Women's vote not going to Dr. Paul

[amy31416]

Well I'm actually a male lol..

I know.

 

[Highstreet]

Women's vote not going to Dr. Paul.

I find this a real problem. Why is this happening?

Are they afraid of his message? Not aware? Do not understand it?

Do not know him?

Anyone have any thoughts and how to fix it?

They need to see more jokes and smiles from him.

more Breakfasts like this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4mc07JtpzS4

 

[txgirl]

How about the men on this forum agree to disagree with the Women here,and vice versa, Come on y'all... let's focus on what the real issue is... Getting more Women involved with the Ron Paul campaign. That is what this thread was started for.

It's sad to me that this has really turned into a pissing contest. The Women members of this forum shouldn't feel that they have to prove anything to the "alpha" males here!

Put me on "ignore" if you want.

PEACE & LOVE... I'm here for Dr. Paul.

 

[amy31416]

How about the men on this forum agree to disagree with the Women here,and vice versa, Come on y'all... let's focus on what the real issue is... Getting more Women involved with the Ron Paul campaign. That is what this thread was started for.

It's sad to me that this has really turned into a pissing contest. The Women members of this forum shouldn't feel that they have to prove anything to the "alpha" males here!

Put me on "ignore" if you want.

PEACE & LOVE... I'm here for Dr. Paul.

I'm not here to prove anything. I'm completely down with getting back to the real issue: Getting Ron Paul elected by any means necessary.

 

[txgirl]

I'm not here to prove anything. I'm completely down with getting back to the real issue: Getting Ron Paul elected by any means necessary.

That's great... now let's move forward.

B. Holly, has had the most constructive points within this thread... we should all strive to achieve the same level of creativity with obtaining the vote of women.

 

[amy31416]

That's great... now let's move forward.

B. Holly, has had the most constructive points within this thread... we should all strive to achieve the same level of creativity with obtaining the vote of women.

Completely agreed. I trust her and think she's one smart, um, cookie.

Now, we aren't getting female votes because:

1. Women are scared of having to take care of themselves, for both good and not good reasons.
2. Women are not interested in economics.
3. Women have other priorities
4. etc., help me out here.

What are the most important issues to women? Naomi Wolf helped Bill Clinton win because of this--it is vital that we understand it, even if we don't live it.

 

[electronicmaji]

Darling I would defend the women of this forum against any ill will. Anyone bringing this sort of ill will is a troll in the first place.

 

[electronicmaji]

blimp

 

[quantized]

we know the problem. The question is how can we attract more female voters.

 

[jb4ronpaul]

don't know if it's true, but a very prominent liberterian explained to me women are more risk adverse than men, either due to creation or evolution depending on your take. If you think about it it makes sense why this would be. I would think to market the message to women you need to show them it's the least risky choice (will save us from economic problems and terrorism) and it is also the best choice for the future generations because women tend to have a more vested interest in child rearing.

 

[JustAnotherV]

actually iowa turnout was not that bad

I saw the demographics on exit polls saying 11% of men and 8% of women, although those might not have been final numbers.

We are weaker on the female side, especially compared to Huck(le/a)bee, who is strong, but that's not a huge disparity, and I noticed similar differences in McCain and Thompson.

Yes I do think we need to continue to address this, but it doesn't seem as imbalanced as maybe it once was.

Good job Iowa women. Hoping HN women kick your ass though.

 

[smartpeople4ronpaul]

Women's vote not going to Dr. Paul.

I find this a real problem. Why is this happening?

Are they afraid of his message? Not aware? Do not understand it?

Do not know him?

Anyone have any thoughts and how to fix it?

Where is your source for this? I'm not finding that to be the case.

Yes, what is your source on this? And what are some solutions if valid?

 

[voisine]

I think this is to be expected early on in the revolution, but once we show that RP is the leading candidate, it won't be nearly as big an issue.

Men on the whole are programmed to take risks. Women on the whole are more risk averse. This is natural and expected. Of course each person is an individual, but we're talking about general trends in large groups of people when we're talking about voters.

RP represents a radical change (for the better, but it's still scary for people). Once he's established himself by winning a few states I expect the gender gap will be virtually non-existent. In fact I was shocked the spread was only 3 points in Iowa of all places. That's better than 40% women voters.

 

[ecliptic]

Feral Scholar

Feral Scholar Stan Goff makes excellent points:

« Religious lunatic farmerOpen Thread: libertarianism »
My Ron Paul rant…
4th January 2008, 07:25 pm by Stan
This morning, between getting ready for work and cooking breakfast, I dashed off a quick piece for Counterpunch, floating the idea that the anitwar movement — that has once again been sidelined by the Democratic Party and the media — could cross over during the Presidential primaries and vote as Republicans… casting a Republican primary vote for Ron Paul.

CP ran the piece, typos and all, and my email box has summarily filled up.

Damn.

Once I weed out the deeply weird stuff, like one that claimed Ron Paul is a closet communist in the pay of Jewish bankers, the rest either applauded my suggestion, or reviled it in ways that I had predicted in the rant, and a few wanted to “correct” me on my allusion to Ron Paul as a “passive racist.” Several did not seem to get the tactical gist of my proposal.

I take responsbility for any and all lack of clarity; and I’ll try to correct that now.

Let me start with the suggestion of “passive racism.” This is an offense for which about 90 percent of white people are guilty… hey, we live in a white supremacist society. It’s in the air. I won’t engage in extensive polemical arguments about the difference between white supremacy (a system that is reflected in the minds of the peope in that system). Every liberal who ever said we can’t leave Iraq because without the Americans there the place would descend into chaos… is a passive racist. This is a white supremacist assumption.

My main point was that the biggest social catastrophe for Black and Brown folk in the US today is the criminal justice system and the American gulag that goes with it.

Bill Clinton might be more comfortable drinking wine with boozhie African Americans than Ron Paul; and Bill Clinton might have somehow convinced a lot of Black folk that he is “the first Black President.” But Bill Clinton is the reason there are well over 2 milliion human beings languishing in hell-hole prisons in the US right now, with people of color shockingly over-represented among them. Clinton’s crime bill did that; and the main method for locking up all these people has been for non-violent drug offenses on their first incarceration.

One candidate has quoted the figures on how this has unfairly impacted African Americans. Ron Paul. He opposes the criminalization of drugs. The issue of blanket pardons — within the President’s authority, and the de-prioritization of federal drug enforcement, are both within the Prez’s purview.

One point I emphasized in my rant is the difference between agreeing with someone’s expressed views and the net effect of someone’s likely actions.

In this case, I pose a hypothetical question. If Ron Paul were elected, what would the net effect of his policies be on the American Gulag, given the capabilities and limitations of the office?

That’s all.

My main point was that the war is my issue. Let me flesh that out. This war has caused the deaths of over a million human beings. Iraq and Afghanistan have become abattoirs. Stopping this war is an urgent and immediate moral imperative.

Let me add something to this. As an anti-imperialist, who believes US hegemony in the world is the most destructive and dangerous political force in our world, and as someone who wants to see that political power broken, for good, there is no single action that would underline an immediate and decisive loss of some of that power than US withdrawal from Iraq and Afghanistan.

This is exactly why whichever DLC-anointed candidate is nominated, the Democratic Party leadership has not the least intention of reversing what is going on in Southwest Asia: the permanent post-Cold War re-disposition of the imperial armed forces of the United States of America. The leadership of the Democrtatic Party is committed to American imperialism.

Any leftist who is more interested in seeing the net practical effect of a US withdrawal from Southwest Asia (Paul proposes that all US troops return to the US!) than promoting the all-or-nothing, comprehensive program of some toy International, should give this some thought.

Let’s back away from the most unlikely scenario — that Paul would actually be elected. What if he were to get the Republican nomination? If he were to campaign solely on the issue of the war, a Democratic candidate could be forced into adopting an out-now posiiton to fend off this challenge. The majority of the people in the United States want out of this war.

Let’s back further away from improbability. Ron Paul gets a massive crossover vote from antiwar folks that is pulled from the left. Whomever comes in second among the Democrats — along with the Democratic Party leadership — will see the tangible threat that can be posed by independent coalition politics… even on a relatively small scale.

We must become spoilers; and quit being so terrified. Spoilers today; rebels tomorrow. Hey, you only live once.

Now for one of the more polemical reactions (based on Ron Paul’s personal opposition to abortion):

Hi. Saw your Counterpunch article. Guess you’ve abandoned women for the Gold Standard, huh?

My reply (which includes a paste-in from another emailer):

More than half of Iraqis are women. Half of the billions who are immiserated by dollar hegemony are women.

Paul’s position on choice is exactly that of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. Reid was put in that position by a unanimous vote of the other D senators!

This kind of polemeic always comes from a leftist sect posing as The One and Only True and Everlasting Revolutionary Party (TOOTER Party). It intentionally distorts one’s position, then sneers at the distortion.

My beliefs on the issues related to gender are well-known, and they stand for themselves. I will restate my position.

IF Ron Paul were President, and if he followed a foreign policy that ended US military intervention, ended US political meddling abroad, and ended dollar hegemony (the net effect of a return to the gold standard), this would end the most signficant causative agent of human misery in the world… and half of humanity are women. That is over 3 billion people.

Net effect. Give a damn what sort of sexist drivel he utters among his friends. We can’t even get lefty-boys to give up their own woman-bashing, their cluelessness about rape culture, or their intractible and tedious defenses of the porn industry.

While supposed populists like Johnny Edwards claim to be seeking a better wage for the workers in agribusiness, pharmaceuticals, and defense industries, the net effect of a libertarian policy of cutting off all government subsidies to these industries would be to crash these industries altogether. They need to be crashed.

The liberal regulation regime in agriculture paved the way for the monopolization of farming by large corporations. Read Joel Salatin. Wanna know why we can’t get good, local, organic food when we want it? It’s because it mostly against the law to grow and sell it.

Stopping the tax-funded subisidization of business through highway construction would stop suburban sprawl in its tracks.

Creating and maintaining jobs that are dirty, dangerous, and destructive is not a Good Thing.

For that matter, I don’t know why I should support bureaucratic public schooling that is — by practice and curricula — permanently damaging our kids. I say this knowing that there are heroic teachers out there who swim against this tide; and who are pushed back every time they actually try to teach kids that learning how to think for themselves is more important than being “well adjusted.” Well-adjusted to what!? Global warming and Guantanamo?

We are entering a period of imperial decline, stagflation, and international exterminism. The problem is that we are gaining altitude. The sooner we crash, the less damage we’ll suffer.

Practical, tactical, revolutionary politics beats the shit out of all-inclusive “programs” any day. Leftists and libertarians can and should form tactical alliances. That doesn’t mean we have to hang out together in a jacuzzi. It means we pursue some goals together; and leave the rest to pursue apart.

Category: General | Comment (RSS)
51 Comments

highly recommended - especially for Dems and Fems on the fence

 

[Politeia]

From the Left?

This kind of polemic always comes from a leftist sect posing as The One and Only True and Everlasting Revolutionary Party (TOOTER Party). It intentionally distorts one’s position, then sneers at the distortion. -- Stan Goff

Here a Leftist sums up perfectly everything the Left (and the Right, with a slight change of terminology) says about Ron Paul -- especially RP's position on abortion: They intentionally distort his position, then sneer at the distortion.

 

[amy31416]

Yes, what is your source on this? And what are some solutions if valid?

I'm not the OP, but my initial source for fewer women supporting Paul was opensecrets.org. The same place we get the figures for his military support.

I've been waiting, impatiently, to see the 4th quarter figures. They could tell a whole different story.

The solution, if valid, is education in the form of things like targetted slim jims, things like that, in my opinion.

 

[politicus]

The solution couldn't be simpler:

Paul needs Brad Pitt's Endorsement.

 

[amy31416]

The solution couldn't be simpler:

Paul needs Brad Pitt's Endorsement.

Eh? I can't stand Brad Pitt. That wouldn't do anything.

If you're trying to be sneakily misogynistic, it won't work. For every time you claim that women are superficial, I can give you 10x that in examples to the contrary, and give you 100x that in examples that show men are superficial.

Think about it. That's a completely irrelevant statement.

 

[Maltheus]

I agree... and ever since I was a little girl, I've been told, "It's a man's world."

This is so not true. Do you know what most locker room talk is really like? It goes something like this: "no of course I didn't want to do that, it was just easier to avoid the fight." Most mens' actions can be attributed to either wanting to impress a woman or avoid a fight with one. That's why I try to stay away from them. I hate feeling enslaved to that pattern. Make no mistake, women have the power. It's just that many don't realize it since their influence is only witnessed indirectly.

 

[amy31416]

This is so not true. Do you know what most locker room talk is really like? It goes something like this: "no of course I didn't want to do that, it was just easier to avoid the fight." Most mens' actions can be attributed to either wanting to impress a woman or avoid a fight with one. That's why I try to stay away from them. I hate feeling enslaved to that pattern. Make no mistake, women have the power. It's just that many don't realize it since their influence is only witnessed indirectly.

Come on. This is BS. Women AND men have potential power, it's all about knowing how to use it and what we use it for that counts.

I've been both powerful and powerless in relationships, I sometimes agree with you that I should stay away from the opposite sex because of the influence they have, but I've realized over time that I learn a lot from men. And they learn a lot from me.
I understand where you're coming from, I really do, but understand that we're all human beings first, even if the other person doesn't understand that.

It's hard to be an idealist in a very flawed world with very flawed people. Myself included.