PDA

View Full Version : 19th Amendment passed August 26 - How to turn into news?




walt
08-26-2007, 12:51 AM
http://www.ashleycecil.com/2007/08/25/women-celebrate-87-years-of-suffrage/

How can we use this day of an amendment passing for Ron Paul's advantage?

McDermit
08-26-2007, 01:00 AM
By pushing to have it repealed. :p

BarryDonegan
08-26-2007, 01:11 AM
too bad the "perfect comradeship" and ideal union blablabla stuff didn't coincide with the whole suffrage thing.

haha. we have a long ways to go to get that part going.

Nefertiti
08-26-2007, 04:08 AM
By pushing to have it repealed. :p

First of all, you can refrain from stupid jokes like this.

Ron Paul's support among women is much lower than it is among men, and I don't see how he could win without increasing his support among women. Because it is so low, something really needs to be done about it. So you need to first ask yourselves why isn't he attracting the support of women?

Ask why not many women are attracted to participating in these forums? Is it sexist jokes like the above? Is it the fact that a lot of men here act like they are at a night out with the guys? I mean, some of us ladies do not particularly enjoy being addressed as "Dude" (like I was once here) and reading about how people would like to kick others' faces in. There is a very aggressive and in-your-face element to these forums and to Ron Paul's support in general, and this sort of thing does not appeal to women in general. This is in contrast to Ron Paul's own demeanor and I think it hurts the campaign. If Ron Paul's supporters would conduct themselves as if their mothers were in the room I think more women would be jumping on the bandwagon.

Before I was a Ron Paul supporter I was an Obama supporter and I went to one of those Obama house parties and it was mostly women who were totally enraptured by Obama. Now, even if Ron Paul were to get the nomination we still will have to win over the Democrats in the general election and that includes those women swooning for Obama and/or the women who are going to vote for Hillary just because she is a woman.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/politics/5083665.html

Women make up the majority of VOTERS:

http://laruelist.com/wmkr/20070729-003.htm

Since we women DO have the right to vote, then we need to get the women's vote in addition to the men's vote. If we do that, we have the election in the bag. If we don't, you DUDES will have nothing to show for your efforts.

Lois
08-26-2007, 05:06 AM
Women support Obama and Hillary because they know Republicans are Warmongers. Women were maybe the largest demographic instrumental in voting for the Democratic takeover in 2004. If you mention Ron Paul to them, they ask "Is he a Republican?" They say "There's no way I'll vote for a Republican". End of discussion. I've had this first-hand experience myself. When they find out Ron Paul is a "Conservative Christian from Texas" they really lose it. Totally close-minded, and who can blame them. That's why Billbama will be handed the Presidency. Women want a woman in the White House, and Women want a Democrat in the White House.

Sorry to be negative

Nefertiti
08-26-2007, 05:08 AM
Lois-Then why not open your discussion with the fact that he is the most anti-war candidate there is? And whether he personally is a conservative Christian himself is irrelevant-tell them he supports their rights to practice or not practice religion as they choose.

Lois
08-26-2007, 05:15 AM
I do say all that and more. I give them all my literature and tell them where to go (hahaha) to check out Ron Paul online. I won't give up trying to educate others. Most people are very impressed about our enthusiasm with the Meetups, Parades, handing out information -- the Grassroots effort.

maiki
08-26-2007, 05:17 AM
Say a lovely female Ron Paul Supporter from MA was born today, 23 years ago. ;)

Wait.. I'm not newsworthy? Darn, I forgot. :)

Wyurm
08-26-2007, 05:42 AM
There are plenty of females who would love to hear what Dr. Paul has to say and would love to vote for him. However, I have found that among BOTH male and female potential voters, there is a serious lack of interest in this election. Its as if they have given up, no longer care, or just don't feel their vote matters so they arent going to waste time trying to bother. I even encounter this among supporters, though they still are willing to try. Its a case of voter apathy spawned by a combination of getting dems elected to end the war and instead they tried to give illegal aliens amnesty and spent a very long time arguing over it instead of ending the war. Then there's also the issue of vote fraud and its resulting feeling of why bother if the vote isnt going to matter anyway?

We have alot to battle, as for women, yeah there is the I'll vote for Hillary just because she's a woman but it won't last. There isnt much enthusiasm when I'm told that. Women that take the time to hear Ron Paul tend to respond just like the men do. They realize that they don't just want to vote for him, they need to vote for him. The key is to get them to hear about him and eventually they will learn more.

As for sexist statements, you should know they wouldn't be found funny by women, nor is it true. It could also be said that if you leave it up to men, you will get someone like Thompson. Ron Paul transends sex, race, and all that jazz. He is a president for the people, not for the groups. He is your president, he is my president, he is America's president.

walt
08-26-2007, 08:36 AM
hey this thread has obama adsense ads on them at the bottom- it might be nice if they wasted some Adwords money :)

LibertyEagle
08-26-2007, 08:43 AM
Women support Obama and Hillary because they know Republicans are Warmongers. Women were maybe the largest demographic instrumental in voting for the Democratic takeover in 2004. If you mention Ron Paul to them, they ask "Is he a Republican?" They say "There's no way I'll vote for a Republican". End of discussion. I've had this first-hand experience myself. When they find out Ron Paul is a "Conservative Christian from Texas" they really lose it. Totally close-minded, and who can blame them. That's why Billbama will be handed the Presidency. Women want a woman in the White House, and Women want a Democrat in the White House.

Sorry to be negative


Please do not pretend to speak for all women. We are not all that stupid.

What we need to do is to show Dems/Independents that Obama and Hitlery are every bit as much warmongers as are Giuliani, McCain, Romney and all the rest; our good doctor excepted. ONLY Dr. Paul stood against this needless War against a tactic from the very beginning and consistently and persistently advocated us going after the ones who actually attacked us, rather than start off on this empire-building BS.

LibertyEagle
08-26-2007, 08:51 AM
By pushing to have it repealed. :p

I guess because men have done such a great job thus far in protecting our Constitution, eh? ;) Not to mention getting us into the Federal Reserve, the United Nations, the IMF, the World Bank, etc.

Perhaps you should stop to think before making anymore sexist comments.

Revolution9
08-26-2007, 09:00 AM
FRon Paul's support among women is much lower than it is among men, a.

There seem to be close to half of the peple at the rally we had here were female. Your perceptions are skewed. Women not coming to this forum does not translate to the streets.

As per speaking to the gender.. Well when a female that I do not know comes at me ordering me arund or getting gruff..I think mthat is a man and nail him in kind. However..if I know they are a woman unless they are a backbiting bitch they get different treatmnet because i read the thread in a different tone. Sorry if I haven't been inculcated into treating everybody the same. It just ain't natural for me to do so.


Randy

quickmike
08-26-2007, 09:05 AM
Please do not pretend to speak for all women. We are not all that stupid.

What we need to do is to show Dems/Independents that Obama and Hitlery are every bit as much warmongers as are Giuliani, McCain, Romney and all the rest; our good doctor excepted. ONLY Dr. Paul stood against this needless War against a tactic from the very beginning and consistently and persistently advocated us going after the ones who actually attacked us, rather than start off on this empire-building BS.

I agree people should not speak for all women, but I will say this. When I go door to door giving out flyers and promoting Ron Paul, there seems to be a trend among upper middle class married women in my area of them feeling the need to be protected by some authoritarian figure (the soccer mom type). A large percentage of them that say they are republicans throw out names like Rudy and Thompson (fred) because they seem strong to them for some reason. I always pitch the "freedom and liberty over security" angle to them, but their overwhelming fear of "terr'ists" that King Bush has filled their heads with, usually seems to win out in the end. These women are tough nuts to crack in my opinion. Im not saying they are all like this, but if I had to be scientific about it, I would say they are a large percentage of Republican women voters based on just what ive seen in my town. The men always seem more receptive to the liberty over security message without a doubt. Im not giving up on them, but it seems almost impossible to get this type of woman to value her freedom over her liberty. I think their attitude is " Hell, Ive got 3 kids to get to soccer practice and Karate class, little league, make dinner, do laundry............ I dont have time to think about liberty.............. let the government protect us........... thats their job"

We have LOTS of work to do.

Politeia
08-26-2007, 09:53 AM
19th Amendment passed August 26... How can we use this day of an amendment passing for Ron Paul's advantage?
When I saw the title of this thread, my thought was, "Yeah, that's the real reason why Ron Paul can't win (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=14174)."

Yes, I agree that a response like
By pushing to have it repealed. :p doesn't particularly help, but there's more than a grain of truth behind it -- including the fact that the thought is expressed as a "joke", because any man who says anything serious about this elephant in the American living room knows he will be thoroughly flamed by any women in the vicinity. By and large, American men have either (a) completely caved to female power (like the male "feminists" who support the Empress-in-Waiting Hillary) or (b) given up and keep their own counsel, hoping to make it to death without enduring any more abuse. (This includes of course the large number of men who commit suicide every year as a last resort to escape the vindictive rule of the Goddess in Her manifestation as "Family Court".)


Ron Paul's support among women is much lower than it is among men, and I don't see how he could win without increasing his support among women.
Exactly.


Because it is so low, something really needs to be done about it.
Such as what? Actually, I see the Ron Paul candidacy as the last, hopeless stand of male consciousness in America, before the Matriarchy completely triumphs. He is about as faultless a man as you will find anywhere in this world, but the great majority of women still won't vote for him. (For why, see "Bill Clinton" below.)


So you need to first ask yourselves why isn't he attracting the support of women?
Well, I already know, so I don't really need to "ask myself".


Ask why not many women are attracted to participating in these forums? Is it sexist jokes like the above? Is it the fact that a lot of men here act like they are at a night out with the guys? I mean, some of us ladies do not particularly enjoy being addressed as "Dude" (like I was once here) and reading about how people would like to kick others' faces in. There is a very aggressive and in-your-face element to these forums and to Ron Paul's support in general, and this sort of thing does not appeal to women in general. This is in contrast to Ron Paul's own demeanor and I think it hurts the campaign. If Ron Paul's supporters would conduct themselves as if their mothers were in the room I think more women would be jumping on the bandwagon.
These are good points, but minor, having more to do with the nature of the Internet's overgrown-adolescent "culture" than with anything about the Ron Paul campaign itself. And in fact, in my view the general degradation of standards of decency and behavior in the culture has a lot to do with the 19th Amendment. The overwhelming compulsion to not see any difference between the sexes (except, of course, when it's to the advantage of women to promote such differences) has naturally led to a general decay in discriminative consciousness, so that the concept of adulthood itself has been pretty well wiped out, and along with it any feeling that there are standards that should prevail in public behavior. After all, "standards" are "patriarchal", are they not? We should all be free to defecate on the sidewalk whenever we feel so moved -- otherwise we must be "oppressed".


Before I was a Ron Paul supporter I was an Obama supporter and I went to one of those Obama house parties and it was mostly women who were totally enraptured by Obama. Now, even if Ron Paul were to get the nomination we still will have to win over the Democrats in the general election and that includes those women swooning for Obama and/or the women who are going to vote for Hillary just because she is a woman.
Well, you said it yourself: "enraptured", "swooning". For the great, perhaps overwhelming, majority of women, these words define why they will vote for one man or another; while the rest, as you say, will "vote for Hillary just because she is a woman". Neither of these motivations is open to influence by reason in any way.

As for your links: (1) (http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/politics/5083665.html) It can be no surprise to anyone capable of clear, unobstructed vision and rational thought that "Clinton failing to make inroads with male voters" -- since her [i]only political qualification is that she's a woman; the only males who support her are the lapdogs. Beyond that, she couldn't think her way out of a paper bag -- unless, of course, her feral little mind sees something in it for her. I heard recently on the radio about a picketer at one of Hillary's rallys who summed it up nicely with a sign: "Hillary doesn't care, she just wants the power!" Note that this picketer was a woman. As H.L. Mencken remarked, "On one issue at least, men and women agree; they both distrust women."

And (2) (http://laruelist.com/wmkr/20070729-003.htm), yes, it's true that women make up the majority both of the population at large and of voters. I note that the linked article is entirely devoted to the proposition that everything should be divided up and allocated entirely along gender lines: Candidates must address "women's issues" (never defined, which makes the idea simply a convenient stick to beat anyone with -- and of course implies that those issues being addressed by a candidate like Ron Paul -- e.g. peace, freedom, prosperity -- are only to the benefit of men), and since women are 55-60% of voters, 55-60% of questions answered should be those from women, and so on. Of course, such a primary emphasis on gender is not sexist when demanded by women, though any man who even notices a difference in how the sexes think and act is a male chauvinist pig.


Since we women DO have the right to vote, then we need to get the women's vote in addition to the men's vote. If we do that, we have the election in the bag. If we don't, you DUDES will have nothing to show for your efforts.
Exactly. Women's power always trumps men's feeble attempts to organize human societies by reason and self-restraint. Frankly, I don't see anything I can do to "get the women's vote"; those few women who are capable of hearing reason will already have heard Ron Paul, and the rest won't listen to a man anyway -- unless, of course, he caters to their vanity and/or their unconscious craving for security, like all the other candidates do. If you can get more -- enough -- women to vote for Ron Paul, I'll certainly applaud; but I'm on the sidelines in this one.

By now, the fact that there were women -- quite a few, I believe -- opposed to "female suffrage" has almost been eradicated from the history we all "know". I remember back in 1995 seeing a PBS program celebrating the 75th anniversary of the "19th Amendment"; it was noted therein that opponents of women participating formally in politics (i.e. voting, as opposed to continuing to exercise the informal but overwhelming power women have always had and used and can never lose) predicted that their doing so would result in alcohol prohibition. This was said by the PBS voice as if the idea was ridiculous -- without the least acknowledgement that that was exactly what did happen. In fact, most of the push for female suffrage came from the "temperance" movement.* This, I have come to see, is exactly how the female mind works: what it doesn't wish to acknowledge, it simply doesn't see.

* The "temperance" movement was a major manifestation of the eternal desire of women to "improve" men -- in that case by getting them to quit drinking so much alcohol. I'll agree, alcohol was a serious problem in 19th century America, where "breakfast" was often steak and (several shots of) whiskey. But as always, women did not think to ask why men were turning to drink, since it is a cardinal dogma of feminism that life for men is always a bed of roses. And once the women had the power they sought, they used it in the grossest manner possible, believing that they could change human behavior by naked force, and in the process creating both organized crime and the vastly increased government power of the FBI, etc. So much for women bringing a "kinder, gentler" feeling into politics. Hillary, you may have noticed, is all for war -- so long as she doesn't have to be in the trenches herself. "Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose."

BTW, Ron Paul is what used to be called a teetotaller -- he doesn't drink any alcohol, and I would guess never has. (At least this was true when I had dinner with him in 1988, and I doubt he's changed on that score.) But that, I fear, would not be a plus in the minds of most women; a man without vices is hard to control. Women, of course, loved Bill Clinton (weren't we told, by no less an authority than the original fish-without-a-bicycle, that he was "the first president elected by women"?); he was (and is) easily controlled.

I don't know anything about Obama's personal life; but his appeal is primarily that he's an official "victim", which all women instinctively identify with. That's he's also good looking -- adding the subconscious appeal of exotic sexuality -- doesn't hurt. He knows this, or at least his handlers do; so long as he parrots the required feel-good stands on the "issues" -- especially "women's issues" (which seem to consist primarily of the "right" to kill their own children when they find the responsibility inconvenient, as well as, of course, "rights" to universal child care, "health care", etc., since they find those responsibilities inconvenient as well) he'll have whatever women's vote Hillary doesn't capture (see Mencken quote above) sewn up.

It was also mentioned in the PBS documentary that women opposed to female voting predicted that it would "destroy the family". Look around; how many real families do you see, aside from the Pauls? If Prohibition was a "great experiment" that failed, the 19th Amendment was far greater; and I cannot see that its impassioned constituency will ever ask themselves if it has really been good for them, or for the culture in general.


Women support Obama and Hillary because they know Republicans are Warmongers.
I don't really think so; that's why (non-thinking, feminist/socialist) men support Obama and Hillary. See above for why women do.


Women were maybe the largest demographic instrumental in voting for the Democratic takeover in 2004.
2006, I think you mean? Yes, and look what's happened. Big change, no?


If you mention Ron Paul to them, they ask "Is he a Republican?" They say "There's no way I'll vote for a Republican". End of discussion. I've had this first-hand experience myself. When they find out Ron Paul is a "Conservative Christian from Texas" they really lose it. Totally close-minded, and who can blame them. That's why Billbama will be handed the Presidency. Women want a woman in the White House, and Women want a Democrat in the White House.
Who can blame them? Well, we were told that giving women the vote would elevate politics to a higher plane. Is a "totally close-minded", knee-jerk, unthinking reaction a "higher plane"?


Please do not pretend to speak for all women. We are not all that stupid.
Interesting word you use: "stupid". See Mencken quote above. Yes, there are exceptions, but they are few in number and far between. For instance, I'd say Carol Paul has a pretty good grasp of what's important, and what's really best for women. But I'm afraid most women wouldn't like her very much, since she's clearly not only a "helpless victim of the patriarchy", but seems, unaccountably, to enjoy it.


When I go door to door giving out flyers and promoting Ron Paul, there seems to be a trend among upper middle class married women in my area of them feeling the need to be protected by some authoritarian figure (the soccer mom type). ... The men always seem more receptive to the liberty over security message without a doubt. ... it seems almost impossible to get this type of woman to value her freedom over her [security].
Yes, interesting how reality is, well, real. It has been observed many times that the primary value in male consciousness is freedom, while the primary value in female consciousness is security. There's nothing wrong with this, it's natural and due to the different roles played by the sexes in the life of our species. It's trying to ignore this truth and pretend that the sexes are "alike" that gets us into trouble. When women vote, the natural and inevitable result will be socialism -- or some other form of authoritarian, totalitarian government, whatever it's called -- as they instinctively, unconsciously transfer their need for security from the men in their personal lives to the State, which seems so much bigger and more powerful (and, at a distance, less imperfect), and thus more able to provide total security. There is no other possible outcome.

Thus, I believe Lois is right. Which is why, if Ron Paul isn't elected, the Hillary/Obama ticket is my second choice (though I certainly won't vote for it). Since it appears the disease must run its course, why not go ahead and get it over with? Since they certainly won't settle for less, let's just give women what they want, so they can "enjoy" it to the fullest.

And so, like all great civilizations of the past, ours will collapse into barbarism and a Dark Age. Might as well get ready. Which was, in fact, what I was doing before this Ron Paul Revolution burst on the scene. I haven't voted since 1988, but now I'm planning to register Republican to vote in the primary. Not really because I think he has a chance, but because he's a good man who deserves what support I can give. And because I want to be on record for what I support, even though, as always, I'll be in a tiny minority. (The only time a presidential candidate I voted for actually won was in 1964, when, though I'd read Barry Goldwater's book and was impressed by it, I voted for Lyndon Johnson, convinced that "Goldwater would get us into a war." Three years later I had to flee to what I expected would be permanent exile in Canada. This lesson was not lost on me, though it took me a while to figure out exactly what was going on.)

I am (or was, before I turned libertarian 25 years ago) a hereditary, Peace & Freedom liberal Democrat; my "turning Republican" is likely to provoke some shock among family and old friends. I guess I'm still young enough (at 64) to find that prospect entertaining.

ecliptic
08-26-2007, 09:55 AM
... Ron Paul's support among women is much lower than it is among men, and I don't see how he could win without increasing his support among women. Because it is so low, something really needs to be done about it. So you need to first ask yourselves why isn't he attracting the support of women?

Ask why not many women are attracted to participating in these forums? Is it sexist jokes like the above? Is it the fact that a lot of men here act like they are at a night out with the guys? I mean, some of us ladies do not particularly enjoy being addressed as "Dude" (like I was once here) and reading about how people would like to kick others' faces in. There is a very aggressive and in-your-face element to these forums and to Ron Paul's support in general, and this sort of thing does not appeal to women in general. This is in contrast to Ron Paul's own demeanor and I think it hurts the campaign. If Ron Paul's supporters would conduct themselves as if their mothers were in the room I think more women would be jumping on the bandwagon.

Before I was a Ron Paul supporter I was an Obama supporter and I went to one of those Obama house parties and it was mostly women who were totally enraptured by Obama. Now, even if Ron Paul were to get the nomination we still will have to win over the Democrats in the general election and that includes those women swooning for Obama and/or the women who are going to vote for Hillary just because she is a woman.

Since we women DO have the right to vote, then we need to get the women's vote in addition to the men's vote. If we do that, we have the election in the bag. If we don't, you DUDES will have nothing to show for your efforts.

I'm a "dude" and pretty much guilty as charged. Please accept a general apology ( likely on behalf of many guys here ) towards any of the women here who may be "turned off" by aggressive forum behavior. I think you make a whole lot of sense. Though I think a little heat is ok in the context of a respectful disagreement, overall it would be best to behave... on your best behavior. Practice for real-world engagement in the campaign... Respect... Equality... Tolerance! A Libertarian approach demands tolerance above all else.

We are all "representing" Dr. Paul - one tough assignment.

I suggest the option to place a little male or female icon together with your "handle" at the top of each post. This would serve as a little reminder to the guys that we're not in the locker room... and who knows? Maybe a little Ron Paul romance?

... sorry! Couldn't help myself!

Roxi
08-26-2007, 10:15 AM
a lot of problem is that some of the things that have been used to slam ron paul is that because he is pro life he doesnt support women's rights
i view it as him supporting fetal rights over womens rights and i think once you are pregnant its not "your" body anymore, you chose to share your body with a child, and even if you didn't "choose" to share it, you chose not to protect yourself from it so therefore you DID choose to share it so the rights to your body are no longer solely yours.

as a woman who supports ron paul, i believe in the beginning I was a minority. Now that I have personally seen the support among women for myself i don't believe this is true anymore... I think its a pretty equal mix. just because theres more men than women on this board, that doesn't reflect on the real world accurately. In the last 2 months the growth of support among women has grown significantly, and It will continue to grow

carol paul is one of my favorite people too


edit: and i have never been offended by the decorum of the men on this forum... i have been offended by the behavior some people men and women have displayed when it comes to jumping all over someone who asks the wrong question, or says something not agreeable

basically the general name calling or bashing or negativity...this is the only thing that annoys me and i have seen both men and women do this especially lately.... i have however gone 3 months without knowing Liberty Eagle was a woman for example which just makes my day because many times over the past few months i have read her posts and just been like WOW he's intelligent. when i finally confirmed this LE being a woman business i got super excited! :D

ecliptic
08-26-2007, 10:24 AM
By and large, American men have either (a) completely caved to female power (like the male "feminists" who support the Empress-in-Waiting Hillary) or (b) given up and keep their own counsel, hoping to make it to death without enduring any more abuse. (This includes of course the large number of men who commit suicide every year as a last resort to escape the vindictive rule of the Goddess in Her manifestation as "Family Court".)


OK having made my nice apology towards forum gals, I have to now add my total and complete agreement with every last word of Mr. Politeia's excellent post. I am a father of two girls. My ex-wife used "forced divorce" and a powerful lawyer to have my girls situated with her roughly 84% of the time now... ( against their wishes ). Despite committing no wrongdoing of any sort whatsoever, despite my being a fit and fine parent, despite my girl's love and their strong desire to reside with their father at least half of the time... instead I'm required to pay my ex-wife money { the term "child support" is a prime example of "reverse-speak" } each month or face five years in jail, loss of driving "privileges", seizure of assets, and general loss of all Constitutional protections. It is mind-boggling how far the Family Courts have fallen from their oaths to "uphold and defend the Constitution".... and the result of the "triumph" of the National Association of Women Lawyers ... "no-fault" divorce?

Almost every category of criminal activity can be traced to children raised without fathers. Keep in mind that roughly 90% of forced divorce is initiated by the woman.
And finally it is crucial to understand that violence in relationships is initiated more frequently by women, and the majority of deadly attacks are perpetrated by women.

Harsh truths are pretty.... harsh.

I hit bottom roughly a year after the final and yes, I considered suicide. The sheer unconstitutional behavior of Family Courts enraged me and of course I chose to stand and fight the system. Women are victims alright... victims of fear-based mass mind-control via a completely controlled mass media and of course the false-flag "terrorism" of September 11th. As the cruelty of these facts becomes more and more apparent, men are fighting back and spreading these truths and surprisingly, what I've found is that many women are totally open-minded to the "other side".

What I now know is men and women don't have to fight each other to restore the American family and thus the American nations source of strength.

We need to work together.

Politeia
08-26-2007, 10:30 AM
I suggest the option to place a little male or female icon together with your "handle" at the top of each post. This would serve as a little reminder to the guys that we're not in the locker room...

I'm guessing you're fairly young, ecliptic, so you haven't been around long enough to have a chance to observe women in their own natural habitat. The quality of conversation in a female locker room would, I'm afraid, leave your ears burning. The "moral superiority" of women is a myth, which women use to control men.

Was a time when both sexes were expected to be courteous in their relations with each other, which made sense, when you consider this question: What's the most dangerous predator on the planet? "An armed society is a polite society," and (as Robert Bly has noted) the two sexes are uniquely able to harm each other. Thus, traditional cultures (those that lasted) understood that each sex should have its own territory (e.g. the separate, complementary Women's Council and Men's Council of the Iroquois) so that each could negotiate from a position of strength, and neither would feel so threatened as to revert to savagery.

Women, who ultimately control everything (where do men come from, anyway?), seem to have decided in our culture nowadays that both sexes should be tossed into a single arena and left to fight to the death, but that men should still maintain the old courtesies, while they as the "oppressed class" (feminism is a subset of Marxism), have a "right" to be totally unrestrained in their behavior.

Well, they may do what they wish; as a man, my first responsibility is to myself, so I prefer to act like an adult because that's what I wish to be. I treat all persons alike, as deserving of my respect, as I expect the same from them. I treat women, some of whom I still find entrancing, with a little extra courtesy -- so long as they don't trash me for it. If they do, I avoid them.

ecliptic
08-26-2007, 10:40 AM
... women, some of whom I still find entrancing...

See - no matter how pissed off you get at the opposite sex . . . . .

you still gotta just love 'em!

I was so frickin' angry at the opposite sex I unintentionally went celibate for five years!

... but then I met this lovely shopkeeper gal and damned if she didn't get into my heart somehow... and now she's all I can think about night and day! And no, I'm neither "young" nor in any way naive about the female human creature.

I guess what I'm saying is positivity is the path to ultimate success whether you're talking about the Ron Paul campaign or the battle front of the war of the sexes.

Choose love.

Politeia
08-26-2007, 11:36 AM
I was so frickin' angry at the opposite sex I unintentionally went celibate for five years!
Well, in great part due to long-term chronic illness, resulting in little or no libido, it's been more like 15 for me ... and for several decades before that what encounters I had with women ended in disaster. So I've being doing a lot of observing, and thinking, aided by finally getting old and weak enough that I'm not totally controlled by sexual desire, so can begin to see women somewhat free of what Warren Farrell called the "hormone-induced fog" that totally clouds most men's vision. Things look pretty different in the clear, I can tell you.


.. but then I met this lovely shopkeeper gal and damned if she didn't get into my heart somehow... and now she's all I can think about night and day! And no, I'm neither "young" nor in any way naive about the female human creature.
Well, be careful; "damned" might turn out to be exactly the right adjective. Remember, you've been there before. I strongly recommend reading this essay (http://web.archive.org/web/20070110024257/www.john-ross.net/advice.htm) for some good advice to avoid getting yourself in trouble again. Other essays (http://web.archive.org/web/20070122154004/www.john-ross.net/ross_in_range.htm) by the same author are also worth reading, as is Rich Zubaty's classic What Men Know that Women Don't (http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Oracle/5225/surviving_frame.htm). Among others. This website (http://www.nomarriage.com) is also helpful: until American women undeclare their war, any man who lets himself be trapped into marriage (or any position of vulnerability) is a fool. For my part, were I ever to find myself likely to become involved with a woman again, at the very least I'd get a vasectomy.

When I was a young hippie in the 60s I spent a lot of time with the I Ching (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_Ching) (Yi Jing), the ancient Chinese book of oracles. Whenever I consulted it about my various hopeless infatuations, somehow by chance I always seemed to get the same hexagram, #44: "Coming to Meet. The maiden is powerful. One should not marry such a maiden. ... seems so harmless and inviting that a man delights in it; it looks so small and weak that he imagines he may dally with it and come to no harm." It took me a long time to begin to understand that this ancient text was warning me not so much about something external, but that weakness in myself that responds to such an outside stimulus.

As the transmission of male knowledge, from grandfathers, fathers and uncles to sons, has been almost entirely lost in our culture, very few American men have any understanding of the wisdom of Ben Franklin's advice:

If Passion drives,
Let Reason hold the Reins.

Which is Patriarchy in a nutshell.

Nefertiti
08-26-2007, 01:39 PM
The men always seem more receptive to the liberty over security message without a doubt. Im not giving up on them, but it seems almost impossible to get this type of woman to value her freedom over her liberty. I think their attitude is " Hell, Ive got 3 kids to get to soccer practice and Karate class, little league, make dinner, do laundry............ I dont have time to think about liberty.............. let the government protect us........... thats their job"

We have LOTS of work to do.

Maybe not focus on liberty with them as much as on the federal debt that their kids will be inheriting, if we don't get our government spending down. Talk to them about how social security will go bankrupt, how Ron Paul would require that social security taxes be spent on social security, etc. Talk to them about how Ron Paul is for investing more money into the upkeep of bridges and other infrastructure so that bridge collapses don't happen (RP wrote a nice editorial on this a couple days ago-check Google news for Ron Paul and bridge and you should find it).

Nefertiti
08-26-2007, 01:54 PM
It is mind-boggling how far the Family Courts have fallen from their oaths to "uphold and defend the Constitution".... and the result of the "triumph" of the National Association of Women Lawyers ... "no-fault" divorce?

Almost every category of criminal activity can be traced to children raised without fathers.

I feel for you. I liked Ron Paul's suggestion that marriage be not so much a government regulated institution as much as a contract between two people. You should be able to determine what will happen if you and your wife divorce up front before you even get married and put that in a contract that had to be abided by later on if required to be implemented. That's better than allowing the court and judge to decide, or for an angry spouse to screw you over. Better you agree what will happen while you are still in love rather than hate eachother. However, that won't do much good 40% of the time because 4 out of 10 children these days are born of out of wedlock int he US.

As for criminal activity, the worst for children is to live with a stepfather. Single mothers provide a better home than a remarried mother does. Stepfathers are also much more likely to physically abuse or molest a child. It would be great if people could write contracts where the wife would be prohibited from living with or marrying another man until the children were 18 in cases of divorce. Under Islamic law a wife can lose custody if she remarries. There's a sound basis for that.

Politeia
08-26-2007, 03:45 PM
I liked Ron Paul's suggestion that marriage be not so much a government regulated institution as much as a contract between two people.
Not long ago, that's what it was: between the two people and whatever they regarded as a Higher Power, before whom they would be ashamed to swear a false oath. The government got involved, so I understand, because few churches would marry mixed-race couples, so the government stepped in and offered marriage "licenses" -- which, like other forms of licenses, we're all trained now to think we must have. Few people realize, though, that it's the marriage license that gives the government the power to force you to send you children to government schools, to dose them with drugs over your protest, to take them away if they don't like how you're caring for them -- and to decide who gets custody in divorce. Because the government is a party to the marriage, the government has an "interest" in what it produces.


It would be great if people could write contracts where the wife would be prohibited from living with or marrying another man until the children were 18 in cases of divorce. Under Islamic law a wife can lose custody if she remarries. There's a sound basis for that.

A very interesting idea; thanks for mentioning it. In fairness, perhaps the same stricture should apply to a divorced husband as well -- though I'm not sure, this would require some thought. If it did apply equally to both parties, then all other elements of divorce arrangements, such as alimony, should apply equally also. Anyway, the point is, for our culture to survive, people need to start taking all their responsibilities seriously.

ThePieSwindler
08-26-2007, 03:56 PM
christ people you are alll missing one major point. The reason there arent many women on this board isnt because women dont like Ron Paul. Oh no - those of you who go out into RL every now and then would understand this. The reason is because one of the primary rules of the interbuttz is that there are no women on the interbuttz. The reason these boards have so few (or no) women is because as the rules say, there are no women on the interbuttz except camwhores and fat chicks with acne. It is a reason completely independant of Ron Paul or his message.

Lois
08-26-2007, 04:12 PM
Hi Politeia,

I just wanted to mention to you -- concerning the 'long-term chronic illness' that you referred to --

There's nothing like the 100% Raw Food Diet and Juicing to heal a body of any number of diseases and health issues. Plus sunshine, pure water, pure air, exercise (rebounding) and as much sleep as possible.

Lois

born2drv
08-26-2007, 04:25 PM
Say a lovely female Ron Paul Supporter from MA was born today, 23 years ago. ;)

Wait.. I'm not newsworthy? Darn, I forgot. :)

Prove it.... pics? :)

Politeia
08-26-2007, 05:26 PM
a lot of problem is that some of the things that have been used to slam ron paul is that because he is pro life he doesnt support women's rights
i view it as him supporting fetal rights over womens rights and i think once you are pregnant its not "your" body anymore, you chose to share your body with a child, and even if you didn't "choose" to share it, you chose not to protect yourself from it so therefore you DID choose to share it so the rights to your body are no longer solely yours.
Hey roxic, if you're still here, thanks for bringing some sunshine into my day; always a pleasure to hear from a woman who takes the trouble to think. That's basically it; it's a matter of contract. Breaking a contract unilaterally, especially when it results in loss of life, is about as irresponsible as you can get. And someone who regards it as her "right" to do so is someone with whom one simply cannot build a workable society.


as a woman who supports ron paul, i believe in the beginning I was a minority. Now that I have personally seen the support among women for myself i don't believe this is true anymore... I think its a pretty equal mix. just because theres more men than women on this board, that doesn't reflect on the real world accurately. In the last 2 months the growth of support among women has grown significantly, and It will continue to grow
Well, I went to the local meetup's first meeting the other night, and it was about half women, including two of the most enthusiastic get-things-doners. (Though one did make a point of how she "supports Ron Paul, though I disagree with him on the abortion issue." Always have to get that in.) Great. My remarks on this thread do not derive from some kind of innate "misogyny", but comprise conclusions I've come to reluctantly, and sadly, over many years of observing the world around me. If American women want to prove me wrong and put Ron Paul in the White House, I'll be a very happy man. I love having intelligent, thoughtful people to converse with, the more apparently different from me (e.g. women, "people of color", etc.), the better.

Politeia
08-26-2007, 05:31 PM
There's nothing like the 100% Raw Food Diet and Juicing to heal a body of any number of diseases and health issues. Plus sunshine, pure water, pure air, exercise (rebounding) and as much sleep as possible.

Lois, thanks for the thought; I have been a student of natural healing for many years, and am familiar with these and many other ideas. Raw food doesn't work for me, I'm afraid, though I know it does for others. My condition has been difficult, but at the same time very rewarding in some respects, giving me an opportunity to think about things I might not have gotten around to otherwise. I am more and more convinced that "everything's going according to plan", and I needn't worry about anything -- except keeping myself ready and open to learning at all times.

I like that bumpersticker I see now and then: "God bless everyone. No exceptions." Very Buddhist, actually.

Sir VotesALot
08-26-2007, 05:38 PM
By pushing to have it repealed. :p

5/5 :D