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

[Deborah K]

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

Sadly, I think it is because most women place too much importance on appearances.

 

[w2992]

Women talk face to face = socialize = "socialist in general"
Men are independent resist asking for directions face to face is aggression.

 

[blazeKing]

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.

Good post.

Most of the ladies I know who support Ron Paul have overcome or understand this concept....then again this may be talked about in reverse on Romney forums...Those Paul people are mavericks, mostly males and young.. always going for those who fit outside the mainstream, it's that society pressure for men to be mavericks. Lol personally I don't care for it all , I just know he's best for this country.

 

[NoPants]

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.

I've seen/heard data that supposedly backs this up. They don't always do it consciously. This is a generalization and not in any way a statement on intelligence. My wife is a lot smarter than me and she does not show this tendency, however my sister-in-law is probably even smarter but she absolutely does do this.

 

[Working Poor]

I would say that the largest group of politically active women are pro choice. And women do vote for looks...

 

[blazeKing]

Another thing we have to accept, is that Ron Paul does speak in more intellectual terms than in emotional terms and while stimulates us, it might not do the same for others. That does have an impact. His ads do help in that respect though.

 

[bobbyw24]

I would say that the largest group of politically active women are pro choice.

Yep--and the #1 reason my female friends who like Ron Paul's ideas on war and the economy will never vote for him

 

[sailingaway]

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.

Studies have shown repeatedly that women are more concerned with maintaining a safety net. If Ron does an ad on his priorities in his budget, preserving the safety net for the truly poor as well as senior entitlements, he will address both the age gap and the gender gap.

 

[RockEnds]

I would say that the largest group of politically active women are pro choice. And women do vote for looks...

The pro-choice thing is an issue, especially with the younger women.

 

[specsaregood]

./

 

[da32130]

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.)

Among people that agree with fiscal conservatism, capitalism, how many just want to lower taxes so they keep more money?

It goes both ways. That is why the tax cut, huge deficit idea took root. People lost core principles.

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 isn't free stuff they talk about. It is equality. You are spinning the position into a negative light.

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.

Capitalsim has recessions every few years where people lose jobs. That doesn't happen in socialsim. There are weaknesses to both sides. Paul doesn't consider the US capitalist and a socialist might question some of Mao's policies. They didn't have to have famines so often. The USSR wasn't constant famine from what I recall.

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.

Under capitalism city dwellers are richer than the rural dwellers and goverment doles out favors just the same, hence DC's economic rise.

They might be upset about the top .001% but it might be a lot better than now. The top 1% vs 99%, 51% vs 49%, etc. would all probably be closer. And in the 1st year many people would be better off. It is only over time they would all become relatively poor compared to capitalist societies.

Perhaps, but how many socialists actually make this argument, who are also fully aware of your next sentence? This is the point I'm trying to make.

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.

The theorists on both sides have some understanding of these issues. The average person probably doesn't on both sides.

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

Any system Paul proposes will have statism. If it is more local then you have slavery, etc. that can pop up easier along with corruption.

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!

My point is that the other side has a valid argument that we need to consider in order to change minds.

The neocons also have a valid point (rise of hitler, dominoe theory). The good argument against it is that it is exaggerated in the current environment and ignores issues such as blowback. But there is subjectivity there and they aren't being fair discussing Paul's points so they don't lose people to our side.

On some level it is a battle of values. Not everyone is aware of all the issues. There is also corruption in the media, etc. But to win we need to be able to combat the best arguments of the other side. Not their weakest.

 

[bobbyw24]

can't get much more diametrically opposed to "grizzly mamma" than to be one that wants to kill their own spawn.

I am gonna have to use that one to sway them in our favor.

 

[Hyperion]

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.

Absolutely correct. Men and women are very different when it comes to thought process. Acting like they are similar is classic collectivist thinking.

I'm not sure how to get better support from the womens on a macro scale. The best we can do is explain the issues to people on a one by one basis.

FWIW, my mom- a Rush listening generic R is voting for Ron Paul in the primary, largely due to the time I've invested in explaining issues and how Ron Paul isn't a charlatan.

 

[GunnyFreedom]

The pro-choice thing is an issue, especially with the younger women.

See, I agree with you but this confounds me, because there is simply no way in hell Ron Paul could get any abortion stuff past Congress no matter how hard he tries.

 

[da32130]

Absolutely correct. Men and women are very different when it comes to thought process. Acting like they are similar is classic collectivist thinking.

I'm not sure how to get better support from the womens on a macro scale. The best we can do is explain the issues to people on a one by one basis.

FWIW, my mom- a Rush listening generic R is voting for Ron Paul in the primary, largely due to the time I've invested in explaining issues and how Ron Paul isn't a charlatan.

NOTE: this is a repeat since the thread wasn't about women being different, but why they are different.

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.

 

[xFiFtyOnE]

You can call me sexist, doesn't bother me. I've never known a woman who was actively engaged in politics for its own sake, in my entire life. Not to say they aren't around. But in order to get Ron Paul, you have to actively do research, and see through the propaganda. It's just a bridge too far for people who are generally casual observers.

In fact, I'll go even further than that. Just one generation ago, most women probably voted for whoever their husband voted for. Not because they were subservient, but because they didn't care all that much, and were deferring to someone who they felt knew more. Now the media has more of an influence than family, education, religion or anything else put together. When people call it big brother, I'm afraid it can be taken quite literally.

My wife is voting for Ron Paul. I'm pretty sure it's because I talk about him every day. She isn't really into politics and probably wouldn't vote if I didn't try to talk to her about it.

 

[falconplayer11]

The economics department at my school is made up of 4 male professors, about 50 male students, and maybe 3 female students.

 

[da32130]

My wife is voting for Ron Paul. I'm pretty sure it's because I talk about him every day. She isn't really into politics and probably wouldn't vote if I didn't try to talk to her about it.

Just because women don't talk about politics doesn't mean they are irrational and emotional. They just think it isn't relevant to them on a day to day basis. And if it gets you to fix the sink, take the kid to school, or something else, then it was probably a good trade in her eyes.

 

[xFiFtyOnE]

Just because women don't talk about politics doesn't mean they are irrational and emotional. They just think it isn't relevant to them on a day to day basis. And if it gets you to fix the sink, take the kid to school, or something else, then it was probably a good trade in her eyes.

I still don't do that stuff.

 

[Xenophage]

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.

I think that's nonsense.

The fact that is there has always been a huge gender gap for *libertarians.* Women, for whatever reason, are far less likely to believe in freedom than men. I don't know the cause, but it's hard to argue the facts.