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

[Hook]

Women loved Clinton

And he loved some of them too.

 

[da32130]

My husband also said that there are apparently scientific studies that prove men are better at economics than women.

Well most economics is a joke (the world is keynesian). So it looks like women win again.

 

[bobbyw24]

And he loved some of them too.

Political Spoils-or Not

 

[Diurdi]

Well most economics is a joke (the world is keynesian). So it looks like women win again.

Keynesian macro is a small piece of the whole field of economics. So is the whole Austrian school.

On Topic: Again, you can blame the women if you wan't, but it would be more constructive to blame the campaign. To try and figure why the campaign cannot get their votes.

 

[Birdlady]

I hate threads like this. They become a place where it is ok to bash women as a collectivist group. If there is such a huge percentage of men here, then that must mean your wives and gf's do not support Ron Paul. Have you asked them yourself why they don't like him?

 

[bobbyw24]

I hate threads like this. They become a place where it is ok to bash women as a collectivist group. If there is such a huge percentage of men here, then that must mean your wives and gf's do not support Ron Paul. Have you asked them yourself why they don't like him?

Thanks to me, my wife loves Ron Paul and votes for him

 

[Birdlady]

Thanks to me, my wife loves Ron Paul and votes for him

awesome!

 

[da32130]

Keynesian macro is a small piece of the whole field of economics. So is the whole Austrian school.

Considering you have Macro and Micro, and Macro is what most of the world focuses on (fed, world bank, etc), where Kenyes is their main approach, I'm not sure the comment is that outlandish.

However, my main issue is that the male superiority here is out of control. The point about women and economics is in line with that. Assuming it is true, it is because women don't see it as a practical thing to learn about, not because they can't.

Similarly, if women don't like Paul there is a good reason for it that doesn't include a smear on all women. For the men that can't find what that reason is, then I can think of some smears for them that hit them were it hurts (think of close minded, weak thinkers, uncritical, subjective, etc).

 

[moostraks]

This is really misplaced male superiority.

Ron Paul makes a trade off of long term benefit vs short term caring. Women are less likely to be willing to make that trade off.

Wanting long term economic growth is as subjective a goal as wanting to help everyone today with what we have and be willing to have less later.

Maybe if Paul people weren't blinded to this we could do better.

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.

 

[happyphilter]

I've got my mom to like Paul. I also have a bad habit of making girls watch Ron Paul videos when I bring them back from the bar...

 

[Corey]

I've got my mom to like Paul. I also have a bad habit of making girls watch Ron Paul videos when I bring them back from the bar...

LMFAO, the women in our lives must think we're a bit crazy, and they might be right!

 

[Kevin Smyth]

Considering you have Macro and Micro, and Macro is what most of the world focuses on (fed, world bank, etc), where Kenyes is their main approach, I'm not sure the comment is that outlandish.

However, my main issue is that the male superiority here is out of control. The point about women and economics is in line with that. Assuming it is true, it is because women don't see it as a practical thing to learn about, not because they can't.

Similarly, if women don't like Paul there is a good reason for it that doesn't include a smear on all women. For the men that can't find what that reason is, then I can think of some smears for them that hit them were it hurts (think of close minded, weak thinkers, uncritical, subjective, etc).

Oh please, the biggest collectivism being advocated in this thread is the Marxist claim that gender differences don't exist, don't forget that Lenin was a Feminist and that destroying the rule of the patriarchy is a core element of the Communist movement. In other words, pretending that women don't look at issues differently from men is in itself totalitarian Socialistic thinking. Furthermore, the exception does not make the rule, so finding some women who like Ron Paul doesn't alter what the basic demographic data is revealing: that women in general don't like Ron Paul.

 

[LiveForHonortune]

Ron Paul is just too manly for them.

 

[Mini-Me]

The vast majority of Americans [of both sexes] vote for particular candidates for very superficial reasons, and most criticisms of Ron Paul are also superficial (whereas the issues-based criticisms come from the public's poor understanding of foreign policy and economics). Men often vote for the candidate who looks the "strongest" and "most Presidential" too, so it's not exactly sexist to think a large portion of women will find excuses to vote for candidates they find more attractive. If all of the candidates were women, I get the feeling most men would vote for the hottest one as well. In short, I think a female version of Ron Paul would be at a similar disadvantage, for the same reason.

Among the people who actually vote on issues, many have been emotionally manipulated into only caring about deliberately divisive wedge issues, that should never have been issues of contention for Presidential elections in the first place. Among the people interested in relevant issues, most people are still dominated by their emotions, and the establishment knows this: Fear is manipulated to create hatred of overblown and manufactured enemies, and empathy and compassion are manipulated to support economic redistribution and centralization. More men probably fall into the former trap, and more women probably fall into the latter, but only a minority of people really care about the issues enough to seek the real answers. da32130 may be right about Ron Paul's views being at odds with most women's time preferences as well.

Overall, I only see three options:

• Convince people to use logic and reason instead of being led by their emotions. This has worked on most of us, and it's truly necessary for long-term progress, but it's probably a dead-end for this particular election: Changing people's tendencies is extremely difficult and time-consuming. Ron Paul also already has most of the innately logical voters, and the rest are buried deep inside years of wrong thinking and fortresses of mistaken assumptions that will take years or decades to penetrate.
• Rouse a fire in people's hearts for liberty that overpowers their other emotional tendencies...but that well has already been largely tapped, with respect to this election. Stereotypically, men have a stronger yearning for freedom anyway, whereas women have a stronger yearning for security. I'm not sure how accurate that is, but I haven't really seen anything that shows otherwise in terms of averages.
• Reframe Ron Paul's stance on particular issues in a way that strikes a chord with people's emotions. It's a shame we have to resort to this, but it's really the only way to actually broaden his appeal. The Compassion ad isn't issue-specific, but it does a great job here. Appealing more to women may involve focusing more on issues like bringing the troops home; for instance, feel-good ads showing soldiers returning home to their moms might be more effective for women than men.

 

[da32130]

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.

As if men aren't getting their information from sound bytes (we are losing big with the 65+ crowd, men and women).

As if men aren't irrational about topics, such as being homophobic, wanting to watch sports, etc.

We do well with the young (men and women). What is killing us is the elderly and on average women over males.

Try convicing a neocon male that paul is right about his foreign policy and you'll see some irrationality.

You obviously have an issue with those women and irrationality is the easy smear, but men can be just as bad.

 

[moostraks]

I hate threads like this. They become a place where it is ok to bash women as a collectivist group. If there is such a huge percentage of men here, then that must mean your wives and gf's do not support Ron Paul. Have you asked them yourself why they don't like him?

I think women need to start to assess what drives us and be honest rather than ignoring our short comings. Men who approach dh and I usually automatically assume that DH is the big RP supporter (we have a 15 passenger RPed van so we are obvious long haul supporters). It is amusing to watch them discredit me and then he defers to me when they ask us questions

Media, marketing, and education have done a number on women. Undoing the damage requires dedication (from both men and women)to a cause greater than ones immediate wants. So guys need to look at what type of desires they are projecting in a mate as well...

The keep it local argument works well with me as well. Frame arguments by showing the detrimental effects of a strong federal position that has no compassion because of distance but rules on matters too broadly for too large a segment of the population. Show how the family is adversely affected by a meddlesome federal government.

 

[da32130]

Oh please, the biggest collectivism being advocated in this thread is the Marxist claim that gender differences don't exist, don't forget that Lenin was a Feminist and that destroying the rule of the patriarchy is a core element of the Communist movement. In other words, pretending that women don't look at issues differently from men is in itself totalitarian Socialistic thinking. Furthermore, the exception does not make the rule, so finding some women who like Ron Paul doesn't alter what the basic demographic data is revealing: that women in general don't like Ron Paul.

This is exactly my point. They do look at the issue differently and have a good reason to do so. What I object to is the claim that they are emotional and irrational idiots.

The fact is Socialism can be valid depending on your values. If you can't see that you're irrational. Women are more prone to those values. Nobody has to value long term economic growth. It is as subjective as anything else.

 

[Kevin Smyth]

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.

You are right, denial of gender differences makes some of the posters here sound like Marxists. There's nothing Conservative about spreading the lie that men and women are identical in their emotions or in their thinking patterns.

 

[rgampell]

really good point

Ron Paul makes a trade off of long term benefit vs short term caring. Women are less likely to be willing to make that trade off.

Wanting long term economic growth is as subjective a goal as wanting to help everyone today with what we have and be willing to have less later.

Maybe if Paul people weren't blinded to this we could do better.

I think this is a really good point. And I'm not sure that Paul is really getting buy-in from men on this, either. The Hayek-ian road that we would take under Paul requires a GREAT DEAL of short-term pain to get things back on the right track. I have these little flash-forward nightmares of a Paul presidency in which the first little drop in GDP in met with HUGE resistance from the neo-Keynesian establishment, followed by reversal of the Hayek-ian policies, and finally the whole episode is held up in perpetuity as "evidence" that the Austrian school is an economic disaster, never to be revisited.

IMO, we Paul supporters (men and women) not only need to understand what we are asking for, we have to embrace it and defend it. As it is, we are basically ignoring it.

 

[Diurdi]

Considering you have Macro and Micro, and Macro is what most of the world focuses on (fed, world bank, etc), where Kenyes is their main approach, I'm not sure the comment is that outlandish.

Most people aren't employed in analysis the economies of different Nation's. The field of economics is much wider than that.