As Shirley Leung (“Misogyny wins the election,’’ Business), Jocelyn Noveck (“Clinton’s defeat devastates women who supported her’’), Danielle Paquette (“Exit polls show role of gender gap in vote’’), and others stated in the Nov. 10 edition of the Globe, gender bias made the difference in this past election. But not in the way they claim.

Hillary Clinton reached out to all sorts of demographic groups, courting voters and addressing the concerns of just about every bloc of potential supporters — except white men. As far back as her primary battles, she spoke before innumerable women’s groups and touted what she would do to promote their interests. The same went for others of various racial and ethnic backgrounds.

I support her for doing that. Those are all groups that have been underrepresented in the past and whose interests need to be advanced. However, the ignoring, dismissing, and marginalizing of the white male voter was unnecessary, and bordered on misandry.

From the imagery in ads, to the coded language, to the direct language in her speeches, the message came through to many white men that her campaign didn’t need them, didn’t understand that they might have political issues of their own, and didn’t even recognize their relevance to an election victory.

Although I did not vote for Donald Trump, I also did not vote for Clinton. But then, if she had only acknowledged me as part of the electorate or cared to ask for my vote, she might have gotten it.

Dan Ladd

Lincoln