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

[GunnyFreedom]

I know women who support Ron Paul, and I don't think they're irrational about their support. (I'm a woman, btw.) I do know both men and women who are irrational in buying into the fear, and they do it for different reasons. Nonetheless, from my perspective, both are irrational. The men tend to have the emotional reaction to foreign policy. For some people, it doesn't matter if you explain it once or 50 times, those Arabs are gonna get us if we don't get them first. The women tend to have the emotional reaction to the quirky little things we don't think about often such as, "I hear he wants to legalize prostitution." No matter how many times I explained that prostitution is already a state issue (legal in Nevada), they still reacted the same.

The fact is, some people like controlling other people, and we've done more to combat disinformation on men's concerns than on women's concerns. That's the way I see it, anyway.

No, Paul voters tend to distinguish the ultimately rational women. Which is why I want to marry a Pauler woman.

 

[amy31416]

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 few women who do are either ridiculously revered (Ayn Rand) or ignored (Rose Wilder)--either way, I wouldn't want much part in it. Politics is a rather filthy profession that people seek out in order to lord over others, is it really a negative that so many women are turned off by it? In my perfect world, I wouldn't pay a bit of attention to politics either, but I had several rather rude awakenings, one of which was the Iraq war, another was that I could not get certain chemicals for cancer research due to the DEA.

Since we women are so weak-minded, why is it proving such a challenge to "convert" them? And why did those stupid men give us the Federal Reserve if they're so wonderful?

 

[kojirodensetsu]

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

I think that personalities are affected by both genetics and experiences. On the experience side, females are treated differently than males (not saying better or worse) which has an effect on their personalities. Also, genetics can have a big effect. For instance, I don't think very many people would say that women are as aggressive as males are. That's because males have more testosterone. Testosterone is known by science to make animals more aggressive. For instance the female hyena has high levels of testosterone which is why they actually have what looks like a scrotum and a penis (also known as masculinized genetalia). Female hyenas have more testosterone than the males and as such are larger than males and more aggressive. So why you think that estrogen has no effect on your personality is beyond me. We're talking basic gender science here. If you subscribe to the notion that males are identical in nature to females on a personality level, you all throwing decades of scientific research out the window. I don't know how you can sit there with a straight face and say that females and males are the same.

It's important to note that I'm not bashing females with my post. One could make the argument that men are much more dangerous than women, since men are responsible for most of the wars (see Stalin, Hitler). Ron's campaign just needs to make more ads targeting women. That one pro-life one was a good start. I think they need to make more ads with women in them. Like if they could find a woman like that black fellow who talked about how Ron was his wife's doctor for free. A lot of focus is usually on the male in the relationship. They need to do one where it's the woman talking about how Ron came in and helped her.

 

[Deborah K]

I'll say it for you: More women vote based on physical appearance than men and unfortunately the ladies just don't think Ron Paul is a hot guy.

This is unfortunately true in my experience.

 

[amy31416]

This is unfortunately true in my experience.

Then I'd like an explanation of Palin's popularity.

 

[pinkmandy]

1. I started a thread in HT about attracting the female vote just a few days ago. My thoughts on this topic are there.

2. We need 'what about the children' ads if you want the "soccer mom" vote. Ads explaining the value of what we're fighting for and how that will impact our kids and grandkids. Explaining the unjust ways in which our children could be used, the surveillance state they will live under as adults, the lack of healthy consumer choices, the real cost of war, the debt, tent cities and the damage caused by current eco policy on real people, the violence in inner cities because of the drug wars- kids seeing their dads hauled off to prison, single mothers unable to pay the bills, etc. They need to SEE the effects the policies they are voting for- give them a visual, not just our kids will be debt slaves. Show them what that means. If they haven't been persuaded by all the ads thus far then we need to address them using different angles because what we've done so far hasn't worked. Reach into their hearts. Example, when Paul said his heart weeps in the last debate I was pretty choked up. It is those moments we need to find. Female voters need the veneer peeled back so they can get a feel for who someone is on a different level. Now, that doesn't mean they're always good at discerning what they feel (many did vote for Obama, lol) but I do think that's what they need to see/hear. And by all this I mean the average female voter watching MSM for news.

I have a satellite internet connection that isn't *that* fast. I've also never made videos. However, if someone wants to point me in the right direction I can give it a go. I need to know what software to download for a slower net connection for example. Any tips, pointers and I'll give this a shot. I was thinking the other day about a "Moms for Ron Paul group". Ladies?

 

[Danke]

Then I'd like an explanation of Palin's popularity.

She hunts.

 

[amy31416]

She hunts.

Bah! From a helicopter! Badasses hunt on foot with a butter knife.

 

[GunnyFreedom]

Then I'd like an explanation of Palin's popularity.

She's "Grizzly Momma." I would think Palin's attraction for non-Pauler women would be apparent. Nobody takes care of people like Grizzly Momma.

And yes, a lot of 'thinking between their legs' men (again, non-Pauler men) will vote for her based on superficial appearances.

Again, Pauler people are the exception.

 

[Mini-Me]

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.

Theoretically, yes. Among the people who disagree with us, exactly how many do you think fall into this category, who aren't part of the ruling class? Five or six, maybe? (Five or six people, not percent.)

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.

We don't discuss the short term merits of "free everything at everyone else's expense, while it lasts," because the long-term ruin dwarfs any potential short-term benefit. That's a pretty good reason. Among people who don't like Paul, I don't see anyone saying, "Look at all the short-term benefits of free everything," or, "Look at all of the short-term benefits of nuking everyone!" Instead, I see tons of people who are deluded into thinking that the long-term would be worse under Ron Paul. They're not, "admittedly short-sighted and proud of it, because the short term is more important than the long term." They're "short-sighted and cannot realize it."

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

I guess it depends on how you define socialism; famines are rare/nonexistent in the EU (so far), but they were pretty much the rule under Mao and pals...I guess the definition of "rare" is also an issue though, if you're talking about the frequency of individual deaths vs. the frequency of widespread famines.

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

For a moment, let's assume 95% of us would all share pretty equally in the misery. (That's really not true though, because city dwellers near the seat of power would still be MUCH better off than the rural poor, and they'd be a significant portion of the population.) Still, how many people care about the top 95% vs. the top 5%? Isn't the meme about the 99% vs. the 1%? Realistically speaking, wouldn't a true socialist be furious with the 0.01% as well? Their stated problem is usually not with inequality on average, but with the disparity between the richest of the rich and the poorest of the poor...which ironically becomes much worse under their chosen policies.

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

Perhaps, but how many socialists actually make this argument, who are also fully aware of your next sentence? In fact, have you ever met or heard whisper of a single socialist in the entire world who actually understands your next sentence but has made a reasoned decision that only the short-term matters? This is the point I'm trying to make. (John Maynard Keynes has a quote that hints at this, but it's pretty facetious, and it's clear that he actually believed that his suggestions were beneficial in the long-term as well...which means that my difference with him is not a difference of values but a difference of correctness.)

My guess is: Nearly zero, because most socialists simply do not comprehend the long-term consequences of their policies. Therefore, we once again return to the core problem of irrationality.

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

Technically, that's a pitfall of statism of all kinds, not a pitfall of capitalism; without centralized power to hijack, no hijacking is possible.

These points aren't irrational. Each side just focuses on different things.

Do you honestly believe that the difference between you and the average socialist, or the difference between you and the average neocon, comes entirely from a fundamental difference of values or priorities? If so, you're stating that the average socialist and average neocon are fully aware of the long-term consequences of their views and Ron Paul's...but their own arguments defy this characterization!

 

[da32130]

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.

Good stuff:
http://www.heretical.com/miscellx/lott.pdf

I think this what we need to be thinking about. If it was just Men voting, Paul would have won Iowa and maybe even the nomination (surely if the younger crowd was older).

But this articles gives some reasons why women have moved us in a different direction.

This is what we need to be discussing.

 

[RockEnds]

Have we dated?

probably.

 

[specsaregood]

Then I'd like an explanation of Palin's popularity.

I liked her tv show. She had a really nice personality on it.

 

[pen_thief]

Sometimes I wonder what the real cause behind this is.
My mom got married at 19 and started having children. The only real issues concerning her daily life were taking care of kids and cleaning. Don't get me wrong, she is now a strong Ron Paul supporter, but she's 61 and done raising kids! To quote Christian Bale, being a mother and wife is "fucking distracting." Especially if your family isn't feeling the hurt yet from the economy. Some members of my family are in cushy jobs and don't give a lick about politics. This includes my cousin Elizabeth who is an air force pilot instructor (star of the family ) All she cares about is her dogs and boyfriend. So I don't think that there is anything about Ron Paul that wouldn't appeal to a woman who was willing to step outside of the box that society crafts for her. I mean, as children, most of us are given toy vacuums and kitchen sets and hooker-lookalike dolls. We fall right into the trap of not paying attention to real issues outside domestic life, a.ka. the home. It pisses me off to no end to see women so ignorant...as I've said many times before, if I could, I'd travel back to when I was 16 or so and slap myself awake.

So I guess my point is, women may tend to be uninformed voters due to societal pressures. Few will ever get to the point of questioning CNN or Fox...that is, if they even watch news. *facepalm*

 

[moostraks]

I have avoided talking about this because it's too easy to be misunderstood, but it's true. This is why I love Ron Paul women so much...

I tried to discuss this about a year or so ago and got lambasted and never touched it again. But we do need to figure this out and how to overcome it. We don't win in November until we overcome this stumbling-block.

I'll admit that I am automatically 10x more attracted to RP women than any others, and that's sight unseen. Mind you, most RP women are already involved/married etc. I imagine because it's obvious how precious y'all are and the men will bend over backwards to keep you.

sorry none of my girls will be old enough for you Gunny! You do NOT want to date the eldest!

I admit I might be one of the ones who was arguing against your stance. Sometimes we live in our own created bubbles and a dose of outsiders wakes us to the workings of those we don't generally associate with on a day to day basis. I really blasted AF and feel like I need to eat a little crow. It is much more preferable to me to discuss issues with men because they complement and expand my thinking. It doesn't make one sex superior just different. Without compassion, statistics could be used for the most brutal of dictatorships.

eta...this is why I think that a tactic of limited federal government and how it is unable to correctly deal with issues across the broad spectrum of the nation is important. I have discussed with my children as you become more local the level of control goes up significantly and they are blessed to live in a benevolent dictatorship. As you remove yourself from the family you may choose to live in a gated community or out on your own in the sticks with greater freedoms, choosing which state appeals more to you and reflects your values.

 

[amy31416]

Good stuff:
http://www.heretical.com/miscellx/lott.pdf

I think this what we need to be thinking about. If it was just Men voting, Paul would have won Iowa and maybe even the nomination (surely if the younger crowd was older).

But this articles gives some reasons why women have moved us in a different direction.

This is what we need to be discussing.

Just as a first observation--that paper cites Irving Kristol as some sort of authority on truth. I'll go on reading, but that is pretty shaky ground to begin with.

 

[randomname]

In Iowa a couple of weeks before the caucus for the first time we were polling evenly among men and women. Then the media smears started and Paul plunged with women again.

 

[Danke]

Bah! From a helicopter! Badasses hunt on foot with a butter knife.

^ Not a fully developed woman.

More proof:

Women are biologically hardwired to be attracted to "good providers", ... Blame Darwin for this as it helps to secure survival of the species.

 

[GunnyFreedom]

Sometimes I wonder what the real cause behind this is.
My mom got married at 19 and started having children. The only real issues concerning her daily life were taking care of kids and cleaning. Don't get me wrong, she is now a strong Ron Paul supporter, but she's 61 and done raising kids! To quote Christian Bale, being a mother and wife is "fucking distracting." Especially if your family isn't feeling the hurt yet from the economy. Some members of my family are in cushy jobs and don't give a lick about politics. This includes my cousin Elizabeth who is an air force pilot instructor (star of the family ) All she cares about is her dogs and boyfriend. So I don't think that there is anything about Ron Paul that wouldn't appeal to a woman who was willing to step outside of the box that society crafts for her. I mean, as children, most of us are given toy vacuums and kitchen sets and hooker-lookalike dolls. We fall right into the trap of not paying attention to real issues outside domestic life, a.ka. the home. It pisses me off to no end to see women so ignorant...as I've said many times before, if I could, I'd travel back to when I was 16 or so and slap myself awake.

I think this is the critical point here. It's not innately the woman herself, it's more the role society puts women into. That's a tough hurdle to overcome.

Pretty much all of us Paulers have broken free of societies mold, but it's more "socially acceptable" to be a maverick as a man than as a woman.

It's not the inherent qualities of womanhood that lead to Paul's gender gap, it's the ignorance of society forcing people into roles that we have to overcome. And that's even more difficult.

 

[RockEnds]

In Iowa a couple of weeks before the caucus for the first time we were polling evenly among men and women. Then the media smears started and Paul plunged with women again.

In my county, it was the women doing the work, bringing in the voters. If more men had been involved, maybe we could have taken first instead of 2nd.

Libertarianism in general probably is a little more difficult for women than for men. However, with just a little tweaking of the message, I think that could change. We're really talking about abolishing our current corrupt system and rebuilding our original government. Totally a guy thing. If we focused more on the benefits, the women may relate better. Don't just speak of Ending the Fed or creating competing currency, but also of providing an opportunity for everyone to succeed economically. It's the same thing only a little different wording.