Women don't like Paul??!!

The media was talking about a Hillary meltdown, but it looks like she's doing OK anyway. Which just goes to show you the media doesn't know squat at times.
 
I think you guys are painting us women with too broad a brush!!

Ron Paul is HELLA sexy! For some of us discerning women, a big brain is HOT!
 
My wife opinion:

She will vote for Clinton.

She said RP don't showing any emotions in his speeches. (take speech lessons ?)
RP don't have big balls to be winer.
 
pinkmandy said:
Wtf is that? What planet are you from? There is NOTHING attractive about Huck or McCain. We need a *barf* smilie. Rom's a looker, but that's all.

We don't have the woman vote for several reasons:

1. We have a WOMAN running for President and women are voting for her
2. Other prochoice women are going for Obama
3. Prolife women are going for HUCKABEE
4. Prowar women are voting for another repub

We have a lot of work to do to convince other women. A good start, since we're so emotional and all :rolleyes: is to maybe stop being so presumptious about women on the boards and maybe (to everyone) stop being so negative all the time. I've been a RP supporter since before the FIRST Ames straw poll last spring. I've lurked here and didn't join til this month. Why? Because of what I saw while lurking. All the discord and namecalling is ugly (the word "troll" is way overrated, btw). It may just turn some people (women) away.
Click to expand...

Of course, I myself don't think they're attractive, but some women do (women who aren't beautiful enough to live in L.A.) Human sexuality is sometimes bizarre and inexplicable. Looks also includes things like posture and body language, so let's not overanalyze.
 
Hillary is ahead right now because New Hampshire wants to defy Iowa and some people now have pity on her, especially after that acting performance yesterday. She really knows how to get that pity out of people. I guess she was trying to emulate Sharon Stone.
 
JenH88 said:
You're right- but it's not because they don't agree with the message of smaller government- it's because women are naturally the "nurturers", the message of free health care for all, and "helping" everyone who needs help SOUNDS like the right thing to do and pulls at the emotions- the problem is that these women aren't educated enough on the reality behind these "free help for all" programs.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I wasn't going to say that, but I think you are dead on.

I didn't want to offend any other supporters tonight, since there is enough negativity going around.
 
alexpasch said:
It has nothing to do with issues...

It's not even so much his looks...it's his posture and body language

He needs to be much more assertive

If Ron Paul looked like Mitt Romney (the most "alpha male" of all the candidates), even with these "fringe" views, he'd be a clear front runner
Click to expand...

Ron Paul on the Leno show did have a bit of a puppy dog look to him. Nice grandfatherly... but more likely to command sympathy than respect.
 
SlapItHigh said:
http://www.emarketer.com/Article.aspx?id=1004775
Click to expand...

From the link you posted:

Researchers that survey only the adult population still find that a greater percentage of males go online. MORI Research, for example, reported that as of March-April 2006, 73% of adult females and 79% of adult males went online. The Pew Internet & American Life Project reported that as of February-April 2006, 71% of adult females went online, vs. 74% of adult males.
 
The reason politics has gone downhill over the past 60 years is because of TELEVISION and not because women got the right to vote. There are three factors that, unfortunately, determine elections today: looks/style, a famous name, and media attention. Most people probably don't understand what the term "public policy" means, let alone the right kind.
 
PaleoForPaul said:
From the link you posted:

Researchers that survey only the adult population still find that a greater percentage of males go online. MORI Research, for example, reported that as of March-April 2006, 73% of adult females and 79% of adult males went online. The Pew Internet & American Life Project reported that as of February-April 2006, 71% of adult females went online, vs. 74% of adult males.
Click to expand...

Right, did you read the whole article? Here is another quote from the article?

The University of Southern California's Annenberg School Center for the Digital Future reported that in 2006 the percentage of females who went online had, for the first time in the six years the center has conducted the survey, surpassed males. It reported that 78.4% of the female population ages 12 and older go online, vs. 76.7% of males.
Click to expand...

Same for 2007. The pp said there are more men online which is inaccurate and the quote you posted does not contradict that. Do a google search. You will find many studies and surveys that show there are more women online than men and pretty much nothing that shows the opposite. It isn't even debateable at this point. It is solid - more women are online than men.
 
Ask yourself this? Why does the highschool quarterback have a better chance at being elected than the braniac?
 
IamVoting4RonPaul said:
I have been working hard on Women 4 Ron Paul for weeks (one woman called my site "a blessing") -- please help me by emailing, linking, and adding to your signature.

Lisa C.
www.women4ronpaul.com
Click to expand...


Lisa, I was excited to hear about your site but then I went there and was dissapointed. Despite what the men here like to say about women, most women are not going to fall for emotional ploys as attempted by that video so I can't share that site with any women that I know or even those that I don't know. Every woman I know will automatically be turned off even though they are all anti-war. It is patronizing. I mean the only video on the front page doesn't even have Ron Paul's name on it. It comes off as if Ron Paul's own words aren't good enough or we have something to hide when it comes to appealing to women. Ron Paul's issues alone are what will draw women in, there should be a good video of Ron himself on the main page. You could put that video somewhere else on the site along with others. That said, I do appreciate all the time you put into it and everything else looks great although I'll also say that i would not use the drawing of him in scrubs as the main image. I hope you won't mind the constructive criticism. Just my 2 cents.
 
Last edited:
JenH88 said:
You're right- but it's not because they don't agree with the message of smaller government- it's because women are naturally the "nurturers", the message of free health care for all, and "helping" everyone who needs help SOUNDS like the right thing to do and pulls at the emotions- the problem is that these women aren't educated enough on the reality behind these "free help for all" programs.
Click to expand...

Yes, you're right -- except for one thing: Why do they have to be "educated"? I wasn't "educated"; I educated myself, because the truth was more important to me than the comfortable security of staying with the unexamined assumptions I'd been taught as a child. Can't they think for themselves? Aren't they interested in the truth? Do they never make an effort to think beyond their first, simple emotional reactions? Do they ever ask themselves if these "feel good" ideas actually make sense, in addition to feeling good?

The answer to all these questions is No.

Some 25 years ago, I briefly had a girlfriend (2 years older than me she was, i.e. 40 at the time) who was a devotee of Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh (I was and am a Zen Buddhist). I had some difficulty concealing my dislike for the blessed Bhagwan, and one day she asked me why I "hated" him so much. (Actually I didn't hate him, I despised him, but she typically made it emotional.) "It feels really good being with him," she said. I said, "Yes, but in addition to feeling good, a teaching also has to think right to be valid." "Oh," she said. She'd never thought about that. "Feels good" was good enough for her, her only criterion.

I'm not saying she was stupid; she wasn't. But thinking and logical analysis were not her primary way of evaluating the world; it just didn't occur to her to employ them. We weren't together long, but I'm thankful to that woman; she taught me a lot about women.

BTW, I gather you are a woman who thinks -- and I salute you. You are, however, rather rare. Posters here (including me) who comment on how women in general think (or don't think) and act of course know that there are exceptions, and that many of them are found here. But you are a small percentage of the total ca. 55% of the population.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Brian4Liberty
Matt Walsh: Any country that can’t function without American aid has no right to exist.
2 3
Replies
48
Views
289
familydog
F
Occam's Banana
Mises University 2025
2 3
Replies
45
Views
471
Occam's Banana
Occam's Banana
Mach
iPhone Privacy
Replies
1
Views
2K
Mach
Mach
Anti Federalist
Race and Gender Push Harris Above Trump Nationally Harris up 7 over Trump
Replies
16
Views
2K
Invisible Man
I
Occam's Banana
Mises University 2024
2 3
Replies
49
Views
14K
Occam's Banana
Occam's Banana
Back
Top