An article in Vox showed the statistical correlation between Trump supporters and hostile sexism. One interesting aspect of this analysis was that this is not an issue of Republicans in general being hostile to women, just a correlation between those who are and those who support Trump. The trend was not the same when Romney ran in 2012. Romney appealed to benevolent sexists rather than hostile sexists. The difference, as they say, is yuge.
Let’s unbox these terms. Benevolent sexists are the old-fashioned kind of sexists, those who believe that there are differences between the sexes that make women weaker, softer, morally superior, and requiring of men’s protection. Benevolent sexism is the kind we usually hear preached in the church. It’s the set of assumptions behind talks like LDS Women Are Incredible!, references to GA’s “angel mothers,” and the gender roles outlined in the Proclamation on the Family. It’s bread and butter sexism in the church. While it undermines equality (by treating women differently than men in terms of financial independence or moral culpability or leadership), it’s not overtly hostile to women. It’s not coming from a place of hatred, but one of protectionism and a belief in binary genders that are complementary. 
When Romney tried to galvanize voters against Trump, he used an argument of benevolent sexism in his vanguard tweet:
Hitting on married women? Condoning assault? Such vile degradations demean our wives and daughters and corrupt America’s face to the world.
— Mitt Romney (@MittRomney) October 8, 2016
This is a protectionist argument. He’s casting women in the role of wives and daughters, people men are supposed to protect. He’s not saying that Trump has degraded women who are our equals and deserving of respect (although he may also feel that way and as a business executive with literally binders full of qualified women probably does). He calls on his followers’ duty to protect their cherished women from “vile degradations.” It’s sexist, but it’s not hostile. Women represent the best humanity has to offer. They’re not gross and disgusting like horrible men. They don’t lose their temper. They don’t poop.
Hostile sexism by contrast is overtly suspicious of women and sees feminism as a threat to men. Hostile sexists, whether men or women, see the battle of the sexes as a zero sum game in which any gain for women is a loss for men, and a loss for men is not to be borne. Hostile sexism is often a mask for masculine resentment due to erosion of their privilege. And unfortunately, hostile sexism is no stranger to our congregations and even to our church leadership. When Boyd K. Packer declared feminism one of the three threats the church needed to stamp out, he was motivated by hostile (rather than benevolent) sexism in that statement. Feminism takes from men. Zero sum game. Men must win or everyone loses.
To recap, here’s a definition of the contrast from Wikipedia:
Hostile sexism is an antagonistic attitude toward women, who are often viewed as trying to control men through feminist ideology or sexual seduction. Benevolent sexism is a chivalrous attitude toward women that feels favorable but is actually sexist because it casts women as weak creatures in need of men’s protection.
Both attitudes denote prejudice about women, but one does so by attempting to protect women, assuming they always act in good faith or placing them on a pedestal, while the other is more antagonistic toward women, assuming they act in bad faith. This dichotomy is often associated with the archetypes of mother / whore. The mother archetype paints women as nurturing angels incapable of the full spectrum of human emotion. The whore archetype paints women as tricksters and manipulators who are trying to get an advantage over men through seduction or lying.
From the Vox article, there were 4 questions on the survey that indicated hostile sexism:
(Agree) Most women interpret innocent remarks or acts as being sexist.
(Agree) Many women are actually seeking special favors, such as hiring policies that favor women over men, under the guise of asking for equality.
(Disagree) Feminists are not actually seeking for women to have more power than men.
(Disagree) Feminists are making entirely reasonable demands of men.
Agreeing with the first two and disagreeing with the second two statements indicate attitudes of hostile sexism, strong opinions that women act in bad faith. While sexism, benevolent or hostile, also correlates to some extent with party affiliation (as can be expected when sexism is “old fashioned” and one party is “conservative”) the degree of sexism influencing voting is greatly different in this election, which is either a byproduct of a woman candidate, or more likely, the statements made by Trump that have even turned off plenty of Republicans in the election cycle.
It’s one thing to believe in protecting “wives, mothers, and daughters” and quite another to boast about being able to get away with sexual assault because one is a celebrity. In this instance, benevolent sexists are outraged by hostile sexism. This isn’t merely a difference of degree, but of kind.
Brian Schaffner, a political scientist at the University of Massachusetts Amherst, used the same survey as part of a poll in New Hampshire, and found that sexism was a much bigger factor in the 2016 election than it was in 2012:
Clinton’s candidacy is another piece of important context — it’s possible that strong support for Trump among sexists is in part a reaction to the first woman who could plausibly be elected president — but Schaffner’s findings back up the idea that Trump’s core supporters are unusually hostile toward women and feminism.
I want to be clear here. There are reasons church members will vote for Trump that are not related to sexism, but Trump’s sexist words have created a barrier for both feminists and benevolent sexists in a year when his opponent is a woman, one he is painting in terms familiar to hostile sexists: terms like liar, bad wife, untrustworthy, manipulative, criminal.  For example, I know individuals who support Trump because they are wary of government in general or because they want the Affordable Care Act repealed or because they believe he will appoint conservative supreme court justices.  These are not inherently sexist reasons. Church members who are voting for him are willing to overlook his character and his sexism.
What gives me pause when I hear LDS Trump supporters speak about their views is when they reveal attitudes of hostile sexism. This is an attitude that is unbecoming and unsavory in the context of someone purporting to follow Christ, although I certainly recognize that we all fall short from the Apostle Paul on down to me. Disliking Hillary on political grounds is, to me, quite different from hand-waving away Trump’s horrific statements on women and his boasts of sexual assault as mere “locker room talk” or worse, blaming his victims for being vindictive in accusing him or implying that his victims are seeking notoriety. 
I don’t think hostile sexism is a majority trait in our congregations. And yet it’s certainly not unheard of. I rather think it’s a clueless, vocal minority that thinks it’s benevolent. I can think of examples of hostile sexism that I’ve heard at church, although they are less frequent than the pervasive benevolent sexism I hear. I also hear plenty of feminism without owning the term.
But where we hear hostile sexism spoken in our congregations, it’s time for us to speak up. When we hear a Gospel Doctrine teacher saying that women who dress immodestly are asking to get raped or when we hear a youth speaker lament that the Steubenville athletes’ bright futures were blighted by the accusations of vindictive party girls, we need to check these attitudes–kindly, but firmly and directly. Our failure to correct these attitudes, our fear of being confrontational instead of too doggone nice, may be the tipping point that results in Trump winning Utah’s electoral votes, smearing our collective good name and erasing the opportunity to demonstrate the superior moral values to which we should aspire as disciples of Christ.
What a wasted opportunity that would be, both for the church and for the Republican party.
 Don’t get me wrong–I’m against it, but it’s certainly not in the same category as hostile sexism even if it is on the sexism spectrum.
 Those charges aren’t inherently sexist if they are proven to be accurate. They are value judgments often placed on ambitious women by hostile sexists.
 In other words, they believe he’s actually a conservative and not a completely unpredictable loose cannon.
 Particularly unfathomable to me are those who state that voting for Trump protects women by promoting conservative values. They must not have watched the same debates and interviews I did.