Ron Paul has a woman problem: Time to address it

[cheapseats]

I will tell you what it is. Both women and older voters are irrationally scared of EVERYTHING. Ron Paul represents the unknown and a scary future of self-reliance. The majority of them will never come around.

If you ain't scared about what's coming down the pike, either YOU haven't been paying attention or OTHERS are exaggerating.

If SECURITY is so irrational, why aren't Nice Guys overrunning Washington DC to forcibly stem the flow of money into that bottomless pit?

Lets be happy with the few we have that use thought rather then emotions to make their choice.

And after losing, do you recommend NO CRYING OVER SPILT MILK?

Both groups are extremely susceptible to MSM propaganda, especially the older folks.

Will you concede the possibility that the MSM propaganda machine has ALSO caused a few unforced errors in the Ron Paul camp?

You would think a women's intuition would tell them that Ron Paul is the only one to be trusted, but attractiveness, power and security unfortunately seem to play a much bigger part in what they want.

Will you concede that ATTRACTIVENESS plays a disproportionate role in men's gravitational pull?

Will you concede that trusting someone to be HONEST is a far cry from trusting someone to DEFEND you?

 

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

This is a big part of it. There are also more elderly women than men, who depend on social security to survive. I AM one of those women who headed a single parent family, and have never had need of any social safety net, because I worked my ass off and was fortunate enough not to need it, and YES, at times suffered, but at the same time, I believe there must be some sort of safety net out there. Being a Baby Boomer, I do want my social security when the time comes. I am 54 years old, single, and have paid my dues. I am not prepared for retirement without it, and neither are many others who grew up with the assumption this is what one did and how one did it. You don't change the rules of the game this far in. That being said, it also needs to be noted that Ron Paul is not the only one who mentions reforming Socvial security/Medicare. It is a
ALL of them. He is just the one that gets hammered for it. Social Security can be solvent if they would just raise the income limit for which they collect it. But why should our government do what makes sense and is so simple?

While I empathize with your situation and the perseverance it must have took to reach where you are today, if you counting on Social Security you are screwed, and the fact is that if anyone counted on it you are screwed. SS was never meant to be counted upon. Of course we can accurately predict what such policies consequences will be on the ethics and morality of the people (dependence, destruction of self-reliance, self-dependability, pride, etc.), and it is borne out with what we see today.

You may want what you have paid in, but what you paid in is GONE. Everything you will receive comes from me, my generation, and other working folk who have that much less to save for their retirement. I think what everything is pointing to is that people need to realize we are bankrupt and the standard of living that people enjoy in this country is unsustainable and an illusion. We are a poor nation, a poor people. That reality will soon catch up to us. For far too long this dependence on Government has bred corruption, arrogance, and an entitlement mentality (I own what you have).

You realize that when your generation retires the national debt is going to BALLOON even more? Healthcare costs are going to skyrocket thanks to all the Government promises and monies funneled.

This doesn't even reach one of the more important aspects: SS is a road to destitution thanks to the Federal Reserve. If you rely on SS you will live in abject destitution and poverty. As the Government has to print more money for its programs, wars, and handouts that money primarily enriches and goes to the interests in charge of and in bed with the Government. The blood-money interests, the banking interests, the Corporate interests. The Government doth not care about you, the common man. SS doesn't get a COLA increase for 3 years and then this year they give a meager 3% raise while inflation is 8-10% or more. You've just lost 20-25% of SS purchasing power over the last 4 or so years. Expect that to get even worse as time goes on.

We've consumed and spent our capital. It's time to experience the consequence of that action -- Poverty & Destitution.

 

[KingNothing]

Sooo, will you vocalize agreement with an assertion that MEN LACK INTELLIGENCE & TRUSTWORTHINESS, the same way that you vocalized agreement with an assertion that "women don't use logic to formulate conclusions"?

Sure. Why not?

History bears it out.

 

[nbhadja]

Sooo, it was illogical WOMEN behind our invasion of Iraq, a country that did NOT conspire on 9/11?

Which bitch de-pegged the dollar from gold?

Well the women along with most men did support the candidates who support paper currency and the Iraqi war. Women came in droves to vote for Hillary, who voted for the Iraqi war.........however there is a certain candidate who is for the gold standard and against the Iraqi war who the women are dropping the ball on big time by not supporting AGAIN....

 

[LibertyEagle]

You being a woman and being a Ron Paul supporter doesn't take away from the fact that Romney and Gingrich did well with women last night in Nevada. It doesn't take away from the fact that he is doing poorly in Minnesota with women. I am not bashing women. The reason I am discussing this with you and others is because I am truly astonished that he polls so poorly with them. I was watching Fox News once where a woman said she is voting for Dr. Paul because she can see it in his eyes that he is telling the truth and he is honest. To me, women are much better at judging character than men because they have to.

But, even that doesn't take away from the fact that he is polling poorly with them. If the women were backing Romney and/or Santorum, followed by Paul and Gingrich last, I could see your point. But, as I said, Gingrich was second behind Romney among women who voted. That is what I am trying to say. It is on them, not us.

Ron has a message of liberty. I don't want to pander to any group. It is up to them to take it or leave it.

I am very disappointed with how we are polling among women.

They are misunderstanding his message and badly. If people are misunderstanding him, he is not spreading anything at all.

It would be one thing if it was clear to everyone and they did not accept it. But, that is not what is happening.

It really is a shame.

 

[pinkmandy]

I did an informal poll on my facebook and a woman's message board where I've been a longtime member. My poll question to women was "What are your top 3 concerns that you believe govt needs to address".

Dozens answered.

Without fail every single one of them (except for a Paul supporter) answered with 2 of the same issues out of their top 3. They were education and healthcare. Over and over again. This is what they want to hear about, this is what affects them (in their minds) more than anything else. They were mostly mothers as well.

Education
Healthcare

The 3rd issue was divided among honesty and the economy (as in jobs).

They're not paying attention to end the fed. The wars. The erosion of rights. All the things that get most of us here going. I'm guessing that's why many aren't paying attention to Paul. I think his message benefits both but it isn't put out there very much- how his policies would affect healthcare and education- and this is what women need to hear more about imo.

We have the honesty issue in the bag but they need to hear about it. They need to understand his positions on healthcare and education. But, really, they need to understand that honesty is most important because someone's position on any other issue is irrelevant if there is a lack of integrity and honesty. Most people have to understand that really. Many seem to on the surface but treat it as a joke, something that just "is", and can't seem to fathom another way.

Visualization works- especially for women (imo). Paint the picture. A series of videos made "in the future" of a Paul presidency might be a good idea, addressing each issue.

And, imo, most people are irrational. I consider pretty much anyone voting for Obama who claims to care about ending wars, economy, rights, etc. to be irrational. I consider pretty much anyone voting for Newt, Mitt, Rick, etc. who also claim to care about small govt, free markets and the Constitution to be irrational. There are so many things I find to be irrational in this world today- carried out by men and women, young and old- that I'd have to write a book (or two) if I wanted to discuss it all. It is hardly the domain of any one group, that's for sure.

 

[cheapseats]

Well the women along with most men did support the candidates who support paper currency and the Iraqi war.

The Citizenry was no more informed then than now, probably less.

Women came in droves to vote for Hillary

And Blacks came out in droves to vote for Barack Obama.

And there are always a CONSPICUOUS number of White Guys surrounding Ron Paul.

The very issue is how to appeal to people who are NOT in lockstep with you.

.........however there is a certain candidate........the women are dropping the ball.........

Silly, silly women.

 

[No Free Beer]

They are misunderstanding his message and badly. If people are misunderstanding him, he is not spreading anything at all.

It would be one thing if it was clear to everyone and they did not accept it. But, that is not what is happening.

It really is a shame.

Or they are just rejecting it...

 

[Boss]

Its sad to see this discussion devolving into a finger-pointing match of who to blame (can we agree on the MSM and special interests, at least?), with hidden (and not-so-hidden) undertones of machismo and feminism.

RP supporters have, on rare and unfortunate occasion, made generalized statements that are completely out of line with individualist thinking (ex: I've seen a few less-than-tasteful comments about "The Jews" and now about women)

But just as these people (most of them inappropriately venting frustration) are guilty of generalizing and contradicting the ideology of individualism, those who respond defensively are merely compounding the problem and often fight back using generalizations (or hinting at them) as well.

 

[nbhadja]

The Citizenry was no more informed then than now, probably less.

Today thanks to the rise of the internet (and thus the rise of Ron Paul) a certain part of the population, which continuously grows, is more informed than back then. But yes the rest of the population is about the same as a decade ago- equally uninformed.

And there are always a CONSPICUOUS number of White Guys surrounding Ron Paul.

There are a lot of white guys, but this time around minority support for Ron Paul is clearly higher. The polls show that if Ron Paul went up against Obama in an election he would get more minority vote against Obama than any other GOP candidate going up against Obama....that is very impressive especially since the media did the racist letter smearjob on him.

Sadly progress with women has been nearly non existent.

The very issue is how to appeal to people who are NOT in lockstep with you.

As the polls show, progress has been great with minorities compared to 4 years ago, but similar strides have not been made with women.

This is Ron Paul, not Obama. It's not about marketing and image for most of the supporters here. I became a Ron Paul supporter because I found him, and I researched his voting record vs others. Also even if you focus on marketing, image, ads Ron Paul has done a great job making ads and delivering a message. I mean what more can he do? Are women not impressed with Ron Paul on ads and in debates calling out the foreign policy, the federal reserve, the bailout, the big drug companies, the entire corporatist central banker status quo of America?

 

[hazek]

Its sad to see this discussion devolving into a finger-pointing match of who to blame (can we agree on the MSM and special interests, at least?), with hidden (and not-so-hidden) undertones of machismo and feminism.

The blame lies squarely with us. We had all the information available to us on exactly why the 2007/08 fail happened and we didn't learn from it.

And if you don't learn from history, you are bound to repeat the same mistakes.


Well, consider this a mistake repeated.

 

[KingNothing]

The blame lies squarely with us. We had all the information available to us on exactly why the 2007/08 fail happened and we didn't learn from it.

And if you don't learn from history, you are bound to repeat the same mistakes.


Well, consider this a mistake repeated.

There's only so much the campaign can do. I don't fault them for any decision they've made. As far as the work that we as supporters have done, well, I'm sure we could all do more but for many of us the Liberty movement is a major piece of our lives. We're all invested in it, and we're all working hard. You shouldn't underestimate what we're up against or how far we've come. Never lose track of those things.

 

[hazek]

The blame lies with us, as in all of us, the campaign, the PACs and the grassroots and every single supporter out there. ALL OF US.

 

[misterx]

Eveyone is overthinking this. Neither men nor women contmplate things as deeply as some of you are suggesting. Women are, by nature, more nurturing and sympathetic. They are more likely to think with their hearts than their brains. Libertarianism demands that you put reason before emotion, which is why so few men or are able to grasp the message.

 

[Feeding the Abscess]

It's called the Nanny State for a reason.

Really, if anything, his anti-war stance helps him with women; especially mothers.

Haven't looked at many cross tabs for polls lately, but I'm guessing women still care most about jobs, education, and healthcare. Especially suburban white Republican mothers. Libertarianism doesn't serve those interests in the manner society conditions women (all people, really) to see them.

When communicating with women, listen to them and see what they tell you, rather than tell them what you think they want to hear. Who knows? Might work.

 

[Hyperion]

Women don't care as much about Liberty and monetary policy. They care more about security.

This. It's really that simple. Women love the idea of protection and safety nets. It's easy for statists to play the fear card and women are naturally going to believe it.

 

[Boss]

The blame lies squarely with us. We had all the information available to us on exactly why the 2007/08 fail happened and we didn't learn from it.

And if you don't learn from history, you are bound to repeat the same mistakes.


Well, consider this a mistake repeated.

I support and appreciate your vantage point of self-reliance and self-responsibility. But if there are external forces against our movement to a greater extent than they are against all of the other candidates, this doesn't eviscerate our responsibility, it simply means fault can be allocated to more than just us (and thus leads us to discover new ways to prevent these external forces in future states).

Now, philosophically, we can look at a situation and say "Even if they tied us up and held a gun to our heads, it was our fault that he didn't find a way to break free and stop them" - and you can regress this line of logic as far as you want. Its good to hold a world view of such a high degree of personal responsibility (I do). But its counter productive to acquit the guilty on the premise that you have no control over their actions and have all the control over your own.