# News & Current Events > U.S. Political News >  Where are all the women?

## Hope

Has anyone noticed that male Ron Paul supporters outnumber women ten to one?

Even today as I was handing out liberty cards and sign waving at a busy intersection for two hours, most of the people who espoused interest in Ron Paul were men.  Most women didn't care enough to roll down their window and ask, and of the few who did, they didn't seem all that swayed by RP's message.

I know there's the Strippers for Ron Paul group, but I have yet to meet one.    I really think there's an untapped voter demographic out there of women under the age of 30.  How do you get women who are either not that familiar with politics or moderate leaning to support Ron Paul?  I don't want to be the only female in our MeetUp group forever.

----------


## RP4ME

i am of the girl persuasion

----------


## ItsTime

I saw lots of women at the last straw poll

----------


## angelatc

I'm a female, but in our meet up I'm out numbered by about 7 to 1.  

In the old days,  that meant free drinks.

----------


## Cindy

> Has anyone noticed that male Ron Paul supporters outnumber women ten to one?
> 
> Even today as I was handing out liberty cards and sign waving at a busy intersection for two hours, most of the people who espoused interest in Ron Paul were men.  Most women didn't care enough to roll down their window and ask, and of the few who did, they didn't seem all that swayed by RP's message.
> 
> I know there's the Strippers for Ron Paul group, but I have yet to meet one.    I really think there's an untapped voter demographic out there of women under the age of 30.  How do you get women who are either not that familiar with politics or moderate leaning to support Ron Paul?  I don't want to be the only female in our MeetUp group forever.


I've been working RP at another forum where the age group is mostly 18-24. RP is the PITS with many young adult women because of where he stands on the abortion issue.

----------


## Hope

> I've been working RP at another forum where the age group is mostly 18-24. RP is the PITS with many young adult women because of where he stands on the abortion issue.


Ahh.  You think that's the clencher?  I'm pro-choice myself, but I can agree with Ron Paul that it shouldn't be a federal issue.

I wish people weren't so quick to dismiss a candidate on just one issue.

----------


## jcbraithwaite7

I'm JC... and even though most chicks don't go by initials... I am all woman and all for Dr. Paul.

----------


## angelatc

> Ahh.  You think that's the clencher?  I'm pro-choice myself, but I can agree with Ron Paul that it shouldn't be a federal issue.
> 
> I wish people weren't so quick to dismiss a candidate on just one issue.


Ditto on the pro choice.  Work the draft angle. No point in killing the kids that we did want.

----------


## Cindy

> Ahh.  You think that's the clencher?  I'm pro-choice myself, but I can agree with Ron Paul that it shouldn't be a federal issue.
> 
> I wish people weren't so quick to dismiss a candidate on just one issue.


Here is one example written by one of the young single females I referenced, in her own words. 




> I understand how the argument is made, but unfortunately I live in the south where the issue would undoubtedly be voted to ban abortion. So if this occurs before I'm financially stable enough to move to a better area, I'd be $#@!ED if I got pregnant. Even though I'm super careful, the issue might come up. And then I'd either be imprisoned with a child I would resent, probably not be very loving to, and be completely depressed for two decades, or endure a pregnancy that with my current height and weight and psychiatric prescriptions and tobacco habits would physically endanger both me and the child. In fact, with all the things I'm prescribed I'd probably incur the danger of having a seriously life threatening miscarriage. Have you ever seen someone have a miscarriage? My roommates mom had an unwanted pregnancy that ended in a miscarriage and the bathroom was FLOODED with inches of blood. She didn't even know she was pregnant at the time and had no way of knowing what was coming. She was also above 50 and almost died. 
> 
> I'm not taking that chance. No way.


BTW, I am a married female, 39 with a daughter who is Pro Choice and I have to say, it took me two months to reason that issue one with myself before I decided to fully support Paul myself.

----------


## micahnelson

If only the rabid right to lifer's weren't so concerned with killing Iraqis.

----------


## Cindy

And of course, you have the young "girls rule" types who are voting for Hillary simply because she is a woman. There are tons of those out there. 

Thats just ignorant reasoning.

----------


## archemeedees

I'm a young (23), very pregnant (due any moment), possibly overly-enthusiastic (I started threatening premature labor when I was campaigning for him) Ron Paul supporter. 

Maybe women just generally aren't as interested in politics? Most of the women I've known are not. I've had female friends walk away while I was conversing with their boyfriends or husbands about politics. And generally I'm the only woman discussing politics with the men in my husband's family while the women discuss candle parties or something interesting to them. (Then there's my side of the family where there is no discussion of politics for the men or the women, possibly to save on medical bills.)

So in my experience, it's just unusual for women to be interested in politics. But that's just my experience with the general population. I dare say the active portion of our Salt Lake City meetup group is nearly half female. No one can call them Utah Paulite women barefoot (even if some of us _are_ pregnant).

----------


## Cindy

> If only the rabid right to lifer's weren't so concerned with killing Iraqis.


And Iraqi children who are already born. It's *mind boggeling* how many support the carnage of innocents over there and yet, get on their high moral horse about abortion.

----------


## thehittgirl

> Has anyone noticed that male Ron Paul supporters outnumber women ten to one?
> 
> Even today as I was handing out liberty cards and sign waving at a busy intersection for two hours, most of the people who espoused interest in Ron Paul were men.  Most women didn't care enough to roll down their window and ask, and of the few who did, they didn't seem all that swayed by RP's message.
> 
> I know there's the Strippers for Ron Paul group, but I have yet to meet one.    I really think there's an untapped voter demographic out there of women under the age of 30.  How do you get women who are either not that familiar with politics or moderate leaning to support Ron Paul?  I don't want to be the only female in our MeetUp group forever.


It's funny because I was thinking about how outnumbered I am then hubby was talking to a friend about it.  All 3 of us are in agreement that women don't like his stance on abortion.  

I've wondered myself how to get more women interested in Ron Paul.  I have two friends that are pro life and against the war. I know one of them is leary because her trust has been shattered.

----------


## thuja

i am a lady, and while talking to other ladies i find most of them really grateful that i told them about Ron Paul, as issues such as privacy and freedom are very important to them, its just that they had sullenly given up hope on that like most people, thinking there was no more hope.

----------


## dsentell

> And of course, you have the young "girls rule" types who are voting for Hillary simply because she is a woman. There are tons of those out there. 
> 
> Thats just ignorant reasoning.



*Yes, and scary, and dangerous for America.

I heard today that one of Hillary's brilliant ideas is to give $5,000 to each American baby that is born.  Sure, that sounds nice.  But we have about 5 million babies born each year -- do the math.

How on earth are we supposed to pay for this?

Ron Paul is right -- we don't need the government taking care of us from cradle to grave........*

----------


## thehittgirl

> I'm a young (23), very pregnant (due any moment), possibly overly-enthusiastic (I started threatening premature labor when I was campaigning for him) Ron Paul supporter. 
> 
> Maybe women just generally aren't as interested in politics? Most of the women I've known are not. I've had female friends walk away while I was conversing with their boyfriends or husbands about politics. And generally I'm the only woman discussing politics with the men in my husband's family while the women discuss candle parties or something interesting to them. (Then there's my side of the family where there is no discussion of politics for the men or the women, possibly to save on medical bills.)
> 
> So in my experience, it's just unusual for women to be interested in politics. But that's just my experience with the general population. I dare say the active portion of our Salt Lake City meetup group is nearly half female. No one can call them Utah Paulite women barefoot (even if some of us _are_ pregnant).


I think that's another nail hit too.  My family members are not into politics. My mom nor sister are interested because they feel it doesn't affect them. That mentality upsets me, and my sister and I got in an argument.   I told them now is the time to get into politics, because do they really want their grandson/nephew going off to a war based on lies?  My husband calls my mother and my sister pod people since they don't seem to care.  I hope they amongst many others will wake up!

----------


## dsentell

*By the way ... I, too, am a proud Ron Paul supporting female.........*

----------


## angelatc

> Here is one example written by one of the young single females I referenced, in her own words. 
> 
> 
> 
> BTW, I am a married female, 39 with a daughter who is Pro Choice and I have to say, it took me two months to reason that issue one with myself before I decided to fully support Paul myself.


The thing is, though, is that the next President won't have much to say about it.  Bush has already swung the court conservative.  As soon as a case makes it up to the Court, the "right" is going to be gone.

I feel for her, but it's an example of why people shouldn't believe they have "rights" that aren't specifically spelled out in the Constitution.  If she wants to keep the right to proper medical care, then she should be supporting a Constitutional Amendment to that effect.

The whole abortion issue was decided based on a right to privacy, and the privelege of doctor / patient confidentiality.  If she thinks that socialized medical care won't also have a bearing on that decision, I think she's hopelessly niave.

----------


## thuja

but i have heard she wishes to have all children microchipped by age two

----------


## Hope

One thing that's come to mind, though.

Many other Republican candidates are strictly pro-life -- to the point that they'd like an amendment to the Constitution banning abortion across the nation -- and yet they don't seem to have a problem gaining female supporters. Hrm.

----------


## dsentell

> but i have heard she wishes to have all children microchipped by age two



*Doesn't that just sound wonderful ! *

----------


## thehittgirl

> And of course, you have the young "girls rule" types who are voting for Hillary simply because she is a woman. There are tons of those out there. 
> 
> Thats just ignorant reasoning.


Oh that's my mother!  She admits she knows nothing else about politics but yet said she will vote for her.  I know it's because of her being a female.   

I've been slowly trying to talk sense into her, but I am not sure it will work.

----------


## dsentell

*It is a shame that more women are not interested in politics.  Ron Pauling consumes much of my day and I am very knowledgeable about what is going on in the world.

Two women (both 50ish) that I work with don't have a clue.  They have no interest in news, politics or world affairs.  They keep their heads buried in the sand and don't want to know what is going on around them.  I try to talk to them about RP, but all they want to talk about is some stupid fiction novel that they are always reading.  When they ask me if I read, it is all I can do to keep from saying, "I read, but not story books........."*

----------


## thuja

it IS scary, that women would vote for her because she is a woman, and not pay attntion to what she is up to. 
someone clever should do a campaign for Ron Paul specifically for women. I do find the issues of privacy and of health freedom, such as food supplements to be especially appealing to the women i talk to.

----------


## micahnelson

Men think Macro, National/Team Oriented, impersonal
Women think Micro, Individual/Family Oriented, Personal


We need to understand fundamental differences between men and women. The Ron Paul campaign is about BIG MACRO ideas. This is explains the big hooplah among men. We associate with the campaign through the revolutionary war, the patriots, the founding father... rah rah rah.

Women tend to relate to things on a more interpersonal micro level, and politicians understand this. Par example, do you think a president would have successfully said "I feel your pain" before suffrage? Women's issues tend to be about interpersonal issues, health care, social security, things related to the family. I don't mean to offend anyone here, i realize I am likely speaking to the 5-10% minority of women who would have dressed like a man in 76 to fight the redcoats. Im a male who doesn't like sports or drinking beer... so... I feel your pain, lol. Hear me out though. As an example, guy movies are about aliens taking over the entire world and a group of people fighting back. Macro Issues. Girl movies are about a girl who can't decide between a rich man she doesn't love, and a poor man she does love. Micro issues. 

We need to find a way to communicate the macro issues of liberty, american independence, to the micro issues women care about. Privacy is out because it has become a buzz word specifically for the abortion debate. Maybe we could discuss how single mom's could start businesses without all the hassle if we had more liberty. Freedom of education for children? Ladies, any ideas?

----------


## constituent

> I feel for her, but it's an example of why people shouldn't believe they have "rights" that aren't specifically spelled out in the Constitution.  If she wants to keep the right to proper medical care, then she should be supporting a Constitutional Amendment to that effect.


It help your case if you argued the FACT that the Bill of Rights is not to be construed as limiting your rights to what are listed... God grants your rights, not the government.  The Bill of Rights is a funny thing.

----------


## Hope

> it IS scary, that women would vote for her because she is a woman, and not pay attntion to what she is up to. 
> someone clever should do a campaign for Ron Paul specifically for women. I do find the issues of privacy and of health freedom, such as food supplements to be especially appealing to the women i talk to.


Yep! Don't forget education.  He's against torture and the death penalty, too.

Today while I was waving a RP sign at an intersection, a woman yelled, "Ron Paul, $#@! you!" and flipped me off.  I fear for my gender sometimes.

----------


## drednot

> *...
> I heard today that one of Hillary's brilliant ideas is to give $5,000 to each American baby that is born.  Sure, that sounds nice.  But we have about 5 million babies born each year -- do the math.
> 
> How on earth are we supposed to pay for this?
> *


Not only that, think of the unintended consequences.  We'd be (again)  encouraging those unprepared for children to go ahead and have them.

----------


## Cindy

> it IS scary, that women would vote for her because she is a woman, and not pay attntion to what she is up to. 
> someone clever should do a campaign for Ron Paul specifically for women. I do find the issues of privacy and of health freedom, such as *food supplements to be especially appealing to the women i talk to*.



That is how I won my 67 year old mother over to him....and from Edwards. 

I told her about the recent FDA ploy to ban nutritional supplements and gave her Pelosi's number to protest it. She was firing mad, and now she is voting for Paul.

----------


## Corydoras

> because it's the best thing for humanity


You're actually getting amusing here. Why are they the best thing for humanity? They come with a load of responsibilities... which you appear to have denied earlier.

----------


## JosephTheLibertarian

> From Libertarianism in One Lesson by David Bergland, 9th edition:
> 
> A book with the title _Libertarianism in One Lesson_ might be expected to contain on lesson, one central idea or theme, to help explain all that is discussed in the book.  Here it is:
> 
> YOU OWN YOURSELF.  
> 
> ...The self ownership principle draws a line around each individual, creating a zone of privacy and freedom of action.  We must respect every other person's right to act within his or her zone.  Yes, it may sometimes be difficult to dtermine exactly where my actions cross the line defining your zone.  That's why we have courts of law to resolve disputes.


Why do I have to regurgitate someone else's words in order to believe in libertarian values? I just think it's the best way for a society to operate... my god

----------


## JosephTheLibertarian

> You're actually getting amusing here. Why are they the best thing for humanity? They come with a load of responsibilities... which you appear to have denied earlier.


Well, you cannot force people to embrace it... that's why people are in prison..well, the ones for violent crimes anyway

----------


## Corydoras

> I just think it's the best way for a society to operate


I think if you'd just stuck to that, you would have run into a whole lot less trouble.

----------


## JosephTheLibertarian

> I think if you'd just stuck to that, you would have run into a whole lot less trouble.


Why?

----------


## Corydoras

> Well, you cannot force people to embrace it... that's why people are in prison..well, the ones for violent crimes anyway


And they're in prison because law enforcement put them there, and, as you said earlier, the police are just trying to make a living.

You do realize how unprincipled you sound?

----------


## JosephTheLibertarian

> And they're in prison because law enforcement put them there, and, as you said earlier, the police are just trying to make a living.
> 
> You do realize how unprincipled you sound?


That's because you twist my views around. I haven't laid everything out, I'm breaking things into pieces for you. They're making a living, yes. Government is here to protect our liberties, no? That's why they're in prison lol THOUGH I'm a believer in restitution

----------


## Corydoras

Joseph, you've stuck yourself into all sorts of bad corners with murky thinking. You need to do more work in learning how to make formal arguments so that you don't evade points and don't contradict yourself either in tone or in substance and so that you learn how to identify the principles on which you make assertions. There are a lot more ways to make invalid arguments than ad hominem, for example. I think you may want to read some Wittgenstein and some of the Anglo-American philosophers. You may also want to read the Meno, by Plato.

----------


## JosephTheLibertarian

> Joseph, you've stuck yourself into all sorts of bad corners with murky thinking. You need to do more work in learning how to make formal arguments so that you don't evade points and don't contradict yourself either in tone or in substance and so that you learn how to identify the principles on which you make assertions. There are a lot more ways to make invalid arguments than ad hominem, for example. I think you may want to read some Wittgenstein and some of the Anglo-American philosophers. You may also want to read the Meno, by Plato.


that would be your opinion... and I don't really care what you think. Go read the communist manifesto

----------


## Corydoras

> Government is here to protect our liberties, no? That's why they're in prison


Please LISTEN to yourself.

----------


## JosephTheLibertarian

> Please LISTEN to yourself.


Ron Paul even said it... government should protect our personal liberties, did he not?

----------


## Corydoras

> that would be your opinion... and I don't really care what you think.


Then don't go onto a forum board! Just write a blog and don't accept reader comments on it, and that way you can be as authoritarian as you want.

----------


## JosephTheLibertarian

> Then don't go onto a forum board! Just write a blog and don't accept reader comments on it, and that way you can be as authoritarian as you want.


nice personal attack. Telling me to read books is very deflective.. authoritarian? lol. ha ha ha ha. I can't interact on forums if I don't care what you think. listen to yourself

----------


## Corydoras

> Ron Paul even said it... government should protect our personal liberties, did he not?


It is invalid to argue from authority when you agree and to reject arguments from authority when you disagree.

----------


## JosephTheLibertarian

> It is invalid to argue from authority when you agree and to reject arguments from authority when you disagree.


That doesn't make any sense. I just asked you: Ron Paul made this statement, no?

----------


## Corydoras

> nice personal attack. Telling me to read books is very deflective.. authoritarian? lol. ha ha ha ha. I can't interact on forums if I don't care what you think. listen to yourself


I have not attacked you personally, and I have not got a knee-jerk reaction against authority, as you seem to. I agree, no, you can't interact on forums if you don't care what I think. You said you don't.

----------


## Corydoras

> That doesn't make any sense. I just asked you: Ron Paul made this statement, no?


Just because he said it does not make it true, and that was your obvious implication. Otherwise, there was no need to put in the word "even."

----------


## JosephTheLibertarian

> I have not attacked you personally, and I have not got a knee-jerk reaction against authority, as you seem to. I agree, no, you can't interact on forums if you don't care what I think. You said you don't.


You said I shouldn't be on a forum if I don't care what you think.

----------


## JosephTheLibertarian

> Just because he said it does not make it true, and that was your obvious implication. Otherwise, there was no need to put in the word "even."


I have been more involved in the LP than you ever have. You're not arguing libertarianism with me.. you're arguing natural rights

----------


## Corydoras

> You said I shouldn't be on a forum if I don't care what you think.


I'm saying you shouldn't. Now if you don't care what I think, prove it.

----------


## JosephTheLibertarian

> I'm saying you shouldn't. Now if you don't care what I think, prove it.


I'll do whatever I feel like doing..troll

----------


## Corydoras

Have fun!

----------


## JosephTheLibertarian

> Have fun!


yes? I hope you're done trying to undermine my support for Ron Paul 

1. challenged my support earlier

2. personal attacks

3. tell me to leave the forum

----------


## Corydoras

> yes? I hope you're done trying to undermine my support for Ron Paul


I'm trying to strengthen it by trying to get you to be rational, because I think irrational support of Ron Paul makes it easier for the mainstream media to dismiss and marginalize him.

I suppose a vote for him is a vote for him even if it's done on irrational grounds.

----------


## JosephTheLibertarian

> I'm trying to strengthen it by trying to get you to be rational, because I think irrational support of Ron Paul makes it easier for the mainstream media to dismiss and marginalize him.
> 
> I suppose a vote for him is a vote for him even if it's done on irrational grounds.


you know... I don't want to be hostile to you. You're right, libertarianism has many roots.. natural rights, the Founders were theists (some anyway)  I guess I'm a Fred Thompson-libertarian.... the laziness lol. I think more about making money, life, others interests, than I do about investing more time in libertarian-related books, but I do order books from amazon, so I will look into these books here.

I'm sorry. I care about what you think. I just know that libertarianism is probably the best political pholosophy, I've looked into almost all of them.

----------


## Corydoras

Peace, brother!

----------


## JosephTheLibertarian

> Peace, brother!


any hard feelings? I will look into the books... I do hold great libertarian beliefs, I just am not aware of the intricate infrastructure... you were assuming (imho) that I believe in everything the founder fathers believed in. I know enough about libertarianism in order to be one, I just have not studied the background, I have not read any Rothbard, Ludwig Von Mises, Michael Badnarik (I know who he is) I have other things on my mind, so I can't just read books all day long. I learn as I go.

You'd laugh... but right now, I'm reading Dianetics by L. Ron Hubbard LOL

I know all I need to know in order to be one, I agree with it... I plan on tackling the history over time. but is the history of it relevant to my beliefs in it? I don't think it is. Government protects our liberty? It should imo. Unfortunately, it has not been doing a good job of it. but need we sacrifice liberty for safety? NO We have unalienable rights... I know exactly what you mean by natural rights.. I couldn't fall into your trap, because there's a religious aspect to it, that's why I brought up morality 

ohh and I have been up for 38 hours btw so my thinking is pretty damn distorted

----------


## Corydoras

No hard feelings. Really.

You don't have to read all that stuff to start out with. Start out too heavy and you might crash and turn into an Edwards Democrat or something from sheer exhaustion!
/jk  

Honestly, I think that reading Wikipedia entries about political theory is quite educational. (Not that Wikipedia has the absolute truth about things etc., blah blah, but...) You can learn a lot, even things that don't get much press in the big political world, like agorism and anarcho-capitalism. Articles lead from one to another, and you can find references to books and biographies of important authors. Just go from one article to another as they link up, and if something catches your attention, follow it.

What's also important when talking about rights and liberties is to ask really basic questions about responsibilities people have to themselves and one another, because rights and responsibilities go together.

I would also say that things like abortion, law enforcement, and the environment create some of the most difficult theoretical problems. And as they say in legal circles, bad cases make bad law. I.e. the most intricate problems are very bad at revealing or illustrating basic principles.

Hope that helps.

----------


## Corydoras

> ohh and I have been up for 38 hours btw so my thinking is pretty damn distorted


LOL
I have a slight hangover and I've been up since around 7:30 this morning.

Get some sleep. I'm drinking sweet tea.

----------


## angelatc

> It help your case if you argued the FACT that the Bill of Rights is not to be construed as limiting your rights to what are listed... God grants your rights, not the government.  The Bill of Rights is a funny thing.


I hear you, and I actually steer away from that because the 9th and 14th Amendments, and the relationship between them, confuse me.

I'm a very literal person. I had a 4.0 average in college without really even trying, until I got to Philosophy.

----------


## angelatc

> Pro-Choice women want the freedom to be able to choose if they take an unwanted pregnancy to term or not. No one WANTS an abortion.



I always add the word "safe" in there.  Women always had abortions. When it was illegal, women traveled, or they visited back alley doctors.  

Anto-abortion laws don't work any better than the war of drugs or prohibition does / did.

----------


## angelatc

> Definitely.  Most people don't make that connection, though.  Or if they do, they somehow think it's all right because in a perfect world, the government would act in the role of Robin Hood, stealing from the evil rich to give to the angelic poor.


Actually, Robin Hood was stealing from the king who had taxed his people into poverty.

----------


## Hope

> Actually, Robin Hood was stealing from the king who had taxed his people into poverty.


Well, that's a bit of a myth, too.

----------


## angelatc

> Or just make it illegal to get a girl knocked up who hasn't signed a contract ahead of time agreeing to the risk.  
> 
> All of the laws put all the onus on the women.  That is why women don't think they are fair. Because they aren't.  
> 
> No matter what, for many women, the fact that they could be forced to bear a child against their will under any circumstance is enough to turn them off to a candidate completely.
> .


It's not just that.  When women are forced to remain pregnant, how long will it be before they are siddenly prosecuted for drinking or smoking while pregnant? Yes, those are bad choices, but where will the state ownership of the fetus stop? Will I go to prison if I have an accident while pregnant? If my baby is born with a birth defect, will the state insist that I did something wrong and prosecute me?

If I miscarry, will I need to prove that I didn't take a pill to induce it?

----------


## angelatc

> Just an FYI from a medical student. This is totally incorrect. Memory =/= thought.
> 
> Fetal brain waves are first measurable at 4 weeks. By 8-12 weeks the fetus is not only has a certain level of awareness of the world around him, but can act upon it by doing things such as jumping on the placenta as a "trampoline" and playing with the umbilical cord like a toy. We have 4-D ultrasound videos showing these things to be true. Also, fetuses are well-known to try to "get away" during an abortion by swiming away from the cuvette and kicking their arms and legs wildly as the knife sinks into their bodies. 
> 
> Just saying.


That's nice, but jellyfish do pretty much the same thing. 

You can hate abortion all you want, but you can't stop women from having them.  All you can do is stop them from having acess to safe medical care. 

Personally, I think that's wrong.

----------


## angelatc

> Libertarianism is about individual liberty.  
> 
> Where exactly does the unborn child's liberty come into play here?  Because that is the issue, it seems to me.


If you're asking me, it comes into play when the parent decides that it does, or when it's born.

----------


## eleganz

> I understand how the argument is made, but unfortunately I live in the south where the issue would undoubtedly be voted to ban abortion. So if this occurs before I'm financially stable enough to move to a better area, I'd be $#@!ED if I got pregnant. Even though I'm super careful, the issue might come up. And then I'd either be imprisoned with a child I would resent, probably not be very loving to, and be completely depressed for two decades, or endure a pregnancy that with my current height and weight and psychiatric prescriptions and tobacco habits would physically endanger both me and the child. In fact, with all the things I'm prescribed I'd probably incur the danger of having a seriously life threatening miscarriage. Have you ever seen someone have a miscarriage? My roommates mom had an unwanted pregnancy that ended in a miscarriage and the bathroom was FLOODED with inches of blood. She didn't even know she was pregnant at the time and had no way of knowing what was coming. She was also above 50 and almost died. 
> 
> I'm not taking that chance. No way.


I'm sorry guys, though I feel for women on this issue because a man could just pack up and run at any blink of an eye, there is a larger issue at hand here.  The future of America depends on RP and if all the women care about is a child that would keep them back, then America has little chance to prosper once again.

By the way, assuming that RP takes office and the South does ban abortion, she could always move to California where you could get one.

----------


## angelatc

> Function is not a binary on-off thing... you're wading into some very murky waters here, because if a fetus doesn't have a fully functioning brain, you say it's okay to terminate, but if someone in a nursing home bed doesn't have a fully functioning brain, you say it's not okay to terminate. Do you have a bright line here?



You haven't looked at socialized medicine very closely.  As the argument progresses, it always comes down to allocating resources in favor of the younger and healthier members of society.

They would indeed pull the plug on Grandma. They would also refuse to treat expensive illnesses in the elderly.

----------


## Gordon

> No woman enjoys having an abortion, but there sure are some women who can't seem to figure out what they're doing that is causing them to get pregnant.  Because there are more than a few women who have had multiple abortions.


To the Vikings, most attractive women were those who could meet them as equals in both bravery and intellect. Exchanging swift-witted words and poetic staves with their men folk, risking and bearing wounds and death with the same steadfastness as any male warrior Individuals who are true to the ancestral ways will develop their bodies, intellect, and artistic faculties to their highest peaks; 
to leave out one side of being is to be less than a whole human.

----------


## asgardshill

> Well, that's a bit of a myth, too.


All of my childhood delusions get shot down in this forum 

So the whole Robin Hood thing was mythical?  Bummer - puts it right up there with the whole Captain Bligh meme, I guess.  Yes Bligh was a hard man, but no harder or more brutal than many other ships masters in his day.  Fletcher Christian was probably considered to be the equivalent of the prototypical tea-sipping easily-offended weenie liberal of today.

----------


## pickfair

Are women really that turned off just because of the issue of abortion? I'm a woman but I realize the unconstitutionality of Roe v. Wade. Besides, there are many ways to PREVENT unwanted pregnancies. That is what we should focus on. I know there are cases when it can't be prevented, but those cases are outnumbered. Plus we have far more important things at stake here. This nation as a whole is going to the dogs if we don't reform Capitol Hill. Then who knows what'll happen? Maybe we'd be forced to go to Mexico to get an abortion.

----------


## Hope

> All of my childhood delusions get shot down in this forum 
> 
> So the whole Robin Hood thing was mythical?  Bummer - puts it right up there with the whole Captain Bligh meme, I guess.  Yes Bligh was a hard man, but no harder or more brutal than many other ships masters in his day.  Fletcher Christian was probably considered to be the equivalent of the prototypical tea-sipping easily-offended weenie liberal of today.


Haha, I love the Robin Hood stuff, too, so it let me down when I found out the truth.  The real Prince John really wasn't that bad of a guy and the real King Richard is responsible for the heavy taxation on the people.  Robin Hood is a legend that didn't get started long after that, though.  Wikipedia has a pretty good article on it.

----------


## asgardshill

> Haha, I love the Robin Hood stuff, too, so it let me down when I found out the truth.


For me, the rot started when Kevin Costner took that role.  Robin Hood with a Midwest twang in a locale supposedly set in medieval England just didn't cut it for me.  Funny thing is, with the arguable exception of Mel Gibson's effort, they really haven't made a completely bad _Mutiny on the Bounty_ yet.

----------


## Laja

I have noticed that there are more young men involved in the campaign than women, but that's a pleasure for a change.  It seems that most of the stuff I get involved with has mostly women participating.  Women are more social beings.  Our way is helping others, and Ron Paul's stances seem more male oriented.  

Now you can kick my ass for saying that, but it's what has come to mind in regard to the topic of this thread.  And I hadn't really tried to analyze it before.  But I'm a woman and I became attracted to Ron Paul's positioning and philosophy when I found out just what lying and corrupt politicians we have running this country and how far towards our destruction they're taking us.  If I hadn't had the background to know that most of what mainstream media is telling us is lies and how almost everything I grew up believing is lies, then I'd probably be on the Hillary bandwagon like all of the other Democratic women I know.

It's kind of separated myself out from my friends because they're not into RP (abortion is their reason).  I'm most certainly pro-choice, but can leave that issue behind in favor of the bigger picture.  Turning around the nightmare, the rape of this country, and starting over with the Constitution and Bill of Rights.  We've gone too far to ever be able to recover without Ron Paul to steer us back in the right direction.

I embrace Ron Paul wholeheartedly, defender of freedom and man of intense and uncompromising courage.  Forgive me for such a long post.  I could go on and on...

----------


## alicegardener

You give the decision about the legality of abortion to the states and a women would sometimes need to go to another state.  Give it to the federal government and a woman have to go to another country.  A supreme court that now rules for abortion rights may, in the near future, rule against it.  Nine men (and the occasional woman) essentially making laws for all is too dangerous regardless of your take on abortion.  That got me over hump with Ron Paul.  
I figure, if states got to decide, I will donate money and time to a private organization to provide transportation, etc. to poor women who have been raped or otherwise victimized.   Otherwise, the best thing for pro-choice to do is work towards a constitutional amendment which I think has a real chance of passing.  

That said, Ron Paul is not the only pro-life candidate yet women support those others.  Female supporters of other candidates don't seem to have any trouble being interested in macro-ideas, politics, etc.  Could it be females are turned off by male Ron Paul supporters?  I know I was turned off when I saw, on a recent thread, that 26% on this forum polled to abolish women's right to vote.  I can sorta understand some of the uterus jokes and verbal drooling over Ron Paul girl, seeing as how so many of the males here are so young.  But the right to vote?   That strikes me as sheer misogyny.  How can that NOT drive away females?

----------


## Laja

The amazing thing about supporters of Ron Paul is that they span the gamut of beliefs.  3/4 of the people who support Ron Paul hold beliefs that are different than mine.  Belief in the message of freedom and its messenger, Ron Paul, is the one thing in common we share.

I think this is a good thing because it shows us that those who believe different things than us are also good people like us and share a love of freedom.  And that freedom guarantees us the right to be who we are and believe what we want to believe no matter whether others share those beliefs or not.

If 26% of those polled on this forum said they'd repeal women's right to vote, then so be it.  Now we know that there are those types of people out there (creepy as it is).  But Ron Paul would encourage us to choose whatever beliefs we wanted as long as we didn't hurt other people or their property, as a result.  So I'm okay with them believing whatever they want, as long as their beliefs don't take away my freedoms.  I can handle that and therefore, I welcome Ron Paul's presidency.

----------


## davver

If you want to know why there are so few women tuning in, turn on The View.

My mom watches and believes that drivel.  I don't know if there is any hope for those people.

----------


## rexsolomon

Hello Ladies,

So the issue is that women are supposedly against Dr. Paul because he is pro-life. And he is. But understand that his personal view is 'personal', and that he would leave it to the States to decide on the legality of abortion.

What Dr. Paul is very much against abortions in the final trimester. And any form of government subsidies - not just abortion. But nowaday's that shouldn't even be necessary. Isn't Plan B available over the counter? That's a whole lot less expensive, supposedly.

That said, a state that says that abortions are legal in their jurisdiction will still most probably rule that late trimester abortions are still illegal. The wonderful thing about Dr. Paul is that he will not force his point of views on any state's legislators. 

Dr. Paul is truly for your freedoms ladies. Do vote for him. 

Thank you.

----------


## Laja

> If you want to know why there are so few women tuning in, turn on The View.
> 
> My mom watches and believes that drivel.  I don't know if there is any hope for those people.


You're probably right.  Ron Paul's message isn't for everyone.  We just need to have a majority.

----------


## Hope

> If you want to know why there are so few women tuning in, turn on The View.
> 
> My mom watches and believes that drivel.  I don't know if there is any hope for those people.


If you want to know why there aren't more men tuning in to Dr. Paul's message, turn on Sports Center.  I have male family members who watch those shows and there's probably not much hope for those people.

/sarcasm

Most people are not into politics, and it's only the minority of those who are politically astute that are receptive to the message.  It has nothing to do with "Women like shoes, men like sports," cliches.  The View is not representative of women as a whole, not by a long shot.

What I've gathered so far is that the abortion issue isn't the only reason why there's a disparity between male and female supporters, because plenty of women -- almost half -- are pro-life and the other candidates are picking up female supporters.  It seems to me that the real heart of the problem is that less women know about Ron Paul than men do.

----------


## Kingfisher

I havnt read this whole thread so forgive me if this has already been posted. ..."Many women are offended by foul, offensive language." .....Some of you guys are keeping women off this forum!

----------


## RevolutionSD

> I've been working RP at another forum where the age group is mostly 18-24. RP is the PITS with many young adult women because of where he stands on the abortion issue.


But lots of women supported GW Bush and his dad who are both pro-life. I don't think it's the abortion issue, I think women in general just cling on to the idea that government will protect us, and they associate ron paul's ideas with danger.

----------


## ThePieSwindler

lol was this thread seriously 30+ pages of abortion debate. Also, JosephTheLibertarian, i do hope you have reconciled some of your glaring inconsistencies, as BW4Paul really took you to the watershed in this thread...

Really the only legitimate defense of Pro-Choice is one that the state shouldnt not be involved. Otherwise, to support abortion as a morally defensible act is anathema to libertarianism, as there is no individual liberty with first being a right to life. Interestingly, this is pretty much the position of the LP on them matter, not that abortion is a "woman's right", but that like the death penalty, etc, the state should have no say on the matter of morals, thus there should be no laws dissallowing it or banning it outright. What really bothers me about the abortion debate is that it is filled with so much passion backed up with so little knowledge or critical thought. Hmm, sorta like healthcare, the war, etc. See a trend here?

----------


## phoenixrising

> i like it. the women should not be old, however, but should be like sarah jessica parker, lively and attractive.  What happens when they run into the men? maybe the men are doing exactly the same thing, and they all caught each other supporting Ron Paul.  so why not do this ad? it would be good!


or do the ad WITH a mom & daughter??? i think it's a great idea...yet include generations in the ad (there are much higher stats these days of women in their 50's NOT taking aging sitting down)...someone mentioned the fact our supplements are being attacked (loss of freedom to purchase)....take a look at the vaccination issue as well.

when i mention these items to females...they _listen_ much more attentively! 

realize that the right to bear arms resonates for both sexes--yet moreso males. so why not get something that will resonate for women in multi age brackets.

got  into a conversation at a xmas party & as soon as these topics came up...the women chimed in...& b/4 ya knew it they were chiming in w/"the dumbing of america...& especially in education"

ya just gotta come up w/more emotional things to have them WANT to hear more.

another topic is homeschooling........u would get more on this topic as well! 

btw: proud RP female supporter!...who hasn't been politically active since vietnam (do the math)   ....(yet kept doing the research)... for me...i've been hoping for a cause...that would become so  alive...& people would wake up.... where i could freely speak my voice & not be considered a nut.

RP is putting it out there for everyone--& now they can't say --they didn't know!

1 last thing about the abortion issue. when i was growing up on the mainland b/4 rowe vs wade....if a woman needed an abortion...she crossed a state line. it's not that u wouldn't still have that indiv freedom when RP gets elected....it's just that it may not be in your own back yard. u still have the choice!

----------


## ErikBlack

> I just don't understand how our world got to the point where we think it's okay to just dispose of an unborn child like it's yesterday's trash?
> 
> I am a big, BIG supporter of self responsibility.  If you don't want to take the chance of getting pregnant, don't have sex.  If you know that 1. I can have sex. 2. If I have sex I could get pregnant. 3. If I have sex I could possibly get an STD. and you go and have sex and 2 or 3 happens, I don't feel sorry for you and I think you should step up and take responsibility.
> 
> If you don't want to accept responsibility for your actions, don't do those actions.  Plain and simple.  Don't open your legs, keep them shut, and you won't have to be forced with the decision to get rid of your unborn child.


That is quite possibly the most unrealistic statement I have ever read. Sex is not a choice. For most people it is a basic biological necessity. Refer to Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs where sex occupies the first level of the pyramid along with food, water, breathing and other basic requirements of human existance.

The drive for sex is undeniable and to repress it causes great psychological harm and irrational behavior. Look at Catholic priests who have taken a vow of chastity and as a result are driven to homosexual pedophilia! Sex is not for the sole purpose of creating children. That is the biological side effect but rarely the catalyst for sex. People have sex because it is pleasurable and satisfies our basic human need for physical intimacy.

The human population was kept in check throughout history by natural forces such as: predators, famine, drought, natural disasters, ice ages, disease and high rates of infant mortality. This allowed people to give birth to a greater number of children knowing that a certain percentage of them would likely die, the same way a Salmon spawns thousands of eggs. Today we have neutralized most of these threats through technology but that is a hollow victory. Babies who are born have a greater chance of living longer more comfortable lives, but we can no longer rely on nature to control our population and protect us from ourselves. Now its our responsibility! 

The answer is not for those who do not wish to have children to abstain from sex. We would have as much luck trying to abstain from breathing! Anyone who has studied the subject knows that abstinence does not and can not work. In fact, most people who promote abstinence are not abstinent themselves. They just choose to have sex and the children it produces. This is fine but not everyone can do that, for reasons which should now be obvious. If a child was conceived and subsequently born every time a couple had sex the world would soon be hopelessly overpopulated and bloody battles would rage endlessly over control of steadily diminishing natural resources. 

Abortion and birth control are important tools in the battle for population control, which is absolutely necessary given that we occupy a small planet of finite natural resources upon which we depend solely for sustenance. Abortion may not be pleasant but consider the alternatives. Would you rather go back to the dark ages when babies and children often died of disease or mothers died while giving birth to them? Or would you rather fast forward to a post-apocalyptic future where your children live elbow to elbow, like rats, slitting each others throats for a bite of bread or a sip of uncontaminated water?

----------


## luaPnoR

I'm a woman and I'm very pro-life.  But I also agree that it should be a state decision. The Fed should have no control in this topic.  I just love how Pro-life and Pro-choice woman can BOTH be happy supporting Ron Paul.

----------


## Corydoras

> Sex is not a choice. For most people it is a basic biological necessity.





> Abortion and birth control are important tools in the battle for population control, which is absolutely necessary given that we occupy a small planet of finite natural resources upon which we depend solely for sustenance.



What an unusual argument for abortion rights.

Most pro-abortion people argue that women are rational beings who have the right to control their own bodies to benefit their own individual lives.

You are making the argument that human beings are irrational and unable to control their bodies and therefore should submit to the tool of abortion because of the needs of the collective.

Amusing.

----------


## ErikBlack

> What an unusual argument for abortion rights.
> 
> Most pro-abortion people argue that women are rational beings who have the right to control their own bodies to benefit their own individual lives.
> 
> You are making the argument that human beings are irrational and unable to control their bodies and therefore should submit to the tool of abortion because of the needs of the collective.
> 
> Amusing.


I think you misunderstood my point. You seem to be implying that I support forced abortion and that is not true. Some women choose to have abortions and others choose to have children. As individuals each should be allowed to exercise their choice. But, not surprisingly, as the human race grows and resources diminish, more women choose to have abortions. This is because resource scarcity provides an economic incentive not to have children. If we counteract this natural incentive not to reproduce with anti-abortion legislation the population will simply continue to grow unchecked, resulting in a decreased quality of life for all. So, as is the case with so many issues, freedom is the answer.

----------


## Corydoras

> as the human race grows and resources diminish, more women choose to have abortions. This is because resource scarcity provides an economic incentive not to have children. If we counteract this natural incentive not to reproduce with anti-abortion legislation the population will simply continue to grow unchecked, resulting in a decreased quality of life for all. So, as is the case with so many issues, freedom is the answer.


When you imply that people are too irrational to avoid getting pregnant, you are in essence saying they are incapable of truly choosing to have abortions, especially since, according to you, there is a "natural incentive not to reproduce." You are simply not making a case that people are rational enough to make a free choice.

There is no "natural incentive not to reproduce." This is even more true in areas of resource scarcity, because children then become valuable as labor providers.

Furthermore, people do NOT choose to have abortions because resources diminish. This has been shown repeatedly, and I'm too tired of this issue to look for links. People in India have consistently polled as saying that there should be MORE people on the planet. Most abortions are unsafe in Ghana despite years of liberalized abortion laws. You need to actually look at facts, not theories of human behavior.

And again you refer to "a decreased quality of life for all," as if the collective good should trump the good of either an individual woman or an individual child.

You're really embarrassing the pro-choice side. Give it up.

----------


## ErikBlack

> When you imply that people are too irrational to avoid getting pregnant, you are in essence saying they are incapable of truly choosing to have abortions, especially since, according to you, there is a "natural incentive not to reproduce." You are simply not making a case that people are rational enough to make a free choice.


People are not exclusively "rational" or "irrational". They are rational sometimes, other times they are guided by emotion or instinct. Here is an example, a fairly common one. A couple, in the heat of passion has unprotected sex and the woman becomes pregnant. Later, they realize they made a mistake and decide to have an abortion because they can't afford to raise and child and fear it will destroy their relationship. The initial choice was irrational, the second was rational.




> There is no "natural incentive not to reproduce." This is even more true in areas of resource scarcity, because children then become valuable as labor providers.


Like most things in nature this trend does not follow a linear path, it follows a bell curve. Moderate resource scarcity (such as we experience here in the 1st world) does provide an incentive not to reproduce. An example would be the unavailability of jobs or the high cost of food, diapers, daycare and other goods contributing to a young woman's decision to have an abortion. Economic concerns are the most cited reason for having an abortion in 1st world countries. Once resource scarcity passes a certain point and becomes dire, you are correct, it provides a natural incentive to reproduce, such as you see in the 3rd world. Infant mortality and starvation once again become a real threat and children are needed to provide labor and take care of old people. 




> And again you refer to "a decreased quality of life for all," as if the collective good should trump the good of either an individual woman or an individual child.


I did not mean this is any sort of collectivist or egalitarian sense. Perhaps I could have worded it better and said "decreased quality of life for each". 

To understand the concept of global resources you have to understand the relationship of the 3rd world to the 1st world. The 3rd world only exists because of the 1st world. The 1st world doesn't feel the effects of resource scarcity because they are buffered from it by the 3rd world, who produces and exports the majority of their natural resources to the 1st world, retaining only enough for themselves to survive, the 1st world having already exceeded the capacity of their own natural resources to support its growing population and higher per capita consumption rate. As both groups continue to grow (the 3rd world at a much faster rate than the 1st) less becomes available for each person on the planet, regardless of how it is divvied up, resulting in a decreased quality of life for all.

Anyway, I did not mean to stray so far from the topic. This thread was meant to discuss the lack of women in the Revolution, so I won't detract from that any longer

----------


## Matt Collins

YouTube - Where Are the Female Libertarians? Allison Gibbs on the Ladies of Liberty Alliance

----------


## Distinguished Gentleman

Put on your seat belts folks, I'm about to make generalizations.

I've had the op's experience.  I waved signs all day and handed out pamphlets in 2008, and the only females I convinced were some younger ones who saw fit to put Ron Paul stickers on their car, circle the block, and come by to make kissy faces at me.  

My life and work experiences make me interact with voting age women almost exclusively.  They communicate and think differently than us.

(The beautiful, intelligent, classy women of RPF not withstanding)

Big picture, broad structural frameworks of economies, foreign policy, and political strategy only appeal to a small minority of women.  Same goes for the electrical wiring of a house, and the pros and cons of a prevent defense.

Women are more likely to care about people, especially people they know.  They still think critically, but are more likely to do it in the context of a social interaction. (It's why there's so many women in Human and public relations)  
Libertarianism is a public relations nightmare.  An uninformed glance at the platform would paint us all as possibly racist, pot smoking abortionists  who don't want to help the poor.  Oh and we're into conspiracies.

To cut to the point, IMO. The key tenets of libertarianism only appeal to small minorities of people and about 1 percent of women.   There's nothing we can do about it except get by on wedge issues against our opponents, good timing, and excellent fundraising. (See Paul, Rand)

----------


## TonyFromTheBronx

instinctively, females crave security.

They see Big Government the same way a cave gal sees a big strong caveman....someone who can protect her.

Its hard to explain to most chicks that true security comes from LIBERTY.

----------


## silentshout

Female here as well. And i am pro-choice, but am fine with it being decided on a state by state basis.

----------


## silentshout

> instinctively, females crave security.
> 
> They see Big Government the same way a cave gal sees a big strong caveman....someone who can protect her.
> 
> Its hard to explain to most chicks that true security comes from LIBERTY.


I must be malfunctioning then..i have never seen it that way.

----------


## dannno

> instinctively, females crave security.
> 
> They see Big Government the same way a cave gal sees a big strong caveman....someone who can protect her.
> 
> Its hard to explain to most chicks that true security comes from LIBERTY.


Stefan Molyneux was saying the other day about how when most people talk about government, they are really talking about their family, psychologically.

----------


## TonyFromTheBronx

> Stefan Molyneux was saying the other day about how when most people talk about government, they are really talking about their family, psychologically.


thats interesting....

I was brought up in a very controlling environment and, as the youngest, was extra controlled!

Thats why I _hate_ people telling me what to do.

----------


## oyarde

> I must be malfunctioning then..i have never seen it that way.


Good for you . Your fine , not malfunctioning !

----------


## TonyFromTheBronx

> I must be malfunctioning then..i have never seen it that way.


Blessed art thou amongst women!

----------


## Pericles

> Put on your seat belts folks, I'm about to make generalizations.
> 
> I've had the op's experience.  I waved signs all day and handed out pamphlets in 2008, and the only females I convinced were some younger ones who saw fit to put Ron Paul stickers on their car, circle the block, and come by to make kissy faces at me.  
> 
> My life and work experiences make me interact with voting age women almost exclusively.  They communicate and think differently than us.
> 
> (The beautiful, intelligent, classy women of RPF not withstanding)
> 
> Big picture, broad structural frameworks of economies, foreign policy, and political strategy only appeal to a small minority of women.  Same goes for the electrical wiring of a house, and the pros and cons of a prevent defense.
> ...


One other possibility: Build a liberty based community in a state that is not too far gone. Proof of concept is hard to argue against and answers the question of how does it benefit all concerned.

----------


## Dreamofunity

Really? An almost 3 year old thread with recent video posted numerous places already?

----------


## Liberty Rebellion

> thats interesting....
> 
> I was brought up in a very controlling environment and, as the youngest, was extra controlled!
> 
> Thats why I _hate_ people telling me what to do.


+1776. I was the oldest and was constantly given choices on what I wanted to do throughout my younger years, but anytime I made a choice my parent's would over ride it.

Example. When I was about to enter the 1st grade, they asked me if I would rather go to a public school (where all my neighborhood friends were going) or to a private school. I, of course, chose public, but was told I was going to private.

I was told I couldn't go to the mall when I was 12 because some random person might steal something and hand it to me as they were fleeing security. I told them that was absurd and the final reason was "because I said 'no'!"

In 8th grade my friends and I went to see  a movie. My friend invited a couple girls he knew to meet us there. When my mom saw us walking out of the movie theatre with the girls she was infuriated and I was subsequently grounded for a month

I could go on and on, but needless to say I wasn't about to be confined by their restrictive rules. And, my younger sisters went on to do everything I was always forbidden to do (but did anyways lol)

Sorry, didn't mean to derail the thread. I'm a male btw. The closest I have come in terms of libertarian females was my last girlfriend who wasn't politically active, but agreed with just about everything I would tell her about. Even though we're not together today, she still calls me from the voting booth and asks me how she should vote!

----------


## amy31416

The biggest mistake men here make about women is the one thing that is frequently railed against on this forum: collectivism.

If you are a female individual, someone here will find something to hate about you and blame it on your gender.

If you don't want children--you're going against God, you aren't fulfilling your duty as a female and you are a miserable dyke/crone/hater of family.

If you vote, know that us women have single-handedly crippled this once great country. With no help from our big, strong menfolk. We're powerful like that.

If you bitch about the generalizations made, you are a liberal/commie who loves political correctness.

If you are female, you are automatically superficial and will vote for Obama/Jack Conway/Mitt Romney types, regardless of their words/actions/lack of principles.

You best be real pretty too!

We've heard it all before. Yeah, yeah...we (collectively) handed you the apple (or the pomegranate) and made men's lives a living hell. I usually find sexist stuff funny, but god damn if most of you guys haven't been total jackasses lately, and grasping at straws trying to blame everything on us, or alternatively--telling us that you know best how we should live. Or both.

If Ron Paul were female, you guys would probably criticize him as being a pussy who's afraid of war and wouldn't end social programs until it would harm far fewer people. You'd call that "emotional." You'd probably even mock him for being an ob/gyn and for working with people like Grayson, Sanders and Kucinich, and for going on Jon Stewart and Maddow's shows. You'd probably call him a socialist sympathizer. 

I'm sure many of you would see him in a completely different light, if he was female.

Oh well, there's no reasoning with men.

----------


## oyarde

> The biggest mistake men here make about women is the one thing that is frequently railed against on this forum: collectivism.
> 
> If you are a female individual, someone here will find something to hate about you and blame it on your gender.
> 
> If you don't want children--you're going against God, you aren't fulfilling your duty as a female and you are a miserable dyke/crone/hater of family.
> 
> If you vote, know that us women have single-handedly crippled this once great country. With no help from our big, strong menfolk. We're powerful like that.
> 
> If you bitch about the generalizations made, you are a liberal/commie who loves political correctness.
> ...


I just realized how easy I am to get along with

----------


## Sentient Void

I was actually informed of Ron Paul for the first time by one of my female stripper friends. lol

Generally speaking though - women tend to be more emotional based, and are thus more naturally drawn to modern-day 'liberalism'.

What you need to do with the femmes, is show them how the libertarian position is actually the only truly compassionate philosophy which helps people.

I converted my girlfriend to a radical libertarian after getting her to read 'Healing Our World in an Age of Aggression' by Mary Ruwart (anarchocapitalist).

----------


## Distinguished Gentleman

Amy, what's it like to be a female libertarian, outside of the political context?  Do you feel isolated, like your on a different "wavelength" than a lot of your female acquaintances?

I had a female libertarian house mate, I noticed she had a disproportionally high number of male friends.  Real friends, not potential suitors.

I apologize if I'm being too personal.

----------


## specialK

> The key tenets of libertarianism only appeal to ... about 1 percent of women.


I hope you are wrong about that. I'd like more company, but then I always have been more of  rebel b*tch than most women I know.

----------


## Marenco

YouTube - Oprah's Final Favorite Things Audience Reactions

----------


## TNforPaul45

Ron paul drinks Fiji water LOL

----------


## specialK

> YouTube - Oprah's Final Favorite Things Audience Reactions



Scary $#@!e.

----------


## amy31416

> Amy, what's it like to be a female libertarian, outside of the political context?  Do you feel isolated, like your on a different "wavelength" than a lot of your female acquaintances?
> 
> I had a female libertarian house mate, I noticed she had a disproportionally high number of male friends.  Real friends, not potential suitors.
> 
> I apologize if I'm being too personal.


Not a problem. Well, here's the reason I can't really give you the information you want: I'm also a scientist, a bit of a tomboy, and because of that have usually had far more male friends than female--even prior to becoming a libertarian. Partially due to the environment, I'm sure.

Honestly, I've always gotten along better with men, for the most part, as real friends and at work. But the female friends I've had since I was a kid, I've never made a "real" female friend as an adult. Weird, huh?

I used to think that I had more male friends because women have that backstabbing, gossipy tendency--but then I realized that men are pretty much just as bad in that arena. Usually, I just find men more interesting to talk to, I think because I'm more likely to be interested in subjects that they're interested in.

Some women consider me a "novelty" type of female. If that makes any sense.

----------


## Matt Collins

> Ron paul drinks Fiji water LOL


Rand drinks Saratoga water.
The Collins drinks Dasani water.

----------


## amy31416

> Rand drinks Saratoga water.
> The Collins drinks Dasani water.


The Amy (god that's weird) drinks D2O. 

Mmmm hmm.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Rand drinks Saratoga water.
> The Collins drinks Dasani water.


A bunch of yuppies who pay too much for bottled tap water. ^^

----------


## low preference guy

> A bunch of yuppies who pay too much for bottled tap water. ^^


not true. depending where you live, tap water can be disgusting. might not make you sick but can taste bad.

----------


## specialK

I drink filtered tap water. It's completely untreated in my city and tastes great.

----------


## trey4sports

I drink Great Value bottled water

----------


## Matt Collins

> A bunch of yuppies who pay too much for bottled tap water. ^^


A yuppie is one thing that I am not!

----------


## TNforPaul45

Old Epic Gender Thread successfully co-opted by Old Epic Fiji Water thread. MUHAHAHAHAH

my work here is done.

----------


## tremendoustie

> As much as I'm on board with Ron Paul's campaign, sometimes I do worry that states might be getting too much power.  Should they really operate as if they were a bunch of little countries?  If whole sections of the country -- the South for instance -- kinda band together to outlaw something like abortion (or alcohol or drugs or whatever), isn't that almost like a form of tyranny?


Yes, it is a form of tyranny. But it's far easier to combat or escape tyranny in that form, than tyranny when it's enacted by the federal government.

----------


## Vessol

> Yes, it is a form of tyranny. But it's far easier to combat or escape tyranny in that form, than tyranny when it's enacted by the federal government.


I'd much rather have my tyrant live a few dozen miles away than a few hundred miles away.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> Not a problem. Well, here's the reason I can't really give you the information you want: I'm also a scientist, a bit of a tomboy, and because of that have usually had far more male friends than female--even prior to becoming a libertarian. Partially due to the environment, I'm sure.
> 
> Honestly, I've always gotten along better with men, for the most part, as real friends and at work. But the female friends I've had since I was a kid, I've never made a "real" female friend as an adult. Weird, huh?
> 
> I used to think that I had more male friends because women have that backstabbing, gossipy tendency--but then I realized that men are pretty much just as bad in that arena. Usually, I just find men more interesting to talk to, I think because I'm more likely to be interested in subjects that they're interested in.
> 
> Some women consider me a "novelty" type of female. If that makes any sense.



Every girlfriend (not friend who happens to be female, but actual girlfriend) I have ever had has been the geeky tomboy type who doesn't really get along with "normal" women very well.  I've never heard the description 'novelty female,' but I suppose that's the type I like.  I honestly wouldn't have it any other way.   Since 2007, I have pretty much drawn a hard line that I will not even consider dating a woman who is not into Ron Paul -- in my experience that makes a really good litmus test where I don't end up investing years into a relationship that can ultimately go nowhere.  At this point in my life (37 years old) I am looking for someone to spend a lifetime with, and not to just blow a year or two in distraction...

----------


## Matt Collins

null

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> Same here for me. I have figured out exactly why that is, but I won't go into detail.
> 
> 
> You really should be careful posting stuff like this man, I am willing to bet money that it WILL come back to bite you.


Back to bite me how?  I am absolutely in no way shape or form into guys, and I, too, am a human like anybody else.  Are single holders of public office supposed to eschew all notions of romance?  That's just silly.  I like women who are into running around the woods in camo, camping and hiking and survival.  Shooting and liberty.  My identity is pretty much known and fixed.  I'm not going to lie and pretend to like the froo-froo women just because I will be running for office again in the future.  The people who elect folks want, above all, honesty.  With me, they will get honesty whether they like it or not.

----------


## low preference guy

> You really should be careful posting stuff like this man, I am willing to bet money that it WILL come back to bite you.


I thought the same thing. Don't post personal stuff if you're a public person. They can just say "Ron Paul said X", taken out of context, and then follow up with some comment you made on your post. And even if you can't imagine how they can use something you posted against you, their attack dogs might be more creative than you.

----------


## YumYum

Why would it come back to hurt him? He didn't say anything unusual. Grover Cleveland was single and was a president.

----------


## CaliforniaMom

> The 'normal' women (I guess, the type who hate Ron Paul) tend to annoy me like chattering hens clucking incessantly about irrelevant nonsense all day and night.


So you think women who support Ron Paul aren't 'normal'?

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> So you think women who support Ron Paul aren't 'normal'?


In my experience canvassing 3 states for Ron Paul and doing nothing with my life but exclusively promoting Ron Paul and this platform for the last 42 months -- not 'normal' by a long way.  The various polls onn the subject would seem to back me up.  Women tend to hate Ron Paul, and women tend to hate our platform.  There are, of course, exceptions to every rule.

----------


## TCE

Gunny: He's saying all someone has to do in the future is say you hate women, misquote your post slightly, and they have a great campaign going. I was formulating the future ad in my head as I read your post. 

I've only ever dated liberals and I like them. Can't imagine dating a girl who likes Ron Paul. Dating a Neo Con now and that is a very, very interesting experience.

----------


## low preference guy

> Dating a Neo Con now and that is a very, very interesting experience.


i bet it's something like this:



too bad being a neocon makes megyn unattractive

----------


## YumYum

> Can't imagine dating a girl who likes Ron Paul.


Why is that?

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> Gunny: He's saying all someone has to do in the future is say you hate women, misquote your post slightly, and they have a great campaign going. I was formulating the future ad in my head as I read your post. 
> 
> I've only ever dated liberals and I like them. Can't imagine dating a girl who likes Ron Paul. Dating a Neo Con now and that is a very, very interesting experience.


"If we are going to run campaigns based around individual dating preferences, I will expect my opponent to reveal to the press his entire dating history during his public career.  If, after all, we are going to take my opponents advice and choose our representatives based on dating preference, as his suggestion, then he should clearly take the lead and allow the public to judge the both of us fairly."

Everybody on the planet says stuff that can be taken out of context every day of our lives.  It WILL happen, whether on this subject or some other.  IMHO it's more about how to respond appropriately when someone does it.  It is literally impossible to sanitize speech in such a way that nothing can be taken out of context, and any attempt to do so ends up fundamentally dishonest.

----------


## KCIndy

> i bet it's something like this:
> 
> 
> 
> too bad being a neocon makes megyn unattractive




Maybe if you gagged her first?  








Ohhhhh.... I can't believe I said that....

----------


## TCE

> i bet it's something like this : 
> 
> too bad being a neocon makes megyn unattractive


Yeah...especially watching her Stossel interview...just ugh. 




> Why is that?


I can't imagine being in a relationship with someone who agrees with me all the time. The liberals always challenge me and give me a different perspective on an issue I may not have considered previously. Happens more often than one would think. The Neo Con is like a whole new world. We're not going to last much longer, but I don't blame her love of Israel. 




> "If we are going to run campaigns based around individual dating preferences, I will expect my opponent to reveal to the press his entire dating history during his public career. If, after all, we are going to take my opponents advice and choose our representatives based on dating preference, as his suggestion, then he should clearly take the lead and allow the public to judge the both of us fairly."
> 
> Everybody on the planet says stuff that can be taken out of context every day of our lives. It WILL happen, whether on this subject or some other. IMHO it's more about how to respond appropriately when someone does it. It is literally impossible to sanitize speech in such a way that nothing can be taken out of context, and any attempt to do so ends up fundamentally dishonest.


I can't stop you from saying anything, nor would I want to. Just a word of caution, is all. And I guess if any future opponent fishes through every single one of your posts and twists the meaning of them, well, they're really using all of their resources well.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> I can't stop you from saying anything, nor would I want to. Just a word of caution, is all. And I guess if any future opponent fishes through every single one of your posts and twists the meaning of them, well, they're really using all of their resources well.


I think the most important thing on a forum like this, is when posting something that may be controversial or taken out of context, is to avoid providing fodder for a name search.  While I have not said anything bad or wrong, the fact that it can be taken brutally out of context would tend to cause me to avoid posting a full name of the candidate in proximity to this thread.

----------


## Yieu

> I think the most important thing on a forum like this, is when posting something that may be controversial or taken out of context, is to avoid providing fodder for a name search.  While I have not said anything bad or wrong, the fact that it can be taken brutally out of context would tend to cause me to avoid posting a full name of the candidate in proximity to this thread.


There is still a risk, though.

----------


## eOs

> I think the most important thing on a forum like this, is when posting something that may be controversial or taken out of context, is to avoid providing fodder for a name search.  While I have not said anything bad or wrong, the fact that it can be taken brutally out of context would tend to cause me to avoid posting a full name of the candidate in proximity to this thread.


When keepin' it real goes wrong Dave Chapelle style.

----------


## BamaAla

> Why is that?


My future wife and her family are the ones who rescued me from neoconservative hell. Thank goodness for my Ron Paul woman. Her dad also afforded me the opportunity to meet Dr. Paul...just an added bonus!!!

Edit: Gunny, apparently my girlfriend campaigned for Ron Paul with you in Tuscaloosa back in '08. Small world!

----------


## Distinguished Gentleman

Amy,
A little context.  I have a theory that libertarian thought is counter intuitive to most personality types, and that a minority of people were destined to be drawn to libertarian thought.  For all others it would take some sort of life changing experience to convince them it was a good idea.  I think we're on the same page that women never shunned you because you acquired  political/scientific interests, but your natural interests never aligned much with them to begin with.

For everybody else.
First, I'll say that I have no business giving dating advice, and frequently ignore the good advice I give myself.  But I did stay at a holiday inn express last night,  so here goes.

Don't set your heart on a libertarian girl.  If you find her, God Bless you.  Even if you do find her, you may discover that two nerds having a debate about the commerce clause doesn't make  for much romance.  Go out and have fun, don't ignore your career, looks, or social life.  Find a girl you like, regardless of politics.  Statistically, married women are very likely to take on the political views of their husbands, anyway. (Statistics, are, by nature, generalizations of course)  What I'm saying is that if she really likes you she'll accept your views, and probably even come around to an extent.

----------


## tangent4ronpaul

> I'm a female, but in our meet up I'm out numbered by about 7 to 1.  
> 
> In the old days,  that meant free drinks.


Free drinks... hmmm... I think you might be onto something.

Well that and get Paul on American Idol 

Abortion is a problem, and the real problem is Paul himself.  It's not jost women he's managed to turn off, but Democrats too.  When Paul started talking about Abortion, presumably to win over the religious right, he would answer questions about it by going off on how strongly anti-abortion his personal beliefs were and then as an afterthought add that he doesn't think the federal government should be involved and that it's a state issue.  Everybody that cared about the issue had stopped listening before he answered the real question.  When he did that our Democratic supporters dropped like flies.  Repairing this is going to be difficult, but if he does the same again, this time, we will probably loose again.

-t

----------


## Uncle Emanuel Watkins

> Has anyone noticed that male Ron Paul supporters outnumber women ten to one?
> 
> Even today as I was handing out liberty cards and sign waving at a busy intersection for two hours, most of the people who espoused interest in Ron Paul were men.  Most women didn't care enough to roll down their window and ask, and of the few who did, they didn't seem all that swayed by RP's message.
> 
> I know there's the Strippers for Ron Paul group, but I have yet to meet one.    I really think there's an untapped voter demographic out there of women under the age of 30.  How do you get women who are either not that familiar with politics or moderate leaning to support Ron Paul?  I don't want to be the only female in our MeetUp group forever.



We have never solved our problems with petty political elections, but we have always solved them with American Movements.  American Movements can take many years to bring the people back to revering the Founding Fathers and the people's Civil Purpose they established in both the formal documents of The Declaration of Independence and in The U.S. Consitution.

----------


## Matt Collins

null

----------


## Matt Collins

null

----------


## Matt Collins

null

----------


## james1906

Never thought I'd say this, but Matt is right.  Watch what you say here, shake hands with people you think are total $#@!s, and don't hire hookers.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

There, I edited out the offending line.  I did it on my iPhone at the retreat during a briefing on not saying things that can be taken badly out of context.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> If only the rabid right to lifer's weren't so concerned with killing Iraqis.


Indeed.  A rather tragic irony, isn't it?

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> *We have never solved our problems with petty political elections, but we have always solved them with American Movements.*


Absolutely true!  That's one of the many reasons I don't vote.

----------


## Matt Collins

> There, I edited out the offending line.  I did it on my iPhone at the retreat during a briefing on not saying things that can be taken badly out of context.


A Republican retreat?

----------


## Matt Collins

> Never thought I'd say this, but Matt is right.


Always am

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> A Republican retreat?


Indeed - a Republican House Caucus retreat.

----------


## james1906

> Indeed - a Republican House Caucus retreat.


details please

----------


## Matt Collins

> details please


He probably can't. I'm willing to bet he's under some sort of NDA type of thing.

Parties will take their caucuses out for a retreat or weekend or training session, at least the new ones, to give them a course on how things work, what's expected of them, and just to try and get them all on the same page. Most of the time these things are very informational, but sometimes they are used as tools to get inside the heads of the legislators and influence their decision making.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> details please


Discussed transition team and process, discussed procedures and rules committees, discussed the streamlining of standing committees and the assignment process, received a briefing from the State Auditor, elected our House Majority Whip, started forming caucus policy workgroups, received briefings on budgeting issues, policy issues, etc.  Some ethics discussions, and broke up to reconvene Tuesday in Raleigh at the State Legislature building.

All in all the day was so packed with detail it will be pretty difficult to condense.  I think tomorrow I will post a thread in the GB forum to start a discussion on the policy workgroups.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> He probably can't. I'm willing to bet he's under some sort of NDA type of thing.
> 
> Parties will take their caucuses out for a retreat or weekend or training session, at least the new ones, to give them a course on how things work, what's expected of them, and just to try and get them all on the same page. Most of the time these things are very informational, but sometimes they are used as tools to get inside the heads of the legislators and influence their decision making.


A lot of specific details are confidential, true enough.  Broad brush outlines are not, and I will be able to get pretty deep into the policy workgroup assignments.

----------


## Yieu

> There, I edited out the offending line.  I did it on my iPhone at the retreat during a briefing on not saying things that can be taken badly out of context.


Now, everyone that quoted it ought to do the same, or it's still there.

----------


## Matt Collins

> Now, everyone that quoted it ought to do the same, or it's still there.


Excellent point, and I just did.

Hopefully others do the same before Google decides to cache it.

----------


## TCE

> Amy,
> A little context.  I have a theory that libertarian thought is counter intuitive to most personality types, and that a minority of people were destined to be drawn to libertarian thought.  For all others it would take some sort of life changing experience to convince them it was a good idea.  I think we're on the same page that women never shunned you because you acquired  political/scientific interests, but your natural interests never aligned much with them to begin with.
> 
> For everybody else.
> First, I'll say that I have no business giving dating advice, and frequently ignore the good advice I give myself.  But I did stay at a holiday inn express last night,  so here goes.
> 
> Don't set your heart on a libertarian girl.  If you find her, God Bless you.  Even if you do find her, you may discover that two nerds having a debate about the commerce clause doesn't make  for much romance.  Go out and have fun, don't ignore your career, looks, or social life.  Find a girl you like, regardless of politics.  Statistically, married women are very likely to take on the political views of their husbands, anyway. (Statistics, are, by nature, generalizations of course)  What I'm saying is that if she really likes you she'll accept your views, and probably even come around to an extent.


I am beginning to wonder about your first paragraph as well. Personally, even years ago, I was always inclined to libertarianism even though back then I was very liberal/almost socialist. My motto has been for a while "you do whatever you want as long as it doesn't affect me." Which is essentially the libertarian mantra.

EDIT: I can't believe it either, but I completely agree with Collins, and he has been repped accordingly.

----------


## jmdrake

> Here is one example written by one of the young single females I referenced, in her own words. 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 			
> 				I understand how the argument is made, but unfortunately I live in the south where the issue would undoubtedly be voted to ban abortion. So if this occurs before I'm financially stable enough to move to a better area, I'd be $#@!ED if I got pregnant. Even though I'm super careful, the issue might come up. And then I'd either be imprisoned with a child I would resent, probably not be very loving to, and be completely depressed for two decades, or endure a pregnancy that with my current height and weight and psychiatric prescriptions and tobacco habits would physically endanger both me and the child. In fact, with all the things I'm prescribed I'd probably incur the danger of having a seriously life threatening miscarriage. Have you ever seen someone have a miscarriage? My roommates mom had an unwanted pregnancy that ended in a miscarriage and the bathroom was FLOODED with inches of blood. She didn't even know she was pregnant at the time and had no way of knowing what was coming. She was also above 50 and almost died. 
> 
> ...


Ok.  I'm trying to parse the logic here.  Why would your friend think she would be saddled for 2 decades by a child she didn't want when should could easily give him or her up for adoption?  After all, we have couples in the states going to China and India to have kids.  And the how row over Russian adoptions means that's now harder to do.  So any healthy baby (especially white) would be snatched up before he could say "da da".  And as for the miscarriage risk, in the anecdote given that wouldn't matter because the women didn't even know she was pregnant.  But further studies show that abortions increase the risk of miscarriage later.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/lif...cle3065810.ece

I wonder how many abortions there would be if doctors had to fully inform women of the alternatives to as well as the risks of abortion?

----------


## libertybrewcity

feminism is a huge issue with women in today's society, whether they are conservative or liberal. Women want reproductive rights and that is that. The government should have no control over it anyways. Roe vs Wade will not be overturned, and abortion will remain legal. It creates jobs and stems population growth.

----------


## pcosmar

> *Where are all the women?*


My house,
we're havin' a party.


Naw, kidding.
There are many fine ladies here. 
There might be more if some of our horndogs would behave themselves.

----------


## ProBlue33

I am going to get super flamed for this but anyways....how many women are willing to have deep intellectual conversions on topics that aren't girly in nature?
Because I really don't want to talk about what color of nail polish is in.
But try to talk to them about serious issues, and you get that eyes glossing over look, and then they go back to texting.
Certainly there are many smart intelligent women in America that are deep thinkers.
But of the younger generation from what I have seen many are just apathetic to all the BS in politics and can't be bothered.

There are of course exceptions, like the women that post to this forum, and the Ron Paul girl from 2008.

----------


## libertybrewcity

> I am going to get super flamed for this but anyways....how many women are willing to have deep intellectual conversions on topics that aren't girly in nature?
> Because I really don't want to talk about what color of nail polish is in.
> But try to talk to them about serious issues, and you get that eyes glossing over look, and then they go back to texting.
> Certainly there are many smart intelligent women in America that are deep thinkers.
> But of the younger generation from what I have seen many are just apathetic to all the BS in politics and can't be bothered.
> 
> There are of course exceptions, like the women that post to this forum, and the Ron Paul girl from 2008.


you raise some interesting points, but you would be torn apart in any debate. saying that women are not as intellectual as men is very dangerous territory. currently, in the united states women outnumber men in college. in Iran, 60% of college graduates are women. 

women have culturally been disadvantaged, but have made very significant strides in the name of intellect. many have different areas of expertise, but are intelligent none the less. i do think that women are less corrupt, invest more money in their children than men, and educated women are essential to any advanced society and peaceful society. 

i do from time to time have thoughts that women only think about nail polish and the like, but lots of guys only think about sports, and that irks me just as much. both genders have faults and room for extreme improvement.

----------


## Fox McCloud

> My house,
> we're havin' a party.





I think men, in general, have more of an interest in politics than women, no matter the party, so...well, that could be one explanation.

----------


## tangent4ronpaul

> My house,
> we're havin' a party.


Directions? - n/m - I have the ICBM coordinates... 




> Naw, kidding.
> There are many fine ladies here. 
> There might be more if some of our horndogs would behave themselves.


AHEM!   

-t

----------

