Appealing to women voters---Ron's delivered thousands of babies!

[Happy Fishing]

I read a breakdown that RP could stand more female voters, yet why is virtually NO emphasis given to the fact that
Ron was an obstetrition and delivered thousands of babies (i think something like over 6000) during his career!!

Those are fascinating, admirable, and amazing traits/stats to moms and grandmoms that clearly demonstrate his warmth and character, particularly when highlighted and emphasized in light of the impact he wants to have on ALL youngsters by ensuring them a prosperous and free America to grow up in.

Also, those elderly voters he seems to have to work a bit harder for are statistically more likely to be women (women live longer than men), and are most likely grandmoms !!! so, duh, he really should be chatting them up about his OB career and his concern that all their grandchildren get to come up in the America they deserve.

[nano1895]

Ironically the female vote is what carried Ron Paul to Congress in his district. (for precisely this reason as thread title)

[Happy Fishing]

So why is it NOT being emphasized more, such as:

Tossed out as a warm note during a debate and at the whistlestops/Townhalls.

In literature and videos.

And MOST IMPORTANTLY RIGHT NOW every time you get a female voter on the phone during the 'Phone from Home's,
and every time you get a mom or grandmom at the door while doing door to door canvassing.

Now don't get me wrong, maybe this is already being done casually, but I think it should be a part of formal campaigning stategy right now to get that fact out upfront to all the potential female voters canvassed because it truly is an amazing attention grabber and testimony to his wonderful character.

[Happy Fishing]

Hello, Hello out in testosterone land---pay attention to what is important to half of Ron's potential voters, the ladies, and you might get more of their votes!

My gosh, a former Air Force pilot in service to defend the freedoms of Americans who has delivered over six thousand babies, and who has been an honorable Congressional Representative over the course of thirty years!

It doesn't get any better than that.
Get it out there in NH, not enough people are even aware of those things,
keep it simple

[PursuePeace]

Just to give you one perspective from someone who just happens to be female. His being an OB/GYN and delivering babies is the furthest thing from my mind when choosing the person who I want to lead the country. It has zero significance to me.

I'm a person first, female is just my sex.
What drew me to Ron Paul was his views on:
foreign policy
civil liberties
economy
the role of government
bringing troops home
2nd amendment
drug war
our freedoms and getting gov't the hell out of our business
etc. etc.

I could go on and on and on about each of these topics. The OB/GYN stuff is just irrelevant.

[The One]

Just to give you one perspective from someone who just happens to be female. His being an OB/GYN and delivering babies is the furthest thing from my mind when choosing the person who I want to lead the country. It has zero significance to me.

I'm a person first, female is just my sex.
What drew me to Ron Paul was his views on:
foreign policy
civil liberties
economy
the role of government
bringing troops home
2nd amendment
drug war
our freedoms and getting gov't the hell out of our business
etc. etc.

I could go on and on and on about each of these topics. The OB/GYN stuff is just irrelevant.


You're atypical.

[rblgenius]

Appeal to frat men: Ron has been in 4 thousand women parts! He's da mannnn

[Happy Fishing]

That my friend is silly and selfish.

We are being reminded and remonstrated over and over after analysis of the NUMBERS that we must broaden Ron's appeal to old school traditional conservative older Republican voters.

Maybe to you this is not relevent but to an entire generation of the voters we would like to appeal to it is irrelevent to them and even a bit silly if you want to go around and open your own car doors and shovel your own snow and bring home your own bacon and act like the act of bringing life into the world is unimportant, and god help Ron Paul if you are one of the phoners talking down to traditional conservative women who put a great emphasis in voting upon TRUST, and just might be interested and comforted to learn of an opportunity to place their progenies' futures in the hands of a trusted, honorable, and great man.

[freeforall]

You're atypical.

Maybe not. I am a female and agree that although I think it is endearing that he has delivered over 4,000 babies it has nothing to do with my support. I will say that I am highly interested in issues related to parenting my children and my personal freedoms. When it comes to his knowledge of the economy and foreign policy I am just impressed. He makes me want to learn more and understand how these things impact me, my family, and my community.

[pen_thief]

The only thing that has appealed to my feminine sensibilities was this:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rdQs_ohR61o

What brought me to Ron Paul came way before I saw that; it was his stance on civil liberties, obeying the Constitution, foreign policy, etc. In short, I don't think the women problem can be easily solved. They probably vote how the men in their lives sway them to vote. They probably vote for the good-looking one. No, I don't have much faith in my own gender. Sorry.

[tempest]

Just to give you one perspective from someone who just happens to be female. His being an OB/GYN and delivering babies is the furthest thing from my mind when choosing the person who I want to lead the country. It has zero significance (...) The OB/GYN stuff is just irrelevant.
I don't think the women problem can be easily solved. They probably vote how the men in their lives sway them to vote. They probably vote for the good-looking one. No, I don't have much faith in my own gender. Sorry.Edit: Dayum.

Lemme try to figure out this contradition (IKR, as if :)

Perhaps it's a single (and mostly young) versus married (and mostly older) thing and that women go thru a "don't patronize me" phase when they are young and mostly single, but then after a while they are more willing to listen and eventually agree with "hubby" (regarding such matters) especially if he happens to be politically opinionated. They do this largly out of desire for social circle/neighborly conformity.

[PursuePeace]

Hmmm. After reading post #8, think I'll save my post for a more productive thread.

[Happy Fishing]

I disagree.

First off I said obstetrician. Not OB-GYN.

Secondly I did not say 'brandish'. What could be easier than a simple confirmation that someone is aware of how remarkable RP is by say inquiring "Did you know that Ron Paul served our country as an Air Force pilot, became an MD and delivered over 6000 babies, and over the course of thirty years has honorably served our country as an uncorruptable Congressman?

Also, this generation of female voters we are trying to appeal to kept Dr. Spock next to their nightstands, so I guess no way an obstetrician would in any way have had any 'sway' over their world view.

[Happy Fishing]

Tempest, no you didn't get it.

I laughingly cannot think of a single female I've ever met who voted for who her husband wanted her to vote for.

Its more of a 'why of course I voted for your candidate sweetie' with a sweet smile.

Trustworthiness is a big deal in a candidate.

And I don't think this is an unproductive thread. The numbers say there is a bit of a problem there.

We need these votes.

As marketers of RP, our means of preserving our liberty for future generations, I think it behooves us to spend just a bit of time figuring out, as it pertains to choosing a presidential candidate, the answer to that perenniel question.
what do women want.

Don't think for a moment that the competition has not spent considerable dollars and effort focus grouping this like crazy.

Remember the Al Gore clothing color pallete changes, etc.

This is war votes are votes!

[pen_thief]

Edit: Dayum.

Lemme try to figure out this contradition (IKR, as if :)

Perhaps it's a single (and mostly young) versus married (and mostly older) thing and that women go thru a "don't patronize me" phase when they are young and mostly single, but then after a while they are more willing to listen and eventually agree with "hubby" (regarding such matters) especially if he happens to be politically opinionated. They do this largly out of desire for social circle/neighborly conformity.

I admire you for trying, lol
I am single, 26, and have no kids...so you could be onto something :p
(But agree with "hubby" on who to vote for because I am too lazy or scared to think for myself?! Think I'll go jump off a cliff first! :D )

[abstrusezincate]

At the risk of getting myself in trouble, I'll say it bluntly based on field experience: Women vote differently.

Women generally don't vote on hardcore policy issues. They vote for someone who looks confident, acts strong, conveys a positive message, and focuses on issues that have direct appeal to their lives.

Mitt does better with women, for instance, because he has "the look". These things never quantify perfectly, and of course there are many intelligent women who understand the policy issues involved and vote accordingly, but we're talking about voters who look for other qualities.

That said, Ron could take a little inspiration from the ad that killed Goldwater.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dDTBnsqxZ3k&feature=related

I don't think America has seen the real cost of its wars, in the trauma our servicemen and women experienced, and asked what we gained for it. It's a risky ad, but I do think there's something here that can reach women as mothers and daughters.

[PursuePeace]

Y'know what. It's late, can't sleep.
Just reread Happy Fishing's posts and I'm thinking I may have misinterpreted them.
Will revisit this thread tomorrow.
*sigh* this topic is frustrating to begin with.

[Happy Fishing]

Because we need these votes.

Its worth it to think of why we are not quite hitting the mark with these voters.

This is going to be a hard fought battle.

Why discount an entire subset that we need because perhaps they think a little differently about things than ourselves. I don't think we have the luxury of saying too bad, they should see things my way. We want their vote
not the other way around so its incumbant upon us to try to figure them out a bit more, and see what we need to change.

I'm from NH and believe me if your selling what they aren't buying, well the road is paved with good intentions.

[Moo2400]

Ron Paul having delivered 4000 babies isn't going to do much for him with women. It's a good point to make when you talk of Ron Paul's respect for life when talking about him being pro-life, but it's not a good point to bring up when you try to appeal to women. If anything, I can see it backfiring by making you look sexist, as if the main thing on a woman's mind is having babies. I'm sure to the women whose babies he delivered it was important and endearing, but to the rest of the female population, I doubt it.

The things that will endear women to Ron Paul are pretty much the same things which endear men to him. The problem, however, isn't so much Ron Paul but the fact that libertarianism in general doesn't seem to attract nearly as many women as men. Why that's the case I can't say for sure, but I would venture a guess that women are conditioned to think of themselves and their identities in a more collective manner - you see it pushed by modern feminism, where it essentially creates and promotes a female-centric interpretation on a variety of issues, even to the point of dominating the discourse on some (abortion, domestic violence, eating disorders, single parenthood, etc.). The end result is to create a general sense of vulnerability on some level among women because they are women, which then leads to a worldview based on their being a woman (as opposed to their simply being any other individual), and consequently a more collectivist mindset. This doesn't happen with men. This isn't to say that all women are collectivist and men are individualist, but that our society seems to instill a collectivist mindset in women in greater numbers than men. Ultimately, libertarianism and Ron Paul's message is an individualist one, and thus it may have a little more difficulty appealing to women in the numbers that it appeals to men. To get it to appeal to women in those kinds of numbers would require some deconstruction of a lot of that, and that isn't exactly something one man can do at campaign stops, even Ron Paul. To do that kind of deconstruction would take an entire generation.

In other words, you're going to have to accept that we have to live with Ron Paul's message appealing to men in greater numbers than women.

[Happy Fishing]

Ron Paul having delivered 4000 babies isn't going to do much for him with women. It's a good point to make when you talk of Ron Paul's respect for life when talking about him being pro-life, but it's not a good point to bring up when you try to appeal to women. If anything, I can see it backfiring by making you look sexist, as if the main thing on a woman's mind is having babies. I'm sure to the women whose babies he delivered it was important and endearing, but to the rest of the female population, I doubt it.

The things that will endear women to Ron Paul are pretty much the same things which endear men to him. The problem, however, isn't so much Ron Paul but the fact that libertarianism in general doesn't seem to attract nearly as many women as men. Why that's the case I can't say for sure, but I would venture a guess that women are conditioned to think of themselves and their identities in a more collective manner - you see it pushed by modern feminism, where it essentially creates and promotes a female-centric interpretation on a variety of issues, even to the point of dominating the discourse on some (abortion, domestic violence, eating disorders, single parenthood, etc.). The end result is to create a general sense of vulnerability on some level among women because they are women, which then leads to a worldview based on their being a woman (as opposed to their simply being any other individual), and consequently a more collectivist mindset. This doesn't happen with men. This isn't to say that all women are collectivist and men are individualist, but that our society seems to instill a collectivist mindset in women in greater numbers than men. Ultimately, libertarianism and Ron Paul's message is an individualist one, and thus it may have a little more difficulty appealing to women in the numbers that it appeals to men. To get it to appeal to women in those kinds of numbers would require some deconstruction of a lot of that, and that isn't exactly something one man can do at campaign stops, even Ron Paul. To do that kind of deconstruction would take an entire generation.

In other words, you're going to have to accept that we have to live with Ron Paul's message appealing to men in greater numbers than women.


Women are no more or less collectivist than men. Liberty for ourselves, our families and our future generations are just as important.

And its not rocket science in so far as needing deconstruction.

Listen, men love their football/baseball stats, great conversation starters/icebreakers.

I'm just thinking you've got to throw something out there that piques the female voter interest long enough to get the libertarian message out, and lets face it it aint Ron's dashing sense of style!

[wistfulthinker]

I'm a woman, been married to the world's best husband for fifteen years. I was first attracted to Paul's monetary policy. The last of his campaign platforms I contended with was his non-interventionist stance. I'm an interventionist personally. If I see someone being hurt, I intervene. I've done this again and again at some risk to myself. I admire this about myself. I have admired this about our nation's foreign policy. It wasn't until I understood that Paul's non-interventionist policy did not preclude me, or any of us, from acting heroically as individuals in any conflict that experienced a flip in my thinking. Paul doesn't believe that I should not act heroically for anyone else; he just believes that the government should not compel me or my tax dollars to act heroically.

For me, as a woman trying to convert my female friends and family to Paul, it has nothing to do with the issues. That's pretty easy. We are a logical gender. It's about his delivery. We see him skip beats. We see that his logic is directed toward some fantasy audience and not the real men and women considering him. He misses lots of beats. We shout to the screen, "Just say...." But he doesn't. He persists in reminding us of the boyfriend we had in high school (the one we didn't marry) who was bent on reciting the make and model number of every plane at an airshow. Paul persists in believing knowledge satisfies communication.

It doesn't. Women know the difference. We're longing for Paul to prove up his knowledge and show us that he is able to communicate. I would say that most of what Paul says challenges the listener to move toward him. That will get him a good ways. But, I think, women have a sense that he needs to take that next step, move out of his bubble of reciting plane engine numbers, and communicate to the audience.

He just seems unable to do this. On issue after issue, he recites his plane identifications and misses the chance to communicate. I'll work for him anyway. But it will always be with the anyway, with a recognition that the man better get some discerning types and some communicators onboard if he want so really be the first step in an American restoration project.

[Orwell]

I'm a woman, been married to the world's best husband for fifteen years. I was first attracted to Paul's monetary policy. The last of his campaign platforms I contended with was his non-interventionist stance. I'm an interventionist personally. If I see someone being hurt, I intervene. I've done this again and again at some risk to myself. I admire this about myself. I have admired this about our nation's foreign policy. It wasn't until I understood that Paul's non-interventionist policy did not preclude me, or any of us, from acting heroically as individuals in any conflict that experienced a flip in my thinking. Paul doesn't believe that I should not act heroically for anyone else; he just believes that the government should not compel me or my tax dollars to act heroically.

For me, as a woman trying to convert my female friends and family to Paul, it has nothing to do with the issues. That's pretty easy. We are a logical gender. It's about his delivery. We see him skip beats. We see that his logic is directed toward some fantasy audience and not the real men and women considering him. He misses lots of beats. We shout to the screen, "Just say...." But he doesn't. He persists in reminding us of the boyfriend we had in high school (the one we didn't marry) who was bent on reciting the make and model number of every plane at an airshow. Paul persists in believing knowledge satisfies communication.

It doesn't. Women know the difference. We're longing for Paul to prove up his knowledge and show us that he is able to communicate. I would say that most of what Paul says challenges the listener to move toward him. That will get him a good ways. But, I think, women have a sense that he needs to take that next step, move out of his bubble of reciting plane engine numbers, and communicate to the audience.

He just seems unable to do this. On issue after issue, he recites his plane identifications and misses the chance to communicate. I'll work for him anyway. But it will always be with the anyway, with a recognition that the man better get some discerning types and some communicators onboard if he want so really be the first step in an American restoration project.


I think what you said is quite accurate, but it goes back to what was previously mentioned in this thread as 'looking the part'. A large part to 'looking the part' is the delivery of talking points. Politics, like the business world, is often about sounding good rather than being right. I do believe men typically are more engaged in politics, with the fairer gender giving only a cursory glance, which is something that doesn't benefit Paul or lend to an understanding of his positions.

[Moo2400]

Women are no more or less collectivist than men.

Intrinsically I agree, but you cannot deny that women and men are given rather different messages by society growing up, to the extent that it can alter perceptions between the two genders. From what I've seen among the small sample of women I've talked to about their worldviews, a larger portion than men seem to attribute a variety of things to being a woman - for example, walking through a relatively unsafe place at night alone and feeling unsafe because they're a woman (despite statistics showing that men are assaulted in greater numbers). I almost never hear of men attributing something like their safety to their gender. Women not being taken seriously in a situation (such as political discussion) seem to be more likely to believe that they're not being taken seriously because they're a woman. I almost never hear of men jumping to that sort of conclusion, usually looking for other factors pertinent to the situation. There's a variety of examples I could list like this.

And I should reiterate that this isn't to suggest that all women think like this (or that all men are individualists), but rather, that more women seem to attribute things to their being a woman than men attribute things to being a man. That is a very collectivist notion, and it is one that appears to be conditioned, and perhaps with some good reason - for example, for women to break out of their traditional gender roles as has been the case since the 60s, more women than men would have gained a heightened awareness of all of what it entails of being a woman, the societal expectations that go along with that and the structures that were created in the past to accommodate it (and consequently is what's being broken). Men never had that, and you would notice that by and large men are still confined to their traditional gender roles, certainly more so than women at least - hence the lack of collectively attributing much of anything to being a man by most men. It's this collective thinking that can lead to more thinking that might turn one off to libertarianism, or at least cause one to seriously misunderstand the message.


Liberty for ourselves, our families and our future generations are just as important.

Of course it is, but I'm speaking about an issue of perceptions, not one of values.


And its not rocket science in so far as needing deconstruction.

Listen, men love their football/baseball stats, great conversation starters/icebreakers.

I'm sorry, where were you going with this?


I'm just thinking you've got to throw something out there that piques the female voter interest long enough to get the libertarian message out, and lets face it it aint Ron's dashing sense of style!

Personally, I'm unconvinced that that's the reason why Ron Paul lacks female support. I'd like to think most women are not more shallow than most men are.

[Castrensis]

Maybe it's just me, but this whole idea seems antithetical to the way Ron Paul campaigns. He doesn't change his message or his affect to suit a certain audience, he goes out as himself, talks about the issues & transforms the way people think about them. Sure he'll talk about the issues that are particularly important to a certain electorate if that's what they'd like to talk about, but I could never imagine Ron Paul responding to a query from a woman of "why should I vote for you?" with "Well, I've delivered 4000 babies." He wouldn't think to imagine that a woman would be any less able to understand his message & resort to pandering to her womb. Women should be respected as individuals. As with any other person, talk to them about issues that they're interested in & use it as a segue to topics they probably haven't even considered. I really don't see the goal as selling the man, it's about teaching the message.