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

[RockEnds]

I'm sure you know much more about them than I do. But fundamentally, when they first started and didn't use the latest farming (or whatever) technology there must have been a greater value to them in something else that the technology might take away. To the extent those feeling could come about in them, it seems reasonable those feelings may come about in other people putting equality over further technological development. And that is not to say someone may not value new technology, but that some other value is put above it.

Well, I certainly wasn't raised Amish, but a quarter of my genealogy is Amish, and as I just mentioned, I do study genealogy pretty seriously. When they first started, their objective was religious freedom. I have ancestors who were literally baptised to death. I have another ancestor who was beaten to death for refusing to join Napoleon's Army. It wasn't that they didn't use technology at that time. They didn't use anything that would be considered flashy. Like buttons and shoe strings. They're past the shoe strings now. I think? I know they're not past the buttons.

They refused to be baptised or married by state churches, and as a result, their children were often branded illegitimate and therefore had no inheritance rights. The loss of property forced many of them into working for wealthy, politically influential land owners who protected them because they worked hard and were productive. Their productivity has always been used as a tool to safeguard their religious freedom.

I'm not really sure where this was going, but they do understand that freedom and productivity go hand in hand.

 

[da32130]

Do you know any Amish? They argue over the number of pleats in their kaps! LOL! They are concerned with economic growth but they are limited by what their benevolent dictator allows them to have within the confines of their insulated group. Each family can choose their occupation and benefits from the income they generate. Hutterites do everything in communion.

This is a previously response I gave:

I'm sure you know much more about them than I do. But fundamentally, when they first started and didn't use the latest farming (or whatever) technology there must have been a greater value to them in something else that the technology might take away. To the extent those feeling could come about in them, it seems reasonable those feelings may come about in other people putting equality over further technological development. And that is not to say someone may not value new technology, but that some other value is put above it.

Ignoring reasonable arguments would be not meeting people where they are and proposing why one solution is better. Ultimately a solution has to be decided upon. If we lack courage of our convictions it will be because the solution lacks substance. This is why local politics is best because the larger the geographical area the government covers the less effective it is and the more tyrannical it becomes. Many of us hardily disagree when it comes to solutions we want implementd at the local level, but courteously agree to disagree for the common goal of destruction of dangerous federal policies.

I'm not sure exactly what we are arguing here. I agree that many Paul supporters are taking the route you are talking about. Other people who value federal equality/enforcement of their ideas are going to clash with Paul. To the extent people realize those are the choices we may be able to convert some who decide they do value ideas such as freedom and economic growth over other values. When we get enough people elected into government that agree with us we can move things in our direction.

 

[da32130]

Well, I certainly wasn't raised Amish, but a quarter of my genealogy is Amish, and as I just mentioned, I do study genealogy pretty seriously. When they first started, their objective was religious freedom. I have ancestors who were literally baptised to death. I have another ancestor who was beaten to death for refusing to join Napoleon's Army. It wasn't that they didn't use technology at that time. They didn't use anything that would be considered flashy. Like buttons and shoe strings. They're past the shoe strings now. I think? I know they're not past the buttons.

They refused to be baptised or married by state churches, and as a result, their children were often branded illegitimate and therefore had no inheritance rights. The loss of property forced many of them into working for wealthy, politically influential land owners who protected them because they worked hard and were productive. Their productivity has always been used as a tool to safeguard their religious freedom.

I'm not really sure where this was going, but they do understand that freedom and productivity go hand in hand.

Interesting. My take would then be that they put religious beliefs over economic growth. Had they valued those beliefs less they could have enjoyed more material prosperity. So the general concept still translates, but I didn't realize how indirect it was.

 

[moostraks]

I'm on mothering boards and we do have rational political discussions and have for many years (since before Paul's first run). Quite a few have been converted to RP, too. Yes, I have kids growing up and homeschool them as well. And I still have a different perspective than you do. Your truth is based on your judgments and experiences, same holds true for me. And it doesn't hurt. Humans as a whole, imo, need to own their irrational behavior and it certainly isn't just a woman thing or something we need to "own". I doubt there's a human alive who has not acted irrationally (however you define irrational which is often based on how you personally define rational based on your own personal judgments) at different points in his/her life. When I consider rational vs. irrational I think of humanity as a whole. We- as in all of humanity- should have figured out by now how to live in peace, how to keep our environment clean, how to help each generation of children be smarter and wiser than the previous one, how to leave the world a better place for future generations. We are collectively doing the exact opposite- humanity at large is "making short sighted choices based on prior conditioning".

Now, how does this conversation help get Paul elected? I posted earlier in the thread about creating ads geared towards women- did you read that post, too? Any thoughts? I also started a thread in HT days ago about getting more women on board? Comments? I have made suggestions on the appealing to female voters thread that was started a little while ago. Realistically, this conversation is a rehashing of a topic that has been around and around and around and does more harm than good to the movement imho. It isn't something to be solved in grassroots central. It's full of opinions because we all have them. But, ultimately, while it's fun to discuss at times it isn't doing much to elect Paul.

For now I bow out of this conversation. I may rejoin if it is moved to OT or another sub. I just don't see how this benefits us at all. Can you imagine if we were discussing the irrationality of another "group"? We'd be skewered. We can't lament that we don't attract female voters when analyzing and labeling them is what we're doing in grassroots central.

LOL! I am sorry if I offended you. Ads targeting women from the perspective of how the current new laws are detrimental would be great, imo. I think we all take ourselves to seriously and are a bit neurotic about not owning up to our short comings. It is perfectly resonable when you get no sleep and are nauseous and in pain not to be on your best game, especially when most men expect a sex goddess (due to marketing) even if you are pregnant.(even if your husband is the exception to the rule, the media still has many of us paranoid...) Now you have a number of young fathers bailing on women because it is socially accceptable and they really are just out to keep up their image with the new, shiny, improved model. These are all voters who feel that with the new life budding inside is suddenly a time to become politically active.

The running joke on BBC is the manner in which the cattiness changes during pregnancy and no birth board seems to escape its fair share. It indicates we are very emotional and prone to think and react differently depending upon the 'season'. As I have said before, do the research and follow a group of women on one of these birth boards. I think you are confusing parenting boards with birth boards. Many women become more politcally active when they feel the new found weight of parental responsibility, and I believe that number falls back to the more studious as you get further away from the birth boards and the daily needs overwhelm those with less determination and/or time or their hands. Thus your experience with the less emotional parent boards. I believe we cannot ignore the fact that women are the ones who get pregnant, emotional, and still vote.

This should probably be sent to HT...

 

[RockEnds]

Interesting. My take would then be that they put religious beliefs over economic growth. Had they valued those beliefs less they could have enjoyed more material prosperity. So the general concept still translates, but I didn't realize how indirect it was.

Well, I guess that's one way to look at it. I kind of see it as they refused to sell their freedom. They certainly didn't remain in this situation forever. They came to America where they didn't have to make the choices they made in Europe. They're also not the only group in history that has been stripped of their lives and property because of a refusal to submit to tyranny. I'm personally of the opinion that freedom/liberty/civil rights be the first priority. If liberty doesn't exist, then no one's economic prosperity is secured.

 

[da32130]

Well, I guess that's one way to look at it. I kind of see it as they refused to sell their freedom. They certainly didn't remain in this situation forever. They came to America where they didn't have to make the choices they made in Europe. They're also not the only group in history that has been stripped of their lives and property because of a refusal to submit to tyranny. I'm personally of the opinion that freedom/liberty/civil rights be the first priority. If liberty doesn't exist, then no one's economic prosperity is secured.

I think that justification would weaken my point. But knowing some other religions that have been persecuted and economically weakened, I'm not sure that applies to everyone who made that sacrifice (religious freedom vs economic comfort).

An alternative example might be a monk who vows poverty for religious reasons.

One reason Paul can do well is that most people at the end of the day do want increased technology. Even some that want equality want it because they would immediately benefit. And others when forced to sacrifice might lose conviction in that value. But in theory equality is a valid desire.

 

[bobbyw24]

Got 20% of womens vote tonight

Romney got 40%

 

[Johncjackson]

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.

Pretty much. Reminds me of a recent article about all these teen girls waiting to see Paul who were distracted by Romney's sons and even some thought SANTORUM was "hot." In addition to looks, women are definitely attracted to arrogance. And most of the grown women I know are just older versions of their teenage selves.

Men place a lot of value on looks, too- just for different purposes.