with more women planning to cancel out husbands’ votes,” reads the print subheadline of a piece on the differences between husbands’ and wives’ assessments of the presidential candidates. (“‘Till death do us part’ in life, but these married couples part ways at the ballot box,” Oct. 27)

Could there be a more tone-deaf rendition of this story in an election that has brought persistent misogyny and sexism to the forefront of American life? Did The Times consider that perhaps it could be the other way around, and that a woman might have an influence on her husband? The subheadline reinforces a patriarchal and offensive notion of society and marriage.

First Lady Michelle Obama was absolutely correct to be shaken to her core by Trump’s belief in his right to sexually assault women. We should never have to minimize the effect of sexually predatory behavior, the discomfort and downright fear that we often feel, or the lack of validity our opinions elicit simply by virtue of our sex.

Enough is indeed enough, and The Times should know it.

Michelle Aberle, Signal Hill

..

To the editor: Hazardous to couples? I find this campaign hazardous, period.

I have stopped talking about Clinton and Trump with just about everyone, including my mailman. When the subject comes up, I usually raise my eyebrows and say nothing except to those closest to me who I know have the same views.

I hope couples caught in this political and psychological conundrum will be able to mend fences and continue their lives together without permanent damage after the election. However, I doubt all will be rosy, as emotions are strained to the breaking point and many of us are horribly stressed and unsure as to what the outcome will mean.

Bette Mason, Corona del Mar

Follow the Opinion section on Twitter @latimesopinion and Facebook