Wash Times: Ron Paul’s campaign finds Big Gender Gap

We are all irrational at times. It has nothing to do with gender.

As a whole there are more men in the freedom/liberty movement, so I think that's why we have a gender gap. There are just less women who are "awake" so to speak. I don't know of a single woman speaking out in the freedom movement.
 
The best explanation I can give is to direct people to the article, "Did Women's Suffrage Change the Size and Scope of Government?" by John R. Lott and Lawrence W. Kenny, Journal of Political Economy 106.6 (Dec. 1999):1163-98.
 
Here's my take as a woman (and a huge Ron Paul supporter). It's true, most women don't care about politics, but neither do most men (which is why both genders have an absmally low voter turnout.) So that doesn't explain the gender gap. I think, its because many women are innately nurturers--they see a baby, and they want to take care of it. Of course, men do too, but I think most of us understand the reaction of the average woman to a baby is different than the reaction of the average man to a baby. Unfortunately, this translates into politics.....women want the candidate who is promising to take care of everybody & everything and make all the bad problems go away. They want that candidate, because that is what they would want to do. They don't think about it deep enough (and neither are the men who are voting for a warhawk because they think the country should be tough and defending the defenseless)--to realize its all lies. So, many women don't like Ron Paul's message of truth, that noone is going to save us and that there aren't any easy answers.
 
moostraks said:
LOL! I am female...If you think otherwise visit a birth board or parenting board and get back with me. Again women are emotional and more irrational. Try a conversation with logical facts with some of the more irrational females and let me know how it works for you. The ones who are driving us off a cliff are getting their information from sound bytes and are usually young mothers who fancy themselves informed on the issues. They are very passionate and VERY short sighted.
Click to expand...

Most men are irrational and emotional as well, they just know how to dress it up with bro-science.

However, someone made a point earlier that Ron Paul's position requires 'looking things up' and critical analysis, which is right and men do it more, but it's not because men are fundamentally more logical or critical, but because men are encouraged to be the ones 'figuring things out' from the moment they are born, whereas girls are pretty much taught to "worship" guys. Of course, there's always people who escape that sort of social conditioning from one degree to another, but it's kinda hard to deny that history is written by the winners and that the winners tend to be straight, white, men. And without getting too deep into things from an evolutionary psychology point of view, the male ego requires a lot more approval than the female one.
 
bobbyw24 said:
I find the people there to be older, more intelligent and less reactionary.
I find there is more freedom there. Here if you don't think like the masses, you get attacked.
I posted Ellen Brown's stuff here and get attacked for not believing that "Mises was Jesus."
it seems as if this place is more juvenile and collectivist in thought.
Click to expand...

Well the idea of giving the politicians the power to counterfeit money at will is leftist, so maybe I was spot on.
And both Mises and Jesus were jewish, so there is that.....
Perhaps old people just can't keep up with the advanced interface over here.
 
specsaregood said:
Well the idea of giving the politicians the power to counterfeit money at will is leftist, so maybe I was spot on.
And both Mises and Jesus were jewish, so there is that.....
Perhaps old people just can't keep up with the advanced interface over here.
Click to expand...

Thanks for buttressing my argument
 
JMO (and I am a woman)

Women are genetically programmed to be the caretakers, the caregivers...the moms, basically.

Because of that programming, women seek men who will make good providers.

The candidate that promies to provide the most is attractive to them.

Providing the most in today's america - unfortunately - means providing the most stuff for free.

Translated into the battle for the woman's vote, that means the politicians go from "what is best for the country long term" to "how much I can promise you'll get if you vote for me."

Unfortunate because it's hurt the nation badly.

JMO
 
I'm sure there are thousands of individual reasons. I think there is a predominant underlying theme behind many of them. Women are biologically hardwired to be attracted to "good providers", governments included even if they are making 6 plus figures. Blame Darwin for this as it helps to secure survival of the species.

The sad reality in many cases is that it is women who more often get left to raise children on their own or at least worry about it more, and its mostly the women who worry about how they are going to care for their elderly parents. It's a no brainer that on a subconscious level some may lean towards a church, community, society, governing system that will help them in these roles if need be.

Research studies done on why there are far fewer libertarian women to men. The above theme is the predominant find- women are the primary nurturers of children and the elderly and the job of caring for them full time requires back up financial support to come from somewhere.

Here is an analogy to help understand-

When feeding the family, we make sure everyone gets what food they need to survive and thrive. We don't put a pile of food in the middle of the table and say, "Every kid for themselves! If the older ones want to share with the little ones, you can, but you don't have to." and then watch the younger ones starve to death.

At the end of the day, thats' how cold and callous Libertarian philosophy looks to many and it's why the MSM keeps calling Paul the Libertarian. It's hurting him, especially with the nurturing and worrying about the care of others biological side of females.

That aside. I turned my husband on to Paul.

I had been Green Party since Perots first run. I had also been studying global corruption topics and participating in political forums addressing it, when I found RP back in early 2007. I support him because he is out to expose and take down the corrupted systems and global elite. It was my first intro to him of a video of him ripping into Bernake that lit my fire. It's so sad to me that back in early 2007, not a single person I knew, knew that the Federal Reserve banking system was just privately owned banks. I was frustrated back then trying to inform people of what was really going on who had brainwashed beliefs. Ron Paul became another voice for me. What a breath of fresh air he is to me Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
 
Mini-Me said:
I acknowledge these possibilities (though chattel slavery still couldn't happen anyway, given the 13th Amendment), but I have made a rational, informed decision that the long-term benefits outweigh these possibilities. (That, and I have certain moral values that are consistent with libertarianism alone.)
Click to expand...

And other people may make a rational informed decision that it isn't worth it. Their opinion is just as valid because it is a subjective judgement based on values.

Mini-Me said:
However, people who disagree rarely ever acknowledge the long-term benefits of a Ron Paul Presidency, and there's a reason for this: It's not that they've been fully informed, but they prefer short-term comfort over long-term survival. In the vast majority of cases, if not all, they're simply not informed enough [or rational enough] to acknowledge the long-term ramifications of their views at all. How many people actually say, "I don't care about long-term ruin, so long as I'm okay right now?" I haven't met ANYONE who thinks like that. Instead, the people I talk with who don't like Ron Paul actually believe - mistakenly - that corporatism, or socialism, or whatever, is actually better in the long-term.
Click to expand...

I agree. However, Paul people rarely discuss the merits of others as well. I also agree that the ignorance about Paul is probably greater than vice-versa.

Mini-Me said:
The same thing happens under socialism, to a much greater degree, so that is no rational objection. Consider the widespread famines under Communist regimes, for instance. Of course, it might be a rational objection for someone to say, "I (specifically) am more likely to be homeless or die under capitalism," but that's very specific to the person making the claim, and almost nobody supporting socialism, Communism, or whatever actually takes that line of argument to defend their choice. Instead, they invariably take a line of argument that denies the consequences of their beliefs and refuses to acknowledge the consequences of Ron Paul's.
Click to expand...

It was an extreme example that happens every day. Whereas the socialist famines are rare, just like the capitalist depressions are rare.

Most people would probably argue that under socialism the difference between 5th percentile and 95th percentile are probably closer than capitalism.

Mini-Me said:
However, it's totally irrational to believe the inequality could be much less in a system that hinges on centralized economic control. Compare the way the party elite lived in the Soviet Union or China under Mao, to the way farmers lived...or just combine the following in your mind: "Limited resources, totalitarian centralized power, psychopathy." The result can and will always be exactly the same, and it's irrational to think, "It could be different in practice," with the same institutional infrastructure. Once again, we don't have a clash of values alone. Instead, we have a large number of people who quite simply cannot comprehend how their choices undermine the very same values they profess.
Click to expand...

The fact is if tomorrow the US went socialist 90-95% (the exact figure doesn't matter) of americans might benefit increasing equality.

Longer term issues would erupt. Under capitalism long term issues also have erupted, hence the rise of Paul. Big money people get access to the politicians and start to steal from the rest.

These points aren't irrational. Each side just focuses on different things.
 
Last edited:
My wife told me a couple weeks ago that if Newt or Santorum wins the presidency we're leaving the country,
and last night I had to explain to my 5-year-old daughter that Ron Paul actually can't help us fix the computer.
Nothin' but female love in my house....
 
LawnWake said:
Most men are irrational and emotional as well, they just know how to dress it up with bro-science.

However, someone made a point earlier that Ron Paul's position requires 'looking things up' and critical analysis, which is right and men do it more, but it's not because men are fundamentally more logical or critical, but because men are encouraged to be the ones 'figuring things out' from the moment they are born, whereas girls are pretty much taught to "worship" guys. Of course, there's always people who escape that sort of social conditioning from one degree to another, but it's kinda hard to deny that history is written by the winners and that the winners tend to be straight, white, men. And without getting too deep into things from an evolutionary psychology point of view, the male ego requires a lot more approval than the female one.
Click to expand...

Both sexes figure things out from the moment they are born. They just figure out different things. Boys figure out how to build and destroy. Girls figure out how to care for a dolly. Both sexes learn. They both research their interests. They do naturally have different interests, but that in no way implies that girls are not learning from the get go.

And I'm really sure someone forgot to condition me to worship men. I try really hard to tolerate them. Sometimes.
 
most women also have an aversion to sciences and economics. I know a female CS professor that's been studying the reasons why for years.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Anti Federalist
Race and Gender Push Harris Above Trump Nationally Harris up 7 over Trump
Replies
16
Views
2K
Invisible Man
I
PAF
The Trump Campaign Tries to Buy Votes by Subsidizing IVF
Replies
3
Views
2K
Voluntarist
Voluntarist
jmdrake
Shocker! 53% of white women voted for Trump.
2
Replies
33
Views
5K
devil21
D
Anti Federalist
Nearly one-third of Democratic voters (34%) say Americans have “too much freedom.”
Replies
1
Views
323
jkr
jkr
PAF
From the Moral Majority to a Moral Meltdown
Replies
4
Views
118
ClaytonB
ClaytonB
Back
Top