Women and Ron Paul
Women's vote not going to Dr. Paul.
I find this a real problem. Why is this happening?
Anyone have any thoughts and how to fix it?
I have a little difficulty believing you don't already understand why this is, if, as it appears, you're a woman yourself. Most women, I've found, have a pretty realistic view of other women -- much more so than most men do. And with good reason on both counts.
quickmike is correct. Think about it. Women are genetically programmed to nest and nurture. They want security. They fall for the false promises of security that the enemies of liberty are so quick to offer them.
Exactly. Like females of all other mammalian species that live in groups, women are natural, instinctive collectivists. I know of no case where males cluster together while females run free; it wouldn't make sense.
ROFL!!! I love the way men think they know what women want!!
Well, speaking for myself, given my male lack of "intuition" and other higher cognitive powers, I can only judge by what women
do. And after six decades of observation, I have noticed that what they do is very often very different from what they say they "want".
And what women mostly do in regard to Ron Paul -- despite the presence of many in the ranks (including my local Meetup, which is mostly women -- though they all "disagree with" him on abortion) -- is stay away from him in droves. I'm not at all surprised.
this is why we should never have givin them the right to vote!!
Well, since I believe that women actually rule the world -- though they like to pretend they don't (and some of them may actually believe this) -- I don't really think they were "given" anything. They decided they wanted it, and they got it.
And I think it's instructive to look at the 20th Century in this light: as the first time in human history when women have taken active, direct part in politics on a large scale. And what was the result? The Soviet Union, Nazi Germany, Communist China, Khmer Rouge Cambodia, etc. were all built on a foundation of gender equality. China is actually ruled by the block wardens -- grandmother types who sit on stools at the corner of the street and watch (and remember)
everything everyone does, 24/7.
Politicians, of course, love to have women voting, because women are (a) easily frightened, and (b) easily led. I hear in Europe there's even a campaign to give the vote to children -- for all the usual reasons. Better yet.
I don't know the solution for this, or if there is one. Whatever women want, one way or another, they will get. If they don't want Ron Paul, well, the good Dr. will, I am sure, enjoy his retirement.
I would think he would be an easy sell to all women that are pro-life and/or against the war.
I'd guess there are actually rather few "pro-life" women who are also anti-war -- difficult as that may be to understand, given that women are always unfailingly logical. Beyond that, remember that to conventional "conservatives" many of RP's ideas seem
really nuts -- you mean you actually want to let all those
drug addicts do whatever they want? Utter chaos, end of civilization-as-we-know-it.
My meetup has just as many women as men. I see just as many women with signs as men. Look at all the Utube clips.....just as many women.....I don't buy this crap for one second!
Sorry, although I admire and applaud those in the meetups and demonstrations -- and am always happy (I might say overjoyed) to meet and converse with an intelligent woman -- a few thousand motivated activists do not equal the
tens of millions of votes we need. Now that the voting's started, we will see if we have them.
They vote for whoever is younger.
This is also a factor. Women like younger men, because they understand children, and younger men are closer to children. Older men are a lot more difficult, even a man as kind and gentle as Dr. Paul. Thing is, behind that kind exterior, he is a man of real, inflexible principle; few American women feel comfortable with that anymore.
Women have always controlled men, but it used to be harder to do. American women have figured out a way to cripple their sons (it's called circumcision) and created several generations now of easily biddable boy-men, so have gotten out of practice in dealing with real men, whom they now find frightening.
And meanwhile the power hungry are having a field day; a nation of women and children is far easier to manage than a nation that is half men.
They would vote for Stalin over RP....
Well, of course; publicly-funded abortion on demand has always been a pillar of socialist states of every kind.
Women, as a rule, don't like men telling them what they can or can't do with their bodies.
Well, just for the record, Dr. Paul doesn't want to tell women what they can or can't do with their bodies -- nor do I. He just believes -- as do I -- that you should keep your agreements. It's the body (and the life) of the child -- created by the woman's free choice what to do with her body -- that is at issue.
I think it has something to do with Dr. Paul being pro-life. Not saying it is right or wrong, but the women I've spoken with cite that as their primary cause for concern. They seemed unwilling to accept Dr. Paul's statement that despite his personal views, it is not the president's job to dictate to the states what they can and cannot do.
Well, of course they're concerned. They don't want there to be any place on the planet where abortion is not allowed, or even not publicly funded -- because (a) some woman there might want an abortion, and (b) allowing any dissent from the Sacredness of Abortion threatens their ideology. There
have been cases of people who've changed their mind on the issue, and so long as any dissent is allowed, there's a danger others may do so as well.
I've never yet come across a pro-abortionist who him- or herself has been aborted. There are, however, a number of abortion survivors, and, amazingly enough, they are not pro-abortion. I just can't figure out why. Don't they want "freedom"?
Once I tell mothers that he's a baby-delivering doctor and opposes abortion they perk up.
Women who've had abortions, then later become mothers, often seem to have a different view of the issue. Curious.
Some are, some aren't, but you would think women would be more receptive to Ron Paul's anti-war message.
Yes, you would ... if you believe the myth. Some 45 years ago I saw the movie
Lawrence of Arabia; there was a scene where the Bedouin are riding camels off to war (to be betrayed, of course, by Lawrence and the Brits) --
and a crowd of women were cheering them on! What??!! I thought women didn't like war? That was the beginning of my education.
Recently a woman gave me the whole line again. I suggested she go see the films
The Four Feathers and
An Officer and a Gentleman. (Just for starters, off the top of my head.) I was a draft-dodger during Vietnam. When I saw the latter film -- in which Richard Gere's reward for straightening up and being a good soldier was to get the girl, not at all against her will -- in 1983, my first thought was, "There's going to be another war." Didn't take long.
See above for the difference between what women claim to want (even probably believe they want) and what they actually do. Men go to war for two reasons: (1) To amass territory, goods and glory; and (2) to protect the territory, goods and glory they have from (1). Both are simply means to an end: The Prime Directive. Can you guess what the Prime Directive is? You get a gold star.
If women
really wanted to end war -- enough to forego what they gain from it (when
their men are the winners), war would end. Period.
We need to find a way to convince women we will be more secure with our protectors here at home.
Well, that may not be easy, since many (most?) American women now regard the government -- "the new husband", as Warren Farrell put it in
The Myth of Male Power -- as a better "protector" -- more responsive, more easily managed, less demanding -- than the imperfect men they know personally.
What mothers make of their sons are what their daughters will have for husbands. Women in our culture really need to get together -- across the generations, as in indigenous cultures -- and figure out what they really
do want. A man who is easily controlled by women is a man who is not in control of himself, thus susceptible to control by whatever stronger force happens by, thus unreliable. Real women need strong men, even if such men are not easy to control. Makes you grow up too.
Well, I am a woman and have always taken an interest in the more libertarian view--all my life.
I do wish all Americans would think for themselves.
But, still why would one issue like abortion be more important than economy and the war?
I must be uh, "quixotic."
Well, you're certainly unusual. Women
can think; sometimes they even do. But evolution (whether RP believes in it or not) has not given them the incentive to do so; as a rule, they can get everything they want (or at least need) without the effort involved in disciplined thinking.
Perhaps women learning to think might be our next major evolutionary development. That would be great. I'd love to see a world where the two sexes really
are equal in that regard -- and, of course, where men also think in greater numbers than they do now. Perhaps the Ron Paul rEVOLution (as a 60s hippie, I do love that "EVOL" part) is really the first glimmering of such an evolution. There do seem to be a lot of really smart, eager young people suddenly. Gives me heart, it does.
