Wash Times: Ron Paul’s campaign finds Big Gender Gap

[bobbyw24]

Ron Paul’s been playing to big crowds in Iowa and New Hampshire, but there’s something striking about them — there are usually way more men than women at his events.

That gender gap was evident in the voting in Iowa, too, where entrance polls before the caucuses showed he won a larger percentage of the male vote than the female vote. The gap is persisting into New Hampshire, where The Washington Times/JZ Analytics poll released last week found a 12 percentage point difference between his support from men and women.

Following Iowa’s voting, his supporters took note.

“Huge gender gap! We are not getting women voters!” read the headline on an active discussion on DailyPaul.com, an independent website that has become a must-read forum for his supporters.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/jan/9/pauls-campaign-finds-big-gender-gap-to-bridge/

[bobbyw24]

www.DailyPaul.com

an independent website that has become a must-read forum for his supporters.

http://www.dailypaul.com/files/images/ron-paul-2012b.jpg

[Warrior_of_Freedom]

not-sure-how-to-explain-without-sounding-sexist

[Kevin Smyth]

not-sure-how-to-explain-without-sounding-sexist

I'll say it for you: More women vote based on physical appearance than men and unfortunately the ladies just don't think Ron Paul is a hot guy. :rolleyes:

[Warrior_of_Freedom]

I'll say it for you: More women vote based on physical appearance than men and unfortunately the ladies just don't think Ron Paul is a hot guy. :rolleyes:That reminds me of my female friend who voted for Bush in the 2008 elections because she thought he was better looking than Kerry. I would think it would be on abortion, but both Paul and Frothy disagree with it, except Paul doesn't want to force anti-abortion legislation down the state's throats--so got no idea.

[bobbyw24]

I'll say it for you: More women vote based on physical appearance than men and unfortunately the ladies just don't think Ron Paul is a hot guy. :rolleyes:

They say that in 1920, women chose the better looking candidate--by a large margin

[moostraks]

They need to get out the old family pics and the stories regarding how he handled his ob practice. I have been insulted in the past by AF's characterization of women but recent exposure to a group of voting females has jaded me to the fact that he is more right than wrong. The female voter is more emotional and irrational.

[FreeTraveler]

Part of it's looks, part of it is abortion, part of it is that more women than men vote from emotion, not logic -- and part of it is that we've failed to figure out how to work around those three issues.

[ghengis86]

Maybe they don't view him as compassionate with regard to the poor, the old and children? One woman's question at a townhall asked about how Paul would deal with child welfare/healthcare for the poor. Seems they need to be educated a bit more on market delivered services vs gov delivered.

[Dsylexic]

better looking candidate?..not as bad a reason as neocon warmongering.atleast the motive is stupid and not evil

[bobbyw24]

Women loved Clinton

[nobody's_hero]

Good opportunity here to give a shout-out to all the female(s?) on Ron Paul forums to see past the superficial and vote for substance.

[matt0611]

That darn 19th amendment...

[swissaustrian]

Free advertising for the daily paul, let´s take it.

[Corey]

You can call me sexist, doesn't bother me. I've never known a woman who was actively engaged in politics for its own sake, in my entire life. Not to say they aren't around. But in order to get Ron Paul, you have to actively do research, and see through the propaganda. It's just a bridge too far for people who are generally casual observers.

In fact, I'll go even further than that. Just one generation ago, most women probably voted for whoever their husband voted for. Not because they were subservient, but because they didn't care all that much, and were deferring to someone who they felt knew more. Now the media has more of an influence than family, education, religion or anything else put together. When people call it big brother, I'm afraid it can be taken quite literally.

[fisharmor]

Women loved Clinton
Oh, how much we've learned since then.... if we could have a fiscally conservative president who runs surpluses, at a time when the dollar is strong, I wouldn't care how many hummers he gets in the oval office.

Of course, that whole pioneering paramilitary raids on people who haven't committed crimes thing would have to go.

[da32130]

The female voter is more emotional and irrational.

This is really misplaced male superiority.

Ron Paul makes a trade off of long term benefit vs short term caring. Women are less likely to be willing to make that trade off.

Wanting long term economic growth is as subjective a goal as wanting to help everyone today with what we have and be willing to have less later.

Maybe if Paul people weren't blinded to this we could do better.

[Kandilynn]

All of the more active Ron Paul supporters I know were navy nukes along with my husband and the military has way more men than women. Maybe that factors in a little bit? Also that article doesn't actually compare Ron Paul to any other candidates, it just took some people talking on a forum and made it a story.

My husband also said that there are apparently scientific studies that prove men are better at economics than women. :rolleyes:

[bobbyw24]

Free advertising for the daily paul, let´s take it.

Yep

[CaptUSA]

A lot of collectivist thought in here...

I'm not sure why this is, but I would suspect that there is a larger percentage of women that do not feed on politics the way a larger percentage of men do.

Just speaking from personal experience, my wife thinks much more locally. She thinks about the aspects of her life that she can control and thinks national politics is something that is out of her control. She likes Ron Paul because he is all about returning control to the localities as much as possible. Thereby, putting these issues back closer to her control. I'm not sure if this aspect would be a selling point to more women or not.

[Hook]

Women loved Clinton

And he loved some of them too.

[da32130]

My husband also said that there are apparently scientific studies that prove men are better at economics than women. :rolleyes:

Well most economics is a joke (the world is keynesian). So it looks like women win again.

[bobbyw24]

And he loved some of them too.

Political Spoils-or Not

[Diurdi]

Well most economics is a joke (the world is keynesian). So it looks like women win again. Keynesian macro is a small piece of the whole field of economics. So is the whole Austrian school.

On Topic: Again, you can blame the women if you wan't, but it would be more constructive to blame the campaign. To try and figure why the campaign cannot get their votes.

[Birdlady]

I hate threads like this. They become a place where it is ok to bash women as a collectivist group. If there is such a huge percentage of men here, then that must mean your wives and gf's do not support Ron Paul. Have you asked them yourself why they don't like him?

[bobbyw24]

I hate threads like this. They become a place where it is ok to bash women as a collectivist group. If there is such a huge percentage of men here, then that must mean your wives and gf's do not support Ron Paul. Have you asked them yourself why they don't like him?

Thanks to me, my wife loves Ron Paul and votes for him

[Birdlady]

Thanks to me, my wife loves Ron Paul and votes for him

awesome! :)

[da32130]

Keynesian macro is a small piece of the whole field of economics. So is the whole Austrian school.

Considering you have Macro and Micro, and Macro is what most of the world focuses on (fed, world bank, etc), where Kenyes is their main approach, I'm not sure the comment is that outlandish.

However, my main issue is that the male superiority here is out of control. The point about women and economics is in line with that. Assuming it is true, it is because women don't see it as a practical thing to learn about, not because they can't.

Similarly, if women don't like Paul there is a good reason for it that doesn't include a smear on all women. For the men that can't find what that reason is, then I can think of some smears for them that hit them were it hurts (think of close minded, weak thinkers, uncritical, subjective, etc).

[moostraks]

This is really misplaced male superiority.

Ron Paul makes a trade off of long term benefit vs short term caring. Women are less likely to be willing to make that trade off.

Wanting long term economic growth is as subjective a goal as wanting to help everyone today with what we have and be willing to have less later.

Maybe if Paul people weren't blinded to this we could do better.

LOL! I am female...If you think otherwise visit a birth board or parenting board and get back with me. Again women are emotional and more irrational. Try a conversation with logical facts with some of the more irrational females and let me know how it works for you. The ones who are driving us off a cliff are getting their information from sound bytes and are usually young mothers who fancy themselves informed on the issues. They are very passionate and VERY short sighted.

[happyphilter]

I've got my mom to like Paul. I also have a bad habit of making girls watch Ron Paul videos when I bring them back from the bar...

[Corey]

I've got my mom to like Paul. I also have a bad habit of making girls watch Ron Paul videos when I bring them back from the bar...

LMFAO, the women in our lives must think we're a bit crazy, and they might be right!

[Kevin Smyth]

Considering you have Macro and Micro, and Macro is what most of the world focuses on (fed, world bank, etc), where Kenyes is their main approach, I'm not sure the comment is that outlandish.

However, my main issue is that the male superiority here is out of control. The point about women and economics is in line with that. Assuming it is true, it is because women don't see it as a practical thing to learn about, not because they can't.

Similarly, if women don't like Paul there is a good reason for it that doesn't include a smear on all women. For the men that can't find what that reason is, then I can think of some smears for them that hit them were it hurts (think of close minded, weak thinkers, uncritical, subjective, etc).

Oh please, the biggest collectivism being advocated in this thread is the Marxist claim that gender differences don't exist, don't forget that Lenin was a Feminist and that destroying the rule of the patriarchy is a core element of the Communist movement. In other words, pretending that women don't look at issues differently from men is in itself totalitarian Socialistic thinking. Furthermore, the exception does not make the rule, so finding some women who like Ron Paul doesn't alter what the basic demographic data is revealing: that women in general don't like Ron Paul.

[LiveForHonortune]

Ron Paul is just too manly for them.

[Mini-Me]

The vast majority of Americans [of both sexes] vote for particular candidates for very superficial reasons, and most criticisms of Ron Paul are also superficial (whereas the issues-based criticisms come from the public's poor understanding of foreign policy and economics). Men often vote for the candidate who looks the "strongest" and "most Presidential" too, so it's not exactly sexist to think a large portion of women will find excuses to vote for candidates they find more attractive. If all of the candidates were women, I get the feeling most men would vote for the hottest one as well. In short, I think a female version of Ron Paul would be at a similar disadvantage, for the same reason.

Among the people who actually vote on issues, many have been emotionally manipulated into only caring about deliberately divisive wedge issues, that should never have been issues of contention for Presidential elections in the first place. Among the people interested in relevant issues, most people are still dominated by their emotions, and the establishment knows this: Fear is manipulated to create hatred of overblown and manufactured enemies, and empathy and compassion are manipulated to support economic redistribution and centralization. More men probably fall into the former trap, and more women probably fall into the latter, but only a minority of people really care about the issues enough to seek the real answers. da32130 may be right about Ron Paul's views being at odds with most women's time preferences as well.

Overall, I only see three options:
Convince people to use logic and reason instead of being led by their emotions. This has worked on most of us, and it's truly necessary for long-term progress, but it's probably a dead-end for this particular election: Changing people's tendencies is extremely difficult and time-consuming. Ron Paul also already has most of the innately logical voters, and the rest are buried deep inside years of wrong thinking and fortresses of mistaken assumptions that will take years or decades to penetrate.
Rouse a fire in people's hearts for liberty that overpowers their other emotional tendencies...but that well has already been largely tapped, with respect to this election. Stereotypically, men have a stronger yearning for freedom anyway, whereas women have a stronger yearning for security. I'm not sure how accurate that is, but I haven't really seen anything that shows otherwise in terms of averages.
Reframe Ron Paul's stance on particular issues in a way that strikes a chord with people's emotions. It's a shame we have to resort to this, but it's really the only way to actually broaden his appeal. The Compassion ad isn't issue-specific, but it does a great job here. Appealing more to women may involve focusing more on issues like bringing the troops home; for instance, feel-good ads showing soldiers returning home to their moms might be more effective for women than men.

[da32130]

LOL! I am female...If you think otherwise visit a birth board or parenting board and get back with me. Again women are emotional and more irrational. Try a conversation with logical facts with some of the more irrational females and let me know how it works for you. The ones who are driving us off a cliff are getting their information from sound bytes and are usually young mothers who fancy themselves informed on the issues. They are very passionate and VERY short sighted.

As if men aren't getting their information from sound bytes (we are losing big with the 65+ crowd, men and women).

As if men aren't irrational about topics, such as being homophobic, wanting to watch sports, etc.

We do well with the young (men and women). What is killing us is the elderly and on average women over males.

Try convicing a neocon male that paul is right about his foreign policy and you'll see some irrationality.

You obviously have an issue with those women and irrationality is the easy smear, but men can be just as bad.

[moostraks]

I hate threads like this. They become a place where it is ok to bash women as a collectivist group. If there is such a huge percentage of men here, then that must mean your wives and gf's do not support Ron Paul. Have you asked them yourself why they don't like him?

I think women need to start to assess what drives us and be honest rather than ignoring our short comings. Men who approach dh and I usually automatically assume that DH is the big RP supporter (we have a 15 passenger RPed van so we are obvious long haul supporters). It is amusing to watch them discredit me and then he defers to me when they ask us questions:)

Media, marketing, and education have done a number on women. Undoing the damage requires dedication (from both men and women)to a cause greater than ones immediate wants. So guys need to look at what type of desires they are projecting in a mate as well...

The keep it local argument works well with me as well. Frame arguments by showing the detrimental effects of a strong federal position that has no compassion because of distance but rules on matters too broadly for too large a segment of the population. Show how the family is adversely affected by a meddlesome federal government.

[da32130]

Oh please, the biggest collectivism being advocated in this thread is the Marxist claim that gender differences don't exist, don't forget that Lenin was a Feminist and that destroying the rule of the patriarchy is a core element of the Communist movement. In other words, pretending that women don't look at issues differently from men is in itself totalitarian Socialistic thinking. Furthermore, the exception does not make the rule, so finding some women who like Ron Paul doesn't alter what the basic demographic data is revealing: that women in general don't like Ron Paul.

This is exactly my point. They do look at the issue differently and have a good reason to do so. What I object to is the claim that they are emotional and irrational idiots.

The fact is Socialism can be valid depending on your values. If you can't see that you're irrational. Women are more prone to those values. Nobody has to value long term economic growth. It is as subjective as anything else.

[Kevin Smyth]

LOL! I am female...If you think otherwise visit a birth board or parenting board and get back with me. Again women are emotional and more irrational. Try a conversation with logical facts with some of the more irrational females and let me know how it works for you. The ones who are driving us off a cliff are getting their information from sound bytes and are usually young mothers who fancy themselves informed on the issues. They are very passionate and VERY short sighted.

You are right, denial of gender differences makes some of the posters here sound like Marxists. There's nothing Conservative about spreading the lie that men and women are identical in their emotions or in their thinking patterns.

[rgampell]

Ron Paul makes a trade off of long term benefit vs short term caring. Women are less likely to be willing to make that trade off.

Wanting long term economic growth is as subjective a goal as wanting to help everyone today with what we have and be willing to have less later.

Maybe if Paul people weren't blinded to this we could do better.

I think this is a really good point. And I'm not sure that Paul is really getting buy-in from men on this, either. The Hayek-ian road that we would take under Paul requires a GREAT DEAL of short-term pain to get things back on the right track. I have these little flash-forward nightmares of a Paul presidency in which the first little drop in GDP in met with HUGE resistance from the neo-Keynesian establishment, followed by reversal of the Hayek-ian policies, and finally the whole episode is held up in perpetuity as "evidence" that the Austrian school is an economic disaster, never to be revisited.

IMO, we Paul supporters (men and women) not only need to understand what we are asking for, we have to embrace it and defend it. As it is, we are basically ignoring it.

[Diurdi]

Considering you have Macro and Micro, and Macro is what most of the world focuses on (fed, world bank, etc), where Kenyes is their main approach, I'm not sure the comment is that outlandish. Most people aren't employed in analysis the economies of different Nation's. The field of economics is much wider than that.

[moostraks]

As if men aren't getting their information from sound bytes (we are losing big with the 65+ crowd, men and women).

As if men aren't irrational about topics, such as being homophobic, wanting to watch sports, etc.

We do well with the young (men and women). What is killing us is the elderly and on average women over males.

Try convicing a neocon male that paul is right about his foreign policy and you'll see some irrationality.

You obviously have an issue with those women and irrationality is the easy smear, but men can be just as bad.

You obviously are discrediting how marketing and education and values are imposed upon different genders. Men and women are not the same. Women are persuaded differently than men. If you try to connect the dots through dry factual data you will generally not get very far. Men tend to argue their fears based upon stats, Women have more nebulous discussions.

[moostraks]

This is exactly my point. They do look at the issue differently and have a good reason to do so. What I object to is the claim that they are emotional and irrational idiots.

The fact is Socialism can be valid depending on your values. If you can't see that you're irrational. Women are more prone to those values. Nobody has to value long term economic growth. It is as subjective as anything else.

Socialism is impractical for large groups. Explaining that requires knowing your target audience and how they think emotionally rather than statistically.

[da32130]

Most people aren't employed in analysis the economies of different Nation's. The field of economics is much wider than that.

The initial comment was tongue in cheek.

However, based on headlines (what should the fed do, what bailout should take place, etc.) and for those not involved in the field, most economics comes through as Keynesian socialist market manipulation. So we need more information on what the initial poster's comment was based on.

My real point is that it is a smear to dismiss what women value. What they value is as valid as what men value. But men smear them instead of thinking more critically and trying to understand.

[Mini-Me]

This is exactly my point. They do look at the issue differently and have a good reason to do so. What I object to is the claim that they are emotional and irrational idiots.

The fact is Socialism can be valid depending on your values. If you can't see that you're irrational. Women are more prone to those values. Nobody has to value long term economic growth. It is as subjective as anything else.

I tend to disagree here: Have you ever met anyone who calls themselves "short-sighted and proud of it?" A short time preference may technically be a valid value choice, but that alone doesn't make it rational: Even people with a short time preference rarely care so little about the awful long-term consequences that they'd knowingly choose to behave in a way that creates them. Instead, they invariably make the choices they do because they're too emotionally driven (irrational) to help themselves, or because they are too illogical[/irrational] to comprehend the long-term implications in the first place. In the most abstract sense, a fully rational person could technically have a short time preference...but how often is this phenomenon actually observed in nature, compared to the prevalence of people who just "don't get it?" ;) Dismissing people as irrational isn't effective for gaining votes or support, but that doesn't make it untrue either.

[da32130]

Socialism is impractical for large groups. Explaining that requires knowing your target audience and how they think emotionally rather than statistically.

Economically impractical when it comes to long term economic well being. Not everybody cares about that. Some people care about everyone being treated equally.

[da32130]

I tend to disagree here: Have you ever met anyone who calls themselves "short-sighted and proud of it?" A short time preference may technically be a valid value choice, but that alone doesn't make it rational: Even people with a short time preference rarely care so little about the awful long-term consequences that they'd knowingly choose to behave in a way that creates them. Instead, they invariably make the choices they do because they're too emotionally driven (irrational) to help themselves, or because they are too illogical[/irrational] to comprehend the long-term implications in the first place. In the most abstract sense, a fully rational person could technically have a short time preference...but how often is this phenomenon actually observed in nature, compared to the prevalence of people who just "don't get it?" ;)

And have you met anyone that prides themselves on the Ron Paul depression if he were elected. We tend not to focus on it but it could happen.

We also don't focus on the fact that slavery, segregation, homophobia, etc. could emerge in some locality should Ron Paul win and everything be decided locally.

We value the long term. Others are more focused on these short term issues. We all have blind spots.

[Mini-Me]

Economically impractical when it comes to long term economic well being. Not everybody cares about that. Some people care about everyone being treated equally.

The problem with this line of argument is that under socialism, everyone is not treated equally in practice. Therefore, it would be irrational for a fully informed person to actually choose socialism on the basis of everyone being treated equally. Who is left supporting socialism? Irrational people! (Well, and rational people with unchecked assumptions...)

[da32130]

You are right, denial of gender differences makes some of the posters here sound like Marxists. There's nothing Conservative about spreading the lie that men and women are identical in their emotions or in their thinking patterns.

You are distorting what people are objecting to. It is the reason FOR the difference, not the actual difference.

Marxism isn't a slur if you value equality. Most Paul supporters don't. Some people do.

[sanssq]

I'll say it for you: More women vote based on physical appearance than men and unfortunately the ladies just don't think Ron Paul is a hot guy. :rolleyes:

Santorum gets more female votes than male votes. Too much TV in America. It's America's Next Political Idol. We select based on nice hair and who has the best cliches. We should have the candidates dance and sing too! And then vote for the one that lies to us the best.

[da32130]

The problem with this line of argument is that under socialism, everyone is not treated equally in practice. Therefore, it would be irrational for a fully informed person to actually choose socialism on the basis of everyone being treated equally.

In practice under capitalism some people becomes homeless and die. Not every family makes it to the promised long run.

However, under socialism the inequality could be much less (implementation does matter, but in capitalism it matters too) and the productivity of society (and average long term well-being) would also be lower.

[RockEnds]

I know women who support Ron Paul, and I don't think they're irrational about their support. (I'm a woman, btw.) I do know both men and women who are irrational in buying into the fear, and they do it for different reasons. Nonetheless, from my perspective, both are irrational. The men tend to have the emotional reaction to foreign policy. For some people, it doesn't matter if you explain it once or 50 times, those Arabs are gonna get us if we don't get them first. The women tend to have the emotional reaction to the quirky little things we don't think about often such as, "I hear he wants to legalize prostitution." No matter how many times I explained that prostitution is already a state issue (legal in Nevada), they still reacted the same.

The fact is, some people like controlling other people, and we've done more to combat disinformation on men's concerns than on women's concerns. That's the way I see it, anyway.

[specsaregood]

www.DailyPaul.com
an independent website that has become a must-read forum for his supporters.


Why? Always seemed like a dim-witted replacement for RPFS. What does that site have that this doesnt?

[bobbyw24]

Why? Always seemed like a dim-witted replacement for RPFS. What does that site have that this doesnt?

In my experience, the discussion there have been more civil--fewer personal attacks and childish name calling.

i think the DP gets more traffic

[freakout9903]

the money is in the husbands name more often than the wifes :)?

[da32130]

You obviously are discrediting how marketing and education and values are imposed upon different genders. Men and women are not the same. Women are persuaded differently than men. If you try to connect the dots through dry factual data you will generally not get very far. Men tend to argue their fears based upon stats, Women have more nebulous discussions.

Because women are more focused on their feelings. Which is just as valid as anything else. Once you acknowledge that then you can try to make headway.

However, men still have feelings, but they bury them under deep analytical cover. Women are more on the surface.

[Mini-Me]

And have you met anyone that prides themselves on the Ron Paul depression if he were elected. We tend not to focus on it but it could happen.

We also don't focus on the fact that slavery, segregation, homophobia, etc. could emerge in some locality should Ron Paul win and everything be decided locally.

We value the long term. Others are more focused on these short term issues. We all have blind spots.

I acknowledge these possibilities (though chattel slavery still couldn't happen anyway, given the 13th Amendment), but I have made a rational, informed decision that the long-term benefits outweigh these possibilities. (That, and I have certain moral values that are consistent with libertarianism alone.)

However, people who disagree rarely ever acknowledge the long-term benefits of a Ron Paul Presidency. There's a reason for this, and it's not that they've been fully informed, but they still prefer short-term comfort over long-term survival. In the vast majority of cases, if not all, they're simply not informed enough [or rational enough] to acknowledge the long-term ramifications of their views at all. How many people actually say, "I don't care about long-term ruin, so long as I'm okay right now?" I haven't met ANYONE who thinks like that. Instead, the people I talk with who don't like Ron Paul actually believe - mistakenly - that corporatism, or socialism, or whatever, is actually better in the long-term. That's wrong thinking, not fundamentally opposing values.


In practice under capitalism some people becomes homeless and die. Not every family makes it to the promised long run.
The same thing happens under socialism, to a much greater degree, so that is no rational objection. Consider the widespread famines under Communist regimes, for instance. Of course, it might be a rational objection for someone to say, "I (specifically) am more likely to be homeless or die under capitalism," but that's very specific to the person making the claim, and almost nobody supporting socialism, Communism, or whatever actually takes that line of argument to defend their choice. Instead, they invariably take a line of argument that denies the consequences of their beliefs and refuses to acknowledge the consequences of Ron Paul's.


However, under socialism the inequality could be much less (implementation does matter, but in capitalism it matters too) and the productivity of society (and average long term well-being) would also be lower.
However, it's totally irrational to believe the inequality could be much less in a system that hinges on centralized economic control. Compare the way the party elite lived in the Soviet Union or China under Mao, to the way farmers lived...or just combine the following in your mind: "Limited resources, totalitarian centralized power, psychopathy." The result can and will always be exactly the same, and it's irrational to think, "It could be different in practice," with the same institutional infrastructure. Once again, we don't have a clash of values alone. Instead, we have a large number of people who quite simply cannot comprehend how their choices undermine the very same values they profess.

[specsaregood]

In my experience, the discussion there have been more civil--fewer personal attacks and childish name calling.


sounds boring. probably more appealing to the left-leaning ron paul supporters and conspiracy nuts.

[GunnyFreedom]

LOL! I am female...If you think otherwise visit a birth board or parenting board and get back with me. Again women are emotional and more irrational. Try a conversation with logical facts with some of the more irrational females and let me know how it works for you. The ones who are driving us off a cliff are getting their information from sound bytes and are usually young mothers who fancy themselves informed on the issues. They are very passionate and VERY short sighted.

I have avoided talking about this because it's too easy to be misunderstood, but it's true. This is why I love Ron Paul women so much.

I've had my share of relationships, so I'm not purely ignorant here, but since 2007 I've pretty much determined not to date anyone but a Ron Paul lady. Which, considering I'm 38 and very much want to settle down and get married makes it tough.

It's true, women tend to vote more emotionally. RP voters are the exception. The women here are the exception to stupidity just like the men here are the exception to stupidity. Makes me love and cherish them even more.

I tried to discuss this about a year or so ago and got lambasted and never touched it again. But we do need to figure this out and how to overcome it. We don't win in November until we overcome this stumbling-block.

I'll admit that I am automatically 10x more attracted to RP women than any others, and that's sight unseen. Mind you, most RP women are already involved/married etc. I imagine because it's obvious how precious y'all are and the men will bend over backwards to keep you. ;)

[Danke]

Why? Always seemed like a dim-witted replacement for RPFS. What does that site have that this doesnt?

lol. Can't stand the format over there.

[bobbyw24]

sounds boring. probably more appealing to the left-leaning ron paul supporters and conspiracy nuts.

I find the people there to be older, more intelligent and less reactionary.

I find there is more freedom there. Here if you don't think like the masses, you get attacked.

I posted Ellen Brown's stuff here and get attacked for not believing that "Mises was Jesus."

it seems as if this place is more juvenile and collectivist in thought.

[bobbyw24]

This place has more active discussions

[Birdlady]

We are all irrational at times. It has nothing to do with gender.

As a whole there are more men in the freedom/liberty movement, so I think that's why we have a gender gap. There are just less women who are "awake" so to speak. I don't know of a single woman speaking out in the freedom movement.

[erowe1]

The best explanation I can give is to direct people to the article, "Did Women's Suffrage Change the Size and Scope of Government?" by John R. Lott and Lawrence W. Kenny, Journal of Political Economy 106.6 (Dec. 1999):1163-98.

[bobbyw24]

lol. Can't stand the format over there.

I do think this site has a better format--particularly for discussions

[AgentOrange]

Here's my take as a woman (and a huge Ron Paul supporter). It's true, most women don't care about politics, but neither do most men (which is why both genders have an absmally low voter turnout.) So that doesn't explain the gender gap. I think, its because many women are innately nurturers--they see a baby, and they want to take care of it. Of course, men do too, but I think most of us understand the reaction of the average woman to a baby is different than the reaction of the average man to a baby. Unfortunately, this translates into politics.....women want the candidate who is promising to take care of everybody & everything and make all the bad problems go away. They want that candidate, because that is what they would want to do. They don't think about it deep enough (and neither are the men who are voting for a warhawk because they think the country should be tough and defending the defenseless)--to realize its all lies. So, many women don't like Ron Paul's message of truth, that noone is going to save us and that there aren't any easy answers.

[LawnWake]

LOL! I am female...If you think otherwise visit a birth board or parenting board and get back with me. Again women are emotional and more irrational. Try a conversation with logical facts with some of the more irrational females and let me know how it works for you. The ones who are driving us off a cliff are getting their information from sound bytes and are usually young mothers who fancy themselves informed on the issues. They are very passionate and VERY short sighted.

Most men are irrational and emotional as well, they just know how to dress it up with bro-science.

However, someone made a point earlier that Ron Paul's position requires 'looking things up' and critical analysis, which is right and men do it more, but it's not because men are fundamentally more logical or critical, but because men are encouraged to be the ones 'figuring things out' from the moment they are born, whereas girls are pretty much taught to "worship" guys. Of course, there's always people who escape that sort of social conditioning from one degree to another, but it's kinda hard to deny that history is written by the winners and that the winners tend to be straight, white, men. And without getting too deep into things from an evolutionary psychology point of view, the male ego requires a lot more approval than the female one.

[specsaregood]

I find the people there to be older, more intelligent and less reactionary.
I find there is more freedom there. Here if you don't think like the masses, you get attacked.
I posted Ellen Brown's stuff here and get attacked for not believing that "Mises was Jesus."
it seems as if this place is more juvenile and collectivist in thought.

Well the idea of giving the politicians the power to counterfeit money at will is leftist, so maybe I was spot on.
And both Mises and Jesus were jewish, so there is that.....
Perhaps old people just can't keep up with the advanced interface over here.

[bobbyw24]

Well the idea of giving the politicians the power to counterfeit money at will is leftist, so maybe I was spot on.
And both Mises and Jesus were jewish, so there is that.....
Perhaps old people just can't keep up with the advanced interface over here.

Thanks for buttressing my argument

[MsDoodahs]

JMO (and I am a woman)

Women are genetically programmed to be the caretakers, the caregivers...the moms, basically.

Because of that programming, women seek men who will make good providers.

The candidate that promies to provide the most is attractive to them.

Providing the most in today's america - unfortunately - means providing the most stuff for free.

Translated into the battle for the woman's vote, that means the politicians go from "what is best for the country long term" to "how much I can promise you'll get if you vote for me."

Unfortunate because it's hurt the nation badly.

JMO

[AhuwaleKaNaneHuna]

I'm sure there are thousands of individual reasons. I think there is a predominant underlying theme behind many of them. Women are biologically hardwired to be attracted to "good providers", governments included even if they are making 6 plus figures. Blame Darwin for this as it helps to secure survival of the species.

The sad reality in many cases is that it is women who more often get left to raise children on their own or at least worry about it more, and its mostly the women who worry about how they are going to care for their elderly parents. It's a no brainer that on a subconscious level some may lean towards a church, community, society, governing system that will help them in these roles if need be.

Research studies done on why there are far fewer libertarian women to men. The above theme is the predominant find- women are the primary nurturers of children and the elderly and the job of caring for them full time requires back up financial support to come from somewhere.

Here is an analogy to help understand-

When feeding the family, we make sure everyone gets what food they need to survive and thrive. We don't put a pile of food in the middle of the table and say, "Every kid for themselves! If the older ones want to share with the little ones, you can, but you don't have to." and then watch the younger ones starve to death.

At the end of the day, thats' how cold and callous Libertarian philosophy looks to many and it's why the MSM keeps calling Paul the Libertarian. It's hurting him, especially with the nurturing and worrying about the care of others biological side of females.

That aside. I turned my husband on to Paul.

I had been Green Party since Perots first run. I had also been studying global corruption topics and participating in political forums addressing it, when I found RP back in early 2007. I support him because he is out to expose and take down the corrupted systems and global elite. It was my first intro to him of a video of him ripping into Bernake that lit my fire. It's so sad to me that back in early 2007, not a single person I knew, knew that the Federal Reserve banking system was just privately owned banks. I was frustrated back then trying to inform people of what was really going on who had brainwashed beliefs. Ron Paul became another voice for me. What a breath of fresh air he is to me Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

[da32130]

I acknowledge these possibilities (though chattel slavery still couldn't happen anyway, given the 13th Amendment), but I have made a rational, informed decision that the long-term benefits outweigh these possibilities. (That, and I have certain moral values that are consistent with libertarianism alone.)



And other people may make a rational informed decision that it isn't worth it. Their opinion is just as valid because it is a subjective judgement based on values.




However, people who disagree rarely ever acknowledge the long-term benefits of a Ron Paul Presidency, and there's a reason for this: It's not that they've been fully informed, but they prefer short-term comfort over long-term survival. In the vast majority of cases, if not all, they're simply not informed enough [or rational enough] to acknowledge the long-term ramifications of their views at all. How many people actually say, "I don't care about long-term ruin, so long as I'm okay right now?" I haven't met ANYONE who thinks like that. Instead, the people I talk with who don't like Ron Paul actually believe - mistakenly - that corporatism, or socialism, or whatever, is actually better in the long-term.


I agree. However, Paul people rarely discuss the merits of others as well. I also agree that the ignorance about Paul is probably greater than vice-versa.





The same thing happens under socialism, to a much greater degree, so that is no rational objection. Consider the widespread famines under Communist regimes, for instance. Of course, it might be a rational objection for someone to say, "I (specifically) am more likely to be homeless or die under capitalism," but that's very specific to the person making the claim, and almost nobody supporting socialism, Communism, or whatever actually takes that line of argument to defend their choice. Instead, they invariably take a line of argument that denies the consequences of their beliefs and refuses to acknowledge the consequences of Ron Paul's.




It was an extreme example that happens every day. Whereas the socialist famines are rare, just like the capitalist depressions are rare.

Most people would probably argue that under socialism the difference between 5th percentile and 95th percentile are probably closer than capitalism.





However, it's totally irrational to believe the inequality could be much less in a system that hinges on centralized economic control. Compare the way the party elite lived in the Soviet Union or China under Mao, to the way farmers lived...or just combine the following in your mind: "Limited resources, totalitarian centralized power, psychopathy." The result can and will always be exactly the same, and it's irrational to think, "It could be different in practice," with the same institutional infrastructure. Once again, we don't have a clash of values alone. Instead, we have a large number of people who quite simply cannot comprehend how their choices undermine the very same values they profess.

The fact is if tomorrow the US went socialist 90-95% (the exact figure doesn't matter) of americans might benefit increasing equality.

Longer term issues would erupt. Under capitalism long term issues also have erupted, hence the rise of Paul. Big money people get access to the politicians and start to steal from the rest.

These points aren't irrational. Each side just focuses on different things.

[Danke]

whereas girls are pretty much taught to "worship" guys.

Where do I find these girls?

[specsaregood]

Thanks for buttressing my argument
Thanks sport!

[fisharmor]

My wife told me a couple weeks ago that if Newt or Santorum wins the presidency we're leaving the country,
and last night I had to explain to my 5-year-old daughter that Ron Paul actually can't help us fix the computer.
Nothin' but female love in my house....

[RockEnds]

Most men are irrational and emotional as well, they just know how to dress it up with bro-science.

However, someone made a point earlier that Ron Paul's position requires 'looking things up' and critical analysis, which is right and men do it more, but it's not because men are fundamentally more logical or critical, but because men are encouraged to be the ones 'figuring things out' from the moment they are born, whereas girls are pretty much taught to "worship" guys. Of course, there's always people who escape that sort of social conditioning from one degree to another, but it's kinda hard to deny that history is written by the winners and that the winners tend to be straight, white, men. And without getting too deep into things from an evolutionary psychology point of view, the male ego requires a lot more approval than the female one.

Both sexes figure things out from the moment they are born. They just figure out different things. Boys figure out how to build and destroy. Girls figure out how to care for a dolly. Both sexes learn. They both research their interests. They do naturally have different interests, but that in no way implies that girls are not learning from the get go.

And I'm really sure someone forgot to condition me to worship men. I try really hard to tolerate them. Sometimes.

[archangel689]

most women also have an aversion to sciences and economics. I know a female CS professor that's been studying the reasons why for years.

[Southron]

Don't most families vote the same? Is it single women we do the worst with?

[Danke]

And I'm really sure someone forgot to condition me to worship men. I try really hard to tolerate them. Sometimes.

Have we dated?

[bobbyw24]

most women also have an aversion to sciences and economics.

Wasn't here a Barbie doll that said "Math is hard"?

[MsDoodahs]

Have we dated?

OMG lol!

Thanks for the great laugh, Danke!

[GunnyFreedom]

I know women who support Ron Paul, and I don't think they're irrational about their support. (I'm a woman, btw.) I do know both men and women who are irrational in buying into the fear, and they do it for different reasons. Nonetheless, from my perspective, both are irrational. The men tend to have the emotional reaction to foreign policy. For some people, it doesn't matter if you explain it once or 50 times, those Arabs are gonna get us if we don't get them first. The women tend to have the emotional reaction to the quirky little things we don't think about often such as, "I hear he wants to legalize prostitution." No matter how many times I explained that prostitution is already a state issue (legal in Nevada), they still reacted the same.

The fact is, some people like controlling other people, and we've done more to combat disinformation on men's concerns than on women's concerns. That's the way I see it, anyway.

No, Paul voters tend to distinguish the ultimately rational women. Which is why I want to marry a Pauler woman. ;)

[amy31416]

We are all irrational at times. It has nothing to do with gender.

As a whole there are more men in the freedom/liberty movement, so I think that's why we have a gender gap. There are just less women who are "awake" so to speak. I don't know of a single woman speaking out in the freedom movement.

The few women who do are either ridiculously revered (Ayn Rand) or ignored (Rose Wilder)--either way, I wouldn't want much part in it. Politics is a rather filthy profession that people seek out in order to lord over others, is it really a negative that so many women are turned off by it? In my perfect world, I wouldn't pay a bit of attention to politics either, but I had several rather rude awakenings, one of which was the Iraq war, another was that I could not get certain chemicals for cancer research due to the DEA.

Since we women are so weak-minded, why is it proving such a challenge to "convert" them? And why did those stupid men give us the Federal Reserve if they're so wonderful?

[kojirodensetsu]

We are all irrational at times. It has nothing to do with gender.
I think that personalities are affected by both genetics and experiences. On the experience side, females are treated differently than males (not saying better or worse) which has an effect on their personalities. Also, genetics can have a big effect. For instance, I don't think very many people would say that women are as aggressive as males are. That's because males have more testosterone. Testosterone is known by science to make animals more aggressive. For instance the female hyena has high levels of testosterone which is why they actually have what looks like a scrotum and a penis (also known as masculinized genetalia). Female hyenas have more testosterone than the males and as such are larger than males and more aggressive. So why you think that estrogen has no effect on your personality is beyond me. We're talking basic gender science here. If you subscribe to the notion that males are identical in nature to females on a personality level, you all throwing decades of scientific research out the window. I don't know how you can sit there with a straight face and say that females and males are the same.

It's important to note that I'm not bashing females with my post. One could make the argument that men are much more dangerous than women, since men are responsible for most of the wars (see Stalin, Hitler). Ron's campaign just needs to make more ads targeting women. That one pro-life one was a good start. I think they need to make more ads with women in them. Like if they could find a woman like that black fellow who talked about how Ron was his wife's doctor for free. A lot of focus is usually on the male in the relationship. They need to do one where it's the woman talking about how Ron came in and helped her.

[Deborah K]

I'll say it for you: More women vote based on physical appearance than men and unfortunately the ladies just don't think Ron Paul is a hot guy. :rolleyes:

This is unfortunately true in my experience.

[amy31416]

This is unfortunately true in my experience.

Then I'd like an explanation of Palin's popularity.

[pinkmandy]

1. I started a thread in HT about attracting the female vote just a few days ago. My thoughts on this topic are there. :)

2. We need 'what about the children' ads if you want the "soccer mom" vote. Ads explaining the value of what we're fighting for and how that will impact our kids and grandkids. Explaining the unjust ways in which our children could be used, the surveillance state they will live under as adults, the lack of healthy consumer choices, the real cost of war, the debt, tent cities and the damage caused by current eco policy on real people, the violence in inner cities because of the drug wars- kids seeing their dads hauled off to prison, single mothers unable to pay the bills, etc. They need to SEE the effects the policies they are voting for- give them a visual, not just our kids will be debt slaves. Show them what that means. If they haven't been persuaded by all the ads thus far then we need to address them using different angles because what we've done so far hasn't worked. Reach into their hearts. Example, when Paul said his heart weeps in the last debate I was pretty choked up. It is those moments we need to find. Female voters need the veneer peeled back so they can get a feel for who someone is on a different level. Now, that doesn't mean they're always good at discerning what they feel (many did vote for Obama, lol) but I do think that's what they need to see/hear. And by all this I mean the average female voter watching MSM for news.

I have a satellite internet connection that isn't *that* fast. I've also never made videos. However, if someone wants to point me in the right direction I can give it a go. I need to know what software to download for a slower net connection for example. Any tips, pointers and I'll give this a shot. I was thinking the other day about a "Moms for Ron Paul group". Ladies?

[Danke]

Then I'd like an explanation of Palin's popularity.

She hunts.

[amy31416]

She hunts.

Bah! From a helicopter! Badasses hunt on foot with a butter knife.

[GunnyFreedom]

Then I'd like an explanation of Palin's popularity.

She's "Grizzly Momma." I would think Palin's attraction for non-Pauler women would be apparent. Nobody takes care of people like Grizzly Momma.

And yes, a lot of 'thinking between their legs' men (again, non-Pauler men) will vote for her based on superficial appearances.

Again, Pauler people are the exception.

[Mini-Me]

And other people may make a rational informed decision that it isn't worth it. Their opinion is just as valid because it is a subjective judgement based on values.
Theoretically, yes. Among the people who disagree with us, exactly how many do you think fall into this category, who aren't part of the ruling class? Five or six, maybe? (Five or six people, not percent.)


I agree. However, Paul people rarely discuss the merits of others as well. I also agree that the ignorance about Paul is probably greater than vice-versa.
We don't discuss the short term merits of "free everything at everyone else's expense, while it lasts," because the long-term ruin dwarfs any potential short-term benefit. That's a pretty good reason. Among people who don't like Paul, I don't see anyone saying, "Look at all the short-term benefits of free everything," or, "Look at all of the short-term benefits of nuking everyone!" Instead, I see tons of people who are deluded into thinking that the long-term would be worse under Ron Paul. They're not, "admittedly short-sighted and proud of it, because the short term is more important than the long term." They're "short-sighted and cannot realize it."


It was an extreme example that happens every day. Whereas the socialist famines are rare, just like the capitalist depressions are rare.
I guess it depends on how you define socialism; famines are rare/nonexistent in the EU (so far), but they were pretty much the rule under Mao and pals...I guess the definition of "rare" is also an issue though, if you're talking about the frequency of individual deaths vs. the frequency of widespread famines.


Most people would probably argue that under socialism the difference between 5th percentile and 95th percentile are probably closer than capitalism.
For a moment, let's assume 95% of us would all share pretty equally in the misery. (That's really not true though, because city dwellers near the seat of power would still be MUCH better off than the rural poor, and they'd be a significant portion of the population.) Still, how many people care about the top 95% vs. the top 5%? Isn't the meme about the 99% vs. the 1%? Realistically speaking, wouldn't a true socialist be furious with the 0.01% as well? Their stated problem is usually not with inequality on average, but with the disparity between the richest of the rich and the poorest of the poor...which ironically becomes much worse under their chosen policies.


The fact is if tomorrow the US went socialist 90-95% (the exact figure doesn't matter) of americans might benefit increasing equality.
Perhaps, but how many socialists actually make this argument, who are also fully aware of your next sentence? In fact, have you ever met or heard whisper of a single socialist in the entire world who actually understands your next sentence but has made a reasoned decision that only the short-term matters? This is the point I'm trying to make. (John Maynard Keynes has a quote that hints at this, but it's pretty facetious, and it's clear that he actually believed that his suggestions were beneficial in the long-term as well...which means that my difference with him is not a difference of values but a difference of correctness.)

My guess is: Nearly zero, because most socialists simply do not comprehend the long-term consequences of their policies. Therefore, we once again return to the core problem of irrationality.


Longer term issues would errupt. Under capitalism long term issues also have errupted, hence the rise of Paul. Big money people get access to the policians and start to steal from the rest.
Technically, that's a pitfall of statism of all kinds, not a pitfall of capitalism; without centralized power to hijack, no hijacking is possible.


These points aren't irrational. Each side just focuses on different things.
Do you honestly believe that the difference between you and the average socialist, or the difference between you and the average neocon, comes entirely from a fundamental difference of values or priorities? If so, you're stating that the average socialist and average neocon are fully aware of the long-term consequences of their views and Ron Paul's...but their own arguments defy this characterization!

[da32130]

The best explanation I can give is to direct people to the article, "Did Women's Suffrage Change the Size and Scope of Government?" by John R. Lott and Lawrence W. Kenny, Journal of Political Economy 106.6 (Dec. 1999):1163-98.

Good stuff:
http://www.heretical.com/miscellx/lott.pdf

I think this what we need to be thinking about. If it was just Men voting, Paul would have won Iowa and maybe even the nomination (surely if the younger crowd was older).

But this articles gives some reasons why women have moved us in a different direction.

This is what we need to be discussing.

[RockEnds]

Have we dated?

probably.

[specsaregood]

Then I'd like an explanation of Palin's popularity.

I liked her tv show. She had a really nice personality on it.

[pen_thief]

Sometimes I wonder what the real cause behind this is.
My mom got married at 19 and started having children. The only real issues concerning her daily life were taking care of kids and cleaning. Don't get me wrong, she is now a strong Ron Paul supporter, but she's 61 and done raising kids! To quote Christian Bale, being a mother and wife is "fucking distracting." Especially if your family isn't feeling the hurt yet from the economy. Some members of my family are in cushy jobs and don't give a lick about politics. This includes my cousin Elizabeth who is an air force pilot instructor (star of the family :rolleyes: ) All she cares about is her dogs and boyfriend. So I don't think that there is anything about Ron Paul that wouldn't appeal to a woman who was willing to step outside of the box that society crafts for her. I mean, as children, most of us are given toy vacuums and kitchen sets and hooker-lookalike dolls. We fall right into the trap of not paying attention to real issues outside domestic life, a.ka. the home. It pisses me off to no end to see women so ignorant...as I've said many times before, if I could, I'd travel back to when I was 16 or so and slap myself awake.

So I guess my point is, women may tend to be uninformed voters due to societal pressures. Few will ever get to the point of questioning CNN or Fox...that is, if they even watch news. *facepalm*

[moostraks]

I have avoided talking about this because it's too easy to be misunderstood, but it's true. This is why I love Ron Paul women so much...

I tried to discuss this about a year or so ago and got lambasted and never touched it again. But we do need to figure this out and how to overcome it. We don't win in November until we overcome this stumbling-block.

I'll admit that I am automatically 10x more attracted to RP women than any others, and that's sight unseen. Mind you, most RP women are already involved/married etc. I imagine because it's obvious how precious y'all are and the men will bend over backwards to keep you. ;)

:) sorry none of my girls will be old enough for you Gunny! You do NOT want to date the eldest!:p

I admit I might be one of the ones who was arguing against your stance. Sometimes we live in our own created bubbles and a dose of outsiders wakes us to the workings of those we don't generally associate with on a day to day basis. I really blasted AF and feel like I need to eat a little crow. It is much more preferable to me to discuss issues with men because they complement and expand my thinking. It doesn't make one sex superior just different. Without compassion, statistics could be used for the most brutal of dictatorships.

eta...this is why I think that a tactic of limited federal government and how it is unable to correctly deal with issues across the broad spectrum of the nation is important. I have discussed with my children as you become more local the level of control goes up significantly and they are blessed to live in a benevolent dictatorship. As you remove yourself from the family you may choose to live in a gated community or out on your own in the sticks with greater freedoms, choosing which state appeals more to you and reflects your values.

[amy31416]

Good stuff:
http://www.heretical.com/miscellx/lott.pdf

I think this what we need to be thinking about. If it was just Men voting, Paul would have won Iowa and maybe even the nomination (surely if the younger crowd was older).

But this articles gives some reasons why women have moved us in a different direction.

This is what we need to be discussing.

Just as a first observation--that paper cites Irving Kristol as some sort of authority on truth. I'll go on reading, but that is pretty shaky ground to begin with.

[randomname]

In Iowa a couple of weeks before the caucus for the first time we were polling evenly among men and women. Then the media smears started and Paul plunged with women again.

[Danke]

Bah! From a helicopter! Badasses hunt on foot with a butter knife.

^ Not a fully developed woman.

More proof:


Women are biologically hardwired to be attracted to "good providers", ... Blame Darwin for this as it helps to secure survival of the species.

[GunnyFreedom]

Sometimes I wonder what the real cause behind this is.
My mom got married at 19 and started having children. The only real issues concerning her daily life were taking care of kids and cleaning. Don't get me wrong, she is now a strong Ron Paul supporter, but she's 61 and done raising kids! To quote Christian Bale, being a mother and wife is "fucking distracting." Especially if your family isn't feeling the hurt yet from the economy. Some members of my family are in cushy jobs and don't give a lick about politics. This includes my cousin Elizabeth who is an air force pilot instructor (star of the family :rolleyes: ) All she cares about is her dogs and boyfriend. So I don't think that there is anything about Ron Paul that wouldn't appeal to a woman who was willing to step outside of the box that society crafts for her. I mean, as children, most of us are given toy vacuums and kitchen sets and hooker-lookalike dolls. We fall right into the trap of not paying attention to real issues outside domestic life, a.ka. the home. It pisses me off to no end to see women so ignorant...as I've said many times before, if I could, I'd travel back to when I was 16 or so and slap myself awake.

I think this is the critical point here. It's not innately the woman herself, it's more the role society puts women into. That's a tough hurdle to overcome.

Pretty much all of us Paulers have broken free of societies mold, but it's more "socially acceptable" to be a maverick as a man than as a woman.

It's not the inherent qualities of womanhood that lead to Paul's gender gap, it's the ignorance of society forcing people into roles that we have to overcome. And that's even more difficult.

[RockEnds]

In Iowa a couple of weeks before the caucus for the first time we were polling evenly among men and women. Then the media smears started and Paul plunged with women again.

In my county, it was the women doing the work, bringing in the voters. If more men had been involved, maybe we could have taken first instead of 2nd. ;)

Libertarianism in general probably is a little more difficult for women than for men. However, with just a little tweaking of the message, I think that could change. We're really talking about abolishing our current corrupt system and rebuilding our original government. Totally a guy thing. If we focused more on the benefits, the women may relate better. Don't just speak of Ending the Fed or creating competing currency, but also of providing an opportunity for everyone to succeed economically. It's the same thing only a little different wording.

[Deborah K]

Then I'd like an explanation of Palin's popularity.

Sadly, I think it is because most women place too much importance on appearances.

[w2992]

Women talk face to face = socialize = "socialist in general"
Men are independent resist asking for directions face to face is aggression.

[blazeKing]

I think this is the critical point here. It's not innately the woman herself, it's more the role society puts women into. That's a tough hurdle to overcome.

Pretty much all of us Paulers have broken free of societies mold, but it's more "socially acceptable" to be a maverick as a man than as a woman.

It's not the inherent qualities of womanhood that lead to Paul's gender gap, it's the ignorance of society forcing people into roles that we have to overcome. And that's even more difficult.

Good post.

Most of the ladies I know who support Ron Paul have overcome or understand this concept....then again this may be talked about in reverse on Romney forums...Those Paul people are mavericks, mostly males and young.. always going for those who fit outside the mainstream, it's that society pressure for men to be mavericks. Lol personally I don't care for it all , I just know he's best for this country.

[NoPants]

I'll say it for you: More women vote based on physical appearance than men and unfortunately the ladies just don't think Ron Paul is a hot guy. :rolleyes:

I've seen/heard data that supposedly backs this up. They don't always do it consciously. This is a generalization and not in any way a statement on intelligence. My wife is a lot smarter than me and she does not show this tendency, however my sister-in-law is probably even smarter but she absolutely does do this.

[Working Poor]

I would say that the largest group of politically active women are pro choice. And women do vote for looks...

[blazeKing]

Another thing we have to accept, is that Ron Paul does speak in more intellectual terms than in emotional terms and while stimulates us, it might not do the same for others. That does have an impact. His ads do help in that respect though.

[bobbyw24]

I would say that the largest group of politically active women are pro choice.

Yep--and the #1 reason my female friends who like Ron Paul's ideas on war and the economy will never vote for him

[sailingaway]

I'll say it for you: More women vote based on physical appearance than men and unfortunately the ladies just don't think Ron Paul is a hot guy. :rolleyes:

Studies have shown repeatedly that women are more concerned with maintaining a safety net. If Ron does an ad on his priorities in his budget, preserving the safety net for the truly poor as well as senior entitlements, he will address both the age gap and the gender gap.

[RockEnds]

I would say that the largest group of politically active women are pro choice. And women do vote for looks...

The pro-choice thing is an issue, especially with the younger women.

[specsaregood]

./

[da32130]

Theoretically, yes. Among the people who disagree with us, exactly how many do you think fall into this category, who aren't part of the ruling class? Five or six, maybe? (Five or six people, not percent.)



Among people that agree with fiscal conservatism, capitalism, how many just want to lower taxes so they keep more money?

It goes both ways. That is why the tax cut, huge deficit idea took root. People lost core principles.




We don't discuss the short term merits of "free everything at everyone else's expense, while it lasts," because the long-term ruin dwarfs any potential short-term benefit. That's a pretty good reason. Among people who don't like Paul, I don't see anyone saying, "Look at all the short-term benefits of free everything," or, "Look at all of the short-term benefits of nuking everyone!" Instead, I see tons of people who are deluded into thinking that the long-term would be worse under Ron Paul. They're not, "admittedly short-sighted and proud of it, because the short term is more important than the long term." They're "short-sighted and cannot realize it."



It isn't free stuff they talk about. It is equality. You are spinning the position into a negative light.




I guess it depends on how you define socialism; famines are rare/nonexistent in the EU (so far), but they were pretty much the rule under Mao and pals...I guess the definition of "rare" is also an issue though, if you're talking about the frequency of individual deaths vs. the frequency of widespread famines.



Capitalsim has recessions every few years where people lose jobs. That doesn't happen in socialsim. There are weaknesses to both sides. Paul doesn't consider the US capitalist and a socialist might question some of Mao's policies. They didn't have to have famines so often. The USSR wasn't constant famine from what I recall.





For a moment, let's assume 95% of us would all share pretty equally in the misery. (That's really not true though, because city dwellers near the seat of power would still be MUCH better off than the rural poor, and they'd be a significant portion of the population.) Still, how many people care about the top 95% vs. the top 5%? Isn't the meme about the 99% vs. the 1%? Realistically speaking, wouldn't a true socialist be furious with the 0.01% as well? Their stated problem is usually not with inequality on average, but with the disparity between the richest of the rich and the poorest of the poor...which ironically becomes much worse under their chosen policies.



Under capitalism city dwellers are richer than the rural dwellers and goverment doles out favors just the same, hence DC's economic rise.

They might be upset about the top .001% but it might be a lot better than now. The top 1% vs 99%, 51% vs 49%, etc. would all probably be closer. And in the 1st year many people would be better off. It is only over time they would all become relatively poor compared to capitalist societies.




Perhaps, but how many socialists actually make this argument, who are also fully aware of your next sentence? This is the point I'm trying to make.

My guess is: Nearly zero, because most socialists simply do not comprehend the long-term consequences of their policies. Therefore, we once again return to the core problem of irrationality.



The theorists on both sides have some understanding of these issues. The average person probably doesn't on both sides.




Technically, that's a pitfall of statism of all kinds, not a pitfall of capitalism; without centralized power to hijack, no hijacking is possible.



Any system Paul proposes will have statism. If it is more local then you have slavery, etc. that can pop up easier along with corruption.





Do you honestly believe that the difference between you and the average socialist, or the difference between you and the average neocon, comes entirely from a fundamental difference of values or priorities? If so, you're stating that the average socialist and average neocon are fully aware of the long-term consequences of their views and Ron Paul's...but their own arguments defy this characterization!

My point is that the other side has a valid argument that we need to consider in order to change minds.

The neocons also have a valid point (rise of hitler, dominoe theory). The good argument against it is that it is exaggerated in the current environment and ignores issues such as blowback. But there is subjectivity there and they aren't being fair discussing Paul's points so they don't lose people to our side.

On some level it is a battle of values. Not everyone is aware of all the issues. There is also corruption in the media, etc. But to win we need to be able to combat the best arguments of the other side. Not their weakest.

[bobbyw24]

can't get much more diametrically opposed to "grizzly mamma" than to be one that wants to kill their own spawn.

I am gonna have to use that one to sway them in our favor.:cool:

[Hyperion]

Oh please, the biggest collectivism being advocated in this thread is the Marxist claim that gender differences don't exist, don't forget that Lenin was a Feminist and that destroying the rule of the patriarchy is a core element of the Communist movement. In other words, pretending that women don't look at issues differently from men is in itself totalitarian Socialistic thinking. Furthermore, the exception does not make the rule, so finding some women who like Ron Paul doesn't alter what the basic demographic data is revealing: that women in general don't like Ron Paul.

Absolutely correct. Men and women are very different when it comes to thought process. Acting like they are similar is classic collectivist thinking.

I'm not sure how to get better support from the womens on a macro scale. The best we can do is explain the issues to people on a one by one basis.

FWIW, my mom- a Rush listening generic R is voting for Ron Paul in the primary, largely due to the time I've invested in explaining issues and how Ron Paul isn't a charlatan.

[GunnyFreedom]

The pro-choice thing is an issue, especially with the younger women.

See, I agree with you but this confounds me, because there is simply no way in hell Ron Paul could get any abortion stuff past Congress no matter how hard he tries.

[da32130]

Absolutely correct. Men and women are very different when it comes to thought process. Acting like they are similar is classic collectivist thinking.

I'm not sure how to get better support from the womens on a macro scale. The best we can do is explain the issues to people on a one by one basis.

FWIW, my mom- a Rush listening generic R is voting for Ron Paul in the primary, largely due to the time I've invested in explaining issues and how Ron Paul isn't a charlatan.

NOTE: this is a repeat since the thread wasn't about women being different, but why they are different.

This is exactly my point. They do look at the issue differently and have a good reason to do so. What I object to is the claim that they are emotional and irrational idiots.

The fact is Socialism can be valid depending on your values. If you can't see that you're irrational. Women are more prone to those values. Nobody has to value long term economic growth. It is as subjective as anything else.

[xFiFtyOnE]

You can call me sexist, doesn't bother me. I've never known a woman who was actively engaged in politics for its own sake, in my entire life. Not to say they aren't around. But in order to get Ron Paul, you have to actively do research, and see through the propaganda. It's just a bridge too far for people who are generally casual observers.

In fact, I'll go even further than that. Just one generation ago, most women probably voted for whoever their husband voted for. Not because they were subservient, but because they didn't care all that much, and were deferring to someone who they felt knew more. Now the media has more of an influence than family, education, religion or anything else put together. When people call it big brother, I'm afraid it can be taken quite literally.

My wife is voting for Ron Paul. I'm pretty sure it's because I talk about him every day. She isn't really into politics and probably wouldn't vote if I didn't try to talk to her about it.

[falconplayer11]

The economics department at my school is made up of 4 male professors, about 50 male students, and maybe 3 female students.

[da32130]

My wife is voting for Ron Paul. I'm pretty sure it's because I talk about him every day. She isn't really into politics and probably wouldn't vote if I didn't try to talk to her about it.

Just because women don't talk about politics doesn't mean they are irrational and emotional. They just think it isn't relevant to them on a day to day basis. And if it gets you to fix the sink, take the kid to school, or something else, then it was probably a good trade in her eyes.

[xFiFtyOnE]

Just because women don't talk about politics doesn't mean they are irrational and emotional. They just think it isn't relevant to them on a day to day basis. And if it gets you to fix the sink, take the kid to school, or something else, then it was probably a good trade in her eyes.

I still don't do that stuff. :D

[Xenophage]

I'll say it for you: More women vote based on physical appearance than men and unfortunately the ladies just don't think Ron Paul is a hot guy. :rolleyes:

I think that's nonsense.

The fact that is there has always been a huge gender gap for *libertarians.* Women, for whatever reason, are far less likely to believe in freedom than men. I don't know the cause, but it's hard to argue the facts.

[da32130]

The economics department at my school is made up of 4 male professors, about 50 male students, and maybe 3 female students.

And social workers are probably predominantly female. Which is why men don't get the equality argument and bash women for being emotional. Since we dismiss them they are free to say Paul is heartless.

If we don't think in terms of values we are just holding ourselves back.

[RockEnds]

See, I agree with you but this confounds me, because there is simply no way in hell Ron Paul could get any abortion stuff past Congress no matter how hard he tries.

Agreed. And honestly, one of my pet peeves is single-issue voters. Then add to the mix that most militant pro-lifers are pro-war, and most militant pro-choicers are anti-war, and it's really no wonder nothing ever changes.

[roc_rob]

My girlfriend is also a Ron Paul supporter. She has, however, expressed reservations regarding his stance on abortion.

[da32130]

I still don't do that stuff. :D

Maybe it prevents you from beating her? Seriously, just joking. :) Maybe it makes you closer to her. I don't know for sure. Only you can tell me. But some random guy isn't going to convince her as easily.

[Xenophage]

My wife is voting for Ron Paul. I'm pretty sure it's because I talk about him every day. She isn't really into politics and probably wouldn't vote if I didn't try to talk to her about it.

My girlfriend is voting for Ron Paul, too, for the same reason. She doesn't care about politics, never reads about it. She voted for McCain in 2008 because she thought he was a curmudgeonly old man who would shoot the neighbor's dog and pop their footballs, but I actually had to explain to her the difference between a conservative and a liberal, a republican and a democrat.

But since dating ME she's gotten a huuuuge freedom injection! *heh heh heh*

[pinkmandy]

I think this is the critical point here. It's not innately the woman herself, it's more the role society puts women into. That's a tough hurdle to overcome.

Pretty much all of us Paulers have broken free of societies mold, but it's more "socially acceptable" to be a maverick as a man than as a woman.

It's not the inherent qualities of womanhood that lead to Paul's gender gap, it's the ignorance of society forcing people into roles that we have to overcome. And that's even more difficult.

Absolutely. It's not about being irrational. It's about the way we are raised and breaking free from the shackles that society places around us. I know we've gone in depth on that topic in the past here. When you take into account what Gunny is saying, the average female voter is not behaving irrationally. She is behaving as she has been taught/conditioned to behave which is actually quite rational. Societal programming is what we're up against, not the irrationality of women. And ftr, the word irrational as applied to women is like calling Paul supporters kooks or crazy. It's a derogatory label. I doubt most would consider being called "irrational" as a good thing. It's like saying "men are sane, women are not". That kind of divisiveness is not what we need. And I'm not even going to delve into the "women vote based on physical appearances" meme. Seriously? That's a big brush to paint with riddled with hypocrisy given the fixation of society on the way women look which is well represented by all the smoking hot male talking heads people get their news from along with the butt ugly, modestly dressed female talking heads. And that's just one admittedly sarcastic example.

That said, I'm not sure how this conversation in grassroots central is going to attract women to the board to learn more about Paul. Most women I know do not feel the need to debate and spar and are not likely to jump into what they perceive to be a hostile environment where they need to defend themselves for being women on what is a mostly male board (not that this thread is full of women bashers by any means but that could be the "take away" by a sensitive woman lurking). This thread could drive away more than it would likely attract. And therein lies a problem and if we don't change the way we "market" to the average female voter then we surely aren't going to bring them on board. That's the reality of the situation and no amount of debating w/each other on the open board will change that. That is the crux of what was in my thread in HT.

As a personal judgment, I do find this conversation to be teetering on the edge of irrationality. Some people understand women, some do not, some make assumptions based on what they themselves have not lived and do not understand and none of what we say can be applied to an entire group of individuals and I don't see how any of it helps us get Paul elected. This conversation would be much more productive if we were discussing ways to appeal to the average female voter- that's what we should rationally be doing. Jmho. ;)

[specsaregood]

See, I agree with you but this confounds me, because there is simply no way in hell Ron Paul could get any abortion stuff past Congress no matter how hard he tries.

From an evolutionary standpoint, being pro-choice for others and pro-life personally has the greatest advantage; especially in a society with a safety net that guarantees others will take care of your brood if necessary. It decreases the competition and maximizes the benefits.

[libertygrl]

I'm not quite convinced yet that this is "just" a woman thing. I mean, how many female political candidates have we had running for president in our history? The only one that pops into mind is Hillary Clinton. I just wonder if men would behave in a similar fashion if there were women presidential candidates. Would you choose the best looking one? Why do you think Palin was such a draw with older conservative men? I've read a few posts from Tea Party forums in the past where some of the guys admitted they liked her because she was a hot looking woman who also knew how to use a gun. LOL! Check this out:


London, Jan.27 (ANI):

Researchers have found that the public are more likely to vote for good looking politicians. According to a report in The Telegraph, many voters are lured to certain candidates by their looks, no matter how shallow that may sound.

Scientists conducted a large scale experiment using photos of almost 2,000 political candidates and more than 10,000 members of the public.
Both men and women favoured those they found more attractive, according to the study published in the Journal of Public Economics.

The research said the more attractive a candidate the more they were seen as trustworthy, intelligent, likeable and able.

However, the report authors observe that this does not always mean only beautiful people get elected.

But in many local elections, for instance, the public may never see or hear their representative in the flesh so often only have electoral literature to go on.
Simply given a photograph to look at, people do vote for beauty and associate it with other qualities.

A selection from 1,992 photos of political candidates in Finland were shown to each of 10,011 people including 6,303 from outside Finland itself.
This meant that most of those taking part would have no clue about the political persuasion or personality of those they were looking at.
They were asked to rate them for attractiveness and then for other qualities associated with standing for public office.

“Our main result is that beauty seems to help.” Attractive people are seen as more successful in general, said the study. (ANI)

http://www.thaindian.com/newsportal/world-news/public-likely-to-vote-for-good-looking-politicians_100310390.html


Paul has alot of positives to influence the female vote. The first is being a compassionate Dr. who delivered babies! I think there are many areas that haven't been explored yet. Also, there needs to be more images of him younger, as a dr. holding babies, and pictures of his large family as well. We need to play upon the emotional as well as the specifics. We should start listing why women should vote for Dr. Paul.

[eproxy100]

I've got my mom to like Paul. I also have a bad habit of making girls watch Ron Paul videos when I bring them back from the bar...

LOL. You just made me imagine you telling a girl in a bar that you'd like to bring her to your home to show her something she'll really like. Then when you reach your home stumbling through the front door making out with the girl she suggestively asks what you wanted to show her, at which point you drag her to your computer where a Ron Paul video is loaded and ready to go!

To be fair to girls most politicians right now are men. I bet if there was a smoking hot chick who ran for a position many of us men would be fawning over her even if she wanted to nuke the entire middle east.

[erowe1]

I think that's nonsense.

The fact that is there has always been a huge gender gap for *libertarians.* Women, for whatever reason, are far less likely to believe in freedom than men. I don't know the cause, but it's hard to argue the facts.

My understanding of Genesis 3:16, where God told Eve, "Your desire will be for the man, but he will rule over you." is that her desire is a desire to control men. One place this happens is the voting booth. It also comes into play with clothing.

[moostraks]

NOTE: this is a repeat since the thread wasn't about women being different, but why they are different.

This is exactly my point. They do look at the issue differently and have a good reason to do so. What I object to is the claim that they are emotional and irrational idiots.

The fact is Socialism can be valid depending on your values. If you can't see that you're irrational. Women are more prone to those values. Nobody has to value long term economic growth. It is as subjective as anything else.

no one called them idiots...stop putting words in peoples mouths. Again, socialism is not sustainable when implemented at a government level. To maintain 'fairness' requires a lack of compassion and brutal enforcement of 'needs' irregardless of circumstances. There is an enforcer class that will control this dispensation of goods. If you don't value long term goals then you fail in logically thinking out the consequences of your actions.

[xFiFtyOnE]

Maybe it prevents you from beating her? Seriously, just joking. :) Maybe it makes you closer to her. I don't know for sure. Only you can tell me. But some random guy isn't going to convince her as easily. I only hit her when she gets uppity and doesn't bring me my sandwich on time. That's a joke also. ;) But seriously, we are both pretty much the same politically. Both fiscally conservative and socially would probably be considerered on the liberal side for some of these hardcore right wingers. It makes it pretty easy for us to agree on things (imagine that, a married couple that agrees!). And I'm sure the fact that we live in the same house helps because she can't run away when I start preaching about the Fed. HAHA!

[xFiFtyOnE]

But since dating ME she's gotten a huuuuge freedom injection! *heh heh heh* Too far Sir, too far....tisk tisk.

[pen_thief]

Don't most families vote the same? Is it single women we do the worst with?

I think it'll be equally difficult with single and married women. Women who support Ron Paul should feel a little proud of themselves for shrugging off the cloak of ignorance that society wants to drape over all of us.

The recent trend in TV programming (kind of a telling word, isn't it) and magazines aimed at women - two things that unfortunately carry a lot of influence - is to gain independence and power by using their sexuality. You could say this has always been the case, but it's absolutely classless these days. I'm just now watching Ally McBeal (only redeeming quality is the comedy) and seeing a lot of that. They never have Ally in a long-lasting relationship because that would make her "boring". She must stay single, but sexually active, to remain relevant. It's when she's in love that all of her composure and intelligence seems to go out the window. When she doesn't have a relationship, she appears depressed and pathetic. Then Sex & the City came along, Desperate Housewives, etc. and the message has been taken to heart by many women - the message being, "You can only be powerful as a single woman by using sex to entice men. If you're married, so what? Cheat! He didn't worship you enough." Thus, sex (and everything related to it, such as physical maintenance, clothing, dating, short-lived relationships, etc. becomes the sole focus of a woman's life in many cases, leaving room for little else.) The end result is an empty shell of what could have been an admirable human being. Most of my female friends on Facebook can only talk about a few things: domestic life issues (my son pooped in the bathtub!) love life issues (I have a new man!) and magazine cover type issues (I got the cutest top at Kohls!) Here I am posting videos on my Facebook about the dangers of MSG and Aspartame, Ron Paul saying "When I was drafted...I went" and the like. I feel it falls upon deaf ears.

I have come to this theory not only by observing the world around me, but seeing how two of my brother's marriages fell apart. They married women who got caught up in the aforementioned female agenda. The daughters these women spawned are going down the very same path at an even younger age. My 11-year-old niece used a Beyonce quote as her Skype status: "Girls! We run this muthaa!!" :confused: It truly frightens me. To be honest, I'm waiting for my third brother's marriage to fail. His wife does nothing but read romance novels in her spare time.

Education plays a role in all of this, too. In my high school, we took 1 year of American History (standard "The Native Americans were here first, but hey, the British suck, we beat them" lessons) and 1 semester of a quasi-government class. All I can recall from that class is how to fill out a check and tax returns. The precious little that we learn about our country, we learn in the worst setting ever: amongst young teens with raging hormones who can only think about one thing most of the day. As far as important issues, they were never covered in my school. I don't remember being taught about the Federal Reserve, civil disobedience or anything about how government worked, really. I had to basically educate myself on every issue my school felt was unimportant, such as the Palestinian/Israeli conflict. My mom is 61 and had no idea what they were fighting about and always turned a blind eye to those kind of reports whenever she watched the news.

Short of gradual individual awakenings like mine (it's a long story but I used to be apathetic to politics) and a shift towards enlightenment in our influential media, I don't see any easy solutions.

[da32130]

That said, I'm not sure how this conversation in grassroots central is going to attract women to the board to learn more about Paul. Most women I know do not feel the need to debate and spar and are not likely to jump into what they perceive to be a hostile environment where they need to defend themselves for being women on what is a mostly male board (not that this thread is full of women bashers by any means but that could be the "take away" by a sensitive woman lurking). This thread could drive away more than it would likely attract. And therein lies a problem and if we don't change the way we "market" to the average female voter then we surely aren't going to bring them on board. That's the reality of the situation and no amount of debating w/each other on the open board will change that. That is the crux of what was in my thread in HT.

As a personal judgment, I do find this conversation to be teetering on the edge of irrationality. Some people understand women, some do not, some make assumptions based on what they themselves have not lived and do not understand and none of what we say can be applied to an entire group of individuals and I don't see how any of it helps us get Paul elected. This conversation would be much more productive if we were discussing ways to appeal to the average female voter- that's what we should rationally be doing. Jmho. ;)

It wasn't really for women voters, but for anti-women paul supporters.

The next step is figuring out how to appeal to women, but first we need to realize we can appeal to them. Hopefully it is one step back and two steps forward.

[Warrior_of_Freedom]

Jon Huntsman 1.42%
Jon Huntsman 1.42%
Jon Huntsman 1.42%
Jon Huntsman 1.42%
Jon Huntsman 1.42%
Jon Huntsman 1.42%
Jon Huntsman 1.42%
Jon Huntsman 1.42%
Jon Huntsman 1.42%
Jon Huntsman 1.42%

[cjm]

I have these little flash-forward nightmares of a Paul presidency in which the first little drop in GDP in met with HUGE resistance from the neo-Keynesian establishment, followed by reversal of the Hayek-ian policies, and finally the whole episode is held up in perpetuity as "evidence" that the Austrian school is an economic disaster, never to be revisited.

This crosses my mind from time to time too.

[Corey]

I think it'll be equally difficult with single and married women. Women who support Ron Paul should feel a little proud of themselves for shrugging off the cloak of ignorance that society wants to drape over all of us.

The recent trend in TV programming (kind of a telling word, isn't it) and magazines aimed at women - two things that unfortunately carry a lot of influence - is to gain independence and power by using their sexuality. You could say this has always been the case, but it's absolutely classless these days. I'm just now watching Ally McBeal (only redeeming quality is the comedy) and seeing a lot of that. They never have Ally in a long-lasting relationship because that would make her "boring". She must stay single, but sexually active, to remain relevant. It's when she's in love that all of her composure and intelligence seems to go out the window. When she doesn't have a relationship, she appears depressed and pathetic. Then Sex & the City came along, Desperate Housewives, etc. and the message has been taken to heart by many women - the message being, "You can only be powerful as a single woman by using sex to entice men. If you're married, so what? Cheat! He didn't worship you enough." Thus, sex (and everything related to it, such as physical maintenance, clothing, dating, short-lived relationships, etc. becomes the sole focus of a woman's life in many cases, leaving room for little else.) The end result is an empty shell of what could have been an admirable human being. Most of my female friends on Facebook can only talk about a few things: domestic life issues (my son pooped in the bathtub!) love life issues (I have a new man!) and magazine cover type issues (I got the cutest top at Kohls!) Here I am posting videos on my Facebook about the dangers of MSG and Aspartame, Ron Paul saying "When I was drafted...I went" and the like. I feel it falls upon deaf ears.

I have come to this theory not only by observing the world around me, but seeing how two of my brother's marriages fell apart. They married women who got caught up in the aforementioned female agenda. The daughters these women spawned are going down the very same path at an even younger age. My 11-year-old niece used a Beyonce quote as her Skype status: "Girls! We run this muthaa!!" :confused: It truly frightens me. To be honest, I'm waiting for my third brother's marriage to fail. His wife does nothing but read romance novels in her spare time.

Education plays a role in all of this, too. In my high school, we took 1 year of American History (standard "The Native Americans were here first, but hey, the British suck, we beat them" lessons) and 1 semester of a quasi-government class. All I can recall from that class is how to fill out a check and tax returns. The precious little that we learn about our country, we learn in the worst setting ever: amongst young teens with raging hormones who can only think about one thing most of the day. As far as important issues, they were never covered in my school. I don't remember being taught about the Federal Reserve, civil disobedience or anything about how government worked, really. I had to basically educate myself on every issue my school felt was unimportant, such as the Palestinian/Israeli conflict. My mom is 61 and had no idea what they were fighting about and always turned a blind eye to those kind of reports whenever she watched the news.

Short of gradual individual awakenings like mine (it's a long story but I used to be apathetic to politics) and a shift towards enlightenment in our influential media, I don't see any easy solutions.

Very good analysis, Bravo!

[da32130]

no one called them idiots...stop putting words in peoples mouths. Again, socialism is not sustainable when implemented at a government level. To maintain 'fairness' requires a lack of compassion and brutal enforcement of 'needs' irregardless of circumstances. There is an enforcer class that will control this dispensation of goods. If you don't value long term goals then you fail in logically thinking out the consequences of your actions.

When people say women aren't good in economics, etc. the implication to me is that they are idiots. I take it back if that is wrong.

It isn't about long term goals. Equality can also be a long term goal.

Some people may put equality (which can be obtained quickly and with economic benefit to most overnight) over economic wealth (which only will come with time).

An example might be the Amish, who don't value increased economic well being.

My point is only that the other side also has a point. Once we understand that we can have a respectful discussion on the core issues that might change their minds.

[moostraks]

Absolutely. It's not about being irrational. It's about the way we are raised and breaking free from the shackles that society places around us. I know we've gone in depth on that topic in the past here. When you take into account what Gunny is saying, the average female voter is not behaving irrationally. She is behaving as she has been taught/conditioned to behave which is actually quite rational. Societal programming is what we're up against, not the irrationality of women. And ftr, the word irrational as applied to women is like calling Paul supporters kooks or crazy. It's a derogatory label. I doubt most would consider being called "irrational" as a good thing. It's like saying "men are sane, women are not". That kind of divisiveness is not what we need. And I'm not even going to delve into the "women vote based on physical appearances" meme. Seriously? That's a big brush to paint with riddled with hypocrisy given the fixation of society on the way women look which is well represented by all the smoking hot male talking heads people get their news from along with the butt ugly, modestly dressed female talking heads. And that's just one admittedly sarcastic example.

That said, I'm not sure how this conversation in grassroots central is going to attract women to the board to learn more about Paul. Most women I know do not feel the need to debate and spar and are not likely to jump into what they perceive to be a hostile environment where they need to defend themselves for being women on what is a mostly male board (not that this thread is full of women bashers by any means but that could be the "take away" by a sensitive woman lurking). This thread could drive away more than it would likely attract. And therein lies a problem and if we don't change the way we "market" to the average female voter then we surely aren't going to bring them on board. That's the reality of the situation and no amount of debating w/each other on the open board will change that. That is the crux of what was in my thread in HT.

As a personal judgment, I do find this conversation to be teetering on the edge of irrationality. Some people understand women, some do not, some make assumptions based on what they themselves have not lived and do not understand and none of what we say can be applied to an entire group of individuals and I don't see how any of it helps us get Paul elected. This conversation would be much more productive if we were discussing ways to appeal to the average female voter- that's what we should rationally be doing. Jmho. ;)

Have you been pregnant recently? A good number of the voting public will be in some stage of this process and they will feel very responsible to making their voice heard. I have been pregnant and given birth to 8 children and very few were the days that physical issues did not cause my objectivity to be questioned. Take a tour of BBC's birth boards and try to see the 'rational' discussions that occur by those who discuss anything close to politics. To dismiss this facet of females is like putting blinders on. Sometimes the truth hurts, but women need to own a bit of the irrational behavior. Men can speak for their own issues on that segment of the chest beating public that thinks that the wars are like glorified football games...

Reframing the issues requires tact and some insider knowledge of how women can be emotionally driven to make short sighted choices based on prior conditioning.

[Tal]

A lot of women just find politics boring I think, a forum I post on has something like 100 men and 3 women and of those 3 women only 1 of them actually debates the guys, the other 2 just chit chats in the off-topic area.

I think it might have something to do with debating being confrontational and women generally dont like confrontations I think, they prefer being nice.

As for why so many of them dont like Ron Paul I guess that is because socialism in general is seen as the soft and caring system while capitalism is seen as the hard and brutal system by women and women tend to find softness and niceness appealing.

[specsaregood]

When people say women aren't good in economics

Anyone that says that hasn't seen what women can do with coupons when so inspired.

[pinkmandy]

+ rep for pen_thief. Well said. I see the same and it is so disturbing to me. Tptb did quite a number on most people and it takes a lot of reflection and soul searching to sift through the bs that we've been told, allowing society to tell us who we are instead of defining that for ourselves through our own hearts and experiences...that's true for males and females. I think part of growing out of it, seeing through it all, is spending time alone with your own thoughts.

[Deborah K]

A lot of women just find politics boring I think, a forum I post on has something like 100 men and 3 women and of those 3 women only 1 of them actually debates the guys, the other 2 just chit chats in the off-topic area.

I think it might have something to do with debating being confrontational and women generally dont like confrontations I think, they prefer being nice.

Say wut??

[moostraks]

When people say women aren't good in economics, etc. the implication to me is that they are idiots. I take it back if that is wrong.

It isn't about long term goals. Equality can also be a long term goal.

Some people may put equality (which can be obtained quickly and with economic benefit to most overnight) over economic wealth (which only will come with time).

An example might be the Amish, who don't value increased economic well being.

My point is only that the other side also has a point. Once we understand that we can have a respectful discussion on the core issues that might change their minds.

The Amish aren't socialist. To look for a socialist group you would need to look towards the Hutterites. :)

Being respectful doesn't mean ignoring issues with their argument but learning what makes people tick so you can discuss with them on the same level...

[da32130]

The Amish aren't socialist. To look for a socialist group you would need to look towards the Hutterites. :)

Being respectful doesn't mean ignoring issues with their argument but learning what makes people tick so you can discuss with them on the same level...

OK, hutterites. :) But the Amish aren't concerned with economic growth, so it can happen.

Also, convincing someone doesn't mean ignoring that they have a reasonable argument in some area. In fact, once you have found that common ground you may be able to actually convince them at a deep level.

[revgen]

IMO, education and research is key to becoming a Ron Paul supporter.

Women in general are more interested in researching their family genealogy than researching how the Federal Reserve works.

An ad that would appeal to women would have a hook like this "Imagine if all the money you are trying to save for your children to go to college won't even pay for half of the bill when it's time for them to go..."

[NewRightLibertarian]

Maybe it's because women are more affected by the propaganda that they are under attack from by the government. I think it was Hitler or one of his underlings that said you target the women and the children with the propaganda and the men will follow. That's my guess

[PursuePeace]

Thanks to me, my wife loves Ron Paul and votes for him

Thanks to me, my husband loves Ron Paul and votes for him.

[Kevin Smyth]

Say wut??

Women like confrontations but not over politics, women generally like competing with other women over who has the more expensive house or car, that's what most women are competitive over so that's what they are interested in. My mother is voting for Romney because he's rich and good looking, so he's the type of man she would want to date. She says Ron Paul is creepy looking. She doesn't have a clue about the issues and she doesn't care, she's more interested in watching Grey's Anatomy and Desperate Housewives. I doubt that my mother is the only woman who acts this way.

[Ssd]

I think women like big government and men like small government.

[da32130]

Women like confrontations but not over politics, women generally like competing with other women over who has the more expensive house or car, that's what most women are competitive over so that's what they are interested in.

and guys like competing over who has the better women. :)

[pinkmandy]

Have you been pregnant recently? A good number of the voting public will be in some stage of this process and they will feel very responsible to making their voice heard. I have been pregnant and given birth to 8 children and very few were the days that physical issues did not cause my objectivity to be questioned. Take a tour of BBC's birth boards and try to see the 'rational' discussions that occur by those who discuss anything close to politics. To dismiss this facet of females is like putting blinders on. Sometimes the truth hurts, but women need to own a bit of the irrational behavior. Men can speak for their own issues on that segment of the chest beating public that thinks that the wars are like glorified football games...

Reframing the issues requires tact and some insider knowledge of how women can be emotionally driven to make short sighted choices based on prior conditioning.

I'm on mothering boards and we do have rational political discussions and have for many years (since before Paul's first run). Quite a few have been converted to RP, too. ;) Yes, I have kids growing up and homeschool them as well. And I still have a different perspective than you do. Your truth is based on your judgments and experiences, same holds true for me. And it doesn't hurt. Humans as a whole, imo, need to own their irrational behavior and it certainly isn't just a woman thing or something we need to "own". I doubt there's a human alive who has not acted irrationally (however you define irrational which is often based on how you personally define rational based on your own personal judgments) at different points in his/her life. When I consider rational vs. irrational I think of humanity as a whole. We- as in all of humanity- should have figured out by now how to live in peace, how to keep our environment clean, how to help each generation of children be smarter and wiser than the previous one, how to leave the world a better place for future generations. We are collectively doing the exact opposite- humanity at large is "making short sighted choices based on prior conditioning".

Now, how does this conversation help get Paul elected? I posted earlier in the thread about creating ads geared towards women- did you read that post, too? Any thoughts? I also started a thread in HT days ago about getting more women on board? Comments? I have made suggestions on the appealing to female voters thread that was started a little while ago. Realistically, this conversation is a rehashing of a topic that has been around and around and around and does more harm than good to the movement imho. It isn't something to be solved in grassroots central. It's full of opinions because we all have them. But, ultimately, while it's fun to discuss at times it isn't doing much to elect Paul.

For now I bow out of this conversation. I may rejoin if it is moved to OT or another sub. I just don't see how this benefits us at all. Can you imagine if we were discussing the irrationality of another "group"? We'd be skewered. We can't lament that we don't attract female voters when analyzing and labeling them is what we're doing in grassroots central.

[RockEnds]

OK, hutterites. :) But the Amish aren't concerned with economic growth, so it can happen.

Also, convincing someone doesn't mean ignoring that they have a reasonable argument in some area. In fact, once you have found that common ground you may be able to actually convince them at a deep level.

I live in a county that is probably a third Amish (and conservative Mennonite)--at least when it comes to who owns the land. The Amish are very concerned with economic growth, and they're darned good at competing in a technologically advanced society. They may not put new technologies to use (sometimes they do, just not as we expect), but they are very good at adapting to changing economic opportunities. They're actually quite shrewd business people.

[Lymeade-Lady]

My wife is voting for Ron Paul. I'm pretty sure it's because I talk about him every day. She isn't really into politics and probably wouldn't vote if I didn't try to talk to her about it. Well, my husband is for Ron Paul b/c I talk about him so much! But if it weren't for my illness leading to being into alternative health, I wouldn't have listened to the first Ron Paul youtube (google interview) and then researched more.

I can give it to you personality wise (Myers-Briggs). Ron Paul is a "Thinker"--logical more than emotional. 2/3rd of males are. Only 1/3 of women are. He appelas well to thinkers. The opposite is "Feeler" and that's based on values. We need to promote values. (BTW, I'm a feeler, but I'm also a researcher and he was promoting one of my values--HEALTH.)

[bobbyw24]

Thanks to me, my husband loves Ron Paul and votes for him.

Excellent

But there cannot be more than one Ron Paul voter in NoVa can there?

[RockEnds]

IMO, education and research is key to becoming a Ron Paul supporter.

Women in general are more interested in researching their family genealogy than researching how the Federal Reserve works.

An ad that would appeal to women would have a hook like this "Imagine if all the money you are trying to save for your children to go to college won't even pay for half of the bill when it's time for them to go..."

I enjoy researching both genealogy and the Federal Reserve. The Federal Reserve is a bit easier as I'm not required to read French, Latin, and gothic German to study it. Researching genealogy requires all three of those. Researching genealogy requires freedom, also. Just last month, we lost the Social Security Death Index. Apparently dead people require privacy. Or something. The freedom vs excessive government interference effects all aspects of life.

[da32130]

I live in a county that is probably a third Amish--at least when it comes to who owns the land. The Amish are very concerned with economic growth, and they're darned good at competing in a technologically advanced society. They may not put new technologies to use (sometimes they do, just not as we expect), but they are very good at adapting to changing economic opportunities. They're actually quite shrewd business people.

I'm sure you know much more about them than I do. But fundamentally, when they first started and didn't use the latest farming (or whatever) technology there must have been a greater value to them in something else that the technology might take away. To the extent those feeling could come about in them, it seems reasonable those feelings may come about in other people putting equality over further technological development. And that is not to say someone may not value new technology, but that some other value is put above it.

[Xenophage]

I think women like big government

I guess size DOES matter!

[moostraks]

OK, hutterites. :) But the Amish aren't concerned with economic growth, so it can happen.

Also, convincing someone doesn't mean ignoring that they have a reasonable argument in some area. In fact, once you have found that common ground you may be able to actually convince them at a deep level.

Do you know any Amish? They argue over the number of pleats in their kaps! LOL! They are concerned with economic growth but they are limited by what their benevolent dictator allows them to have within the confines of their insulated group. Each family can choose their occupation and benefits from the income they generate. Hutterites do everything in communion.

Ignoring reasonable arguments would be not meeting people where they are and proposing why one solution is better. Ultimately a solution has to be decided upon. If we lack courage of our convictions it will be because the solution lacks substance. This is why local politics is best because the larger the geographical area the government covers the less effective it is and the more tyrannical it becomes. Many of us hardily disagree when it comes to solutions we want implementd at the local level, but courteously agree to disagree for the common goal of destruction of dangerous federal policies.

[RockEnds]

I'm sure you know much more about them than I do. But fundamentally, when they first started and didn't use the latest farming (or whatever) technology there must have been a greater value to them in something else that the technology might take away. To the extent those feeling could come about in them, it seems reasonable those feelings may come about in other people putting equality over further technological development. And that is not to say someone may not value new technology, but that some other value is put above it.

Well, I certainly wasn't raised Amish, but a quarter of my genealogy is Amish, and as I just mentioned, I do study genealogy pretty seriously. When they first started, their objective was religious freedom. I have ancestors who were literally baptised to death. I have another ancestor who was beaten to death for refusing to join Napoleon's Army. It wasn't that they didn't use technology at that time. They didn't use anything that would be considered flashy. Like buttons and shoe strings. They're past the shoe strings now. I think? I know they're not past the buttons.

They refused to be baptised or married by state churches, and as a result, their children were often branded illegitimate and therefore had no inheritance rights. The loss of property forced many of them into working for wealthy, politically influential land owners who protected them because they worked hard and were productive. Their productivity has always been used as a tool to safeguard their religious freedom.

I'm not really sure where this was going, but they do understand that freedom and productivity go hand in hand.

[da32130]

Do you know any Amish? They argue over the number of pleats in their kaps! LOL! They are concerned with economic growth but they are limited by what their benevolent dictator allows them to have within the confines of their insulated group. Each family can choose their occupation and benefits from the income they generate. Hutterites do everything in communion.



This is a previously response I gave:

I'm sure you know much more about them than I do. But fundamentally, when they first started and didn't use the latest farming (or whatever) technology there must have been a greater value to them in something else that the technology might take away. To the extent those feeling could come about in them, it seems reasonable those feelings may come about in other people putting equality over further technological development. And that is not to say someone may not value new technology, but that some other value is put above it.




Ignoring reasonable arguments would be not meeting people where they are and proposing why one solution is better. Ultimately a solution has to be decided upon. If we lack courage of our convictions it will be because the solution lacks substance. This is why local politics is best because the larger the geographical area the government covers the less effective it is and the more tyrannical it becomes. Many of us hardily disagree when it comes to solutions we want implementd at the local level, but courteously agree to disagree for the common goal of destruction of dangerous federal policies.

I'm not sure exactly what we are arguing here. I agree that many Paul supporters are taking the route you are talking about. Other people who value federal equality/enforcement of their ideas are going to clash with Paul. To the extent people realize those are the choices we may be able to convert some who decide they do value ideas such as freedom and economic growth over other values. When we get enough people elected into government that agree with us we can move things in our direction.

[da32130]

Well, I certainly wasn't raised Amish, but a quarter of my genealogy is Amish, and as I just mentioned, I do study genealogy pretty seriously. When they first started, their objective was religious freedom. I have ancestors who were literally baptised to death. I have another ancestor who was beaten to death for refusing to join Napoleon's Army. It wasn't that they didn't use technology at that time. They didn't use anything that would be considered flashy. Like buttons and shoe strings. They're past the shoe strings now. I think? I know they're not past the buttons.

They refused to be baptised or married by state churches, and as a result, their children were often branded illegitimate and therefore had no inheritance rights. The loss of property forced many of them into working for wealthy, politically influential land owners who protected them because they worked hard and were productive. Their productivity has always been used as a tool to safeguard their religious freedom.

I'm not really sure where this was going, but they do understand that freedom and productivity go hand in hand.

Interesting. My take would then be that they put religious beliefs over economic growth. Had they valued those beliefs less they could have enjoyed more material prosperity. So the general concept still translates, but I didn't realize how indirect it was.

[moostraks]

I'm on mothering boards and we do have rational political discussions and have for many years (since before Paul's first run). Quite a few have been converted to RP, too. ;) Yes, I have kids growing up and homeschool them as well. And I still have a different perspective than you do. Your truth is based on your judgments and experiences, same holds true for me. And it doesn't hurt. Humans as a whole, imo, need to own their irrational behavior and it certainly isn't just a woman thing or something we need to "own". I doubt there's a human alive who has not acted irrationally (however you define irrational which is often based on how you personally define rational based on your own personal judgments) at different points in his/her life. When I consider rational vs. irrational I think of humanity as a whole. We- as in all of humanity- should have figured out by now how to live in peace, how to keep our environment clean, how to help each generation of children be smarter and wiser than the previous one, how to leave the world a better place for future generations. We are collectively doing the exact opposite- humanity at large is "making short sighted choices based on prior conditioning".

Now, how does this conversation help get Paul elected? I posted earlier in the thread about creating ads geared towards women- did you read that post, too? Any thoughts? I also started a thread in HT days ago about getting more women on board? Comments? I have made suggestions on the appealing to female voters thread that was started a little while ago. Realistically, this conversation is a rehashing of a topic that has been around and around and around and does more harm than good to the movement imho. It isn't something to be solved in grassroots central. It's full of opinions because we all have them. But, ultimately, while it's fun to discuss at times it isn't doing much to elect Paul.

For now I bow out of this conversation. I may rejoin if it is moved to OT or another sub. I just don't see how this benefits us at all. Can you imagine if we were discussing the irrationality of another "group"? We'd be skewered. We can't lament that we don't attract female voters when analyzing and labeling them is what we're doing in grassroots central.

LOL! I am sorry if I offended you. Ads targeting women from the perspective of how the current new laws are detrimental would be great, imo. I think we all take ourselves to seriously and are a bit neurotic about not owning up to our short comings. It is perfectly resonable when you get no sleep and are nauseous and in pain not to be on your best game, especially when most men expect a sex goddess (due to marketing) even if you are pregnant.(even if your husband is the exception to the rule, the media still has many of us paranoid...) Now you have a number of young fathers bailing on women because it is socially accceptable and they really are just out to keep up their image with the new, shiny, improved model. These are all voters who feel that with the new life budding inside is suddenly a time to become politically active.

The running joke on BBC is the manner in which the cattiness changes during pregnancy and no birth board seems to escape its fair share. It indicates we are very emotional and prone to think and react differently depending upon the 'season'. As I have said before, do the research and follow a group of women on one of these birth boards. I think you are confusing parenting boards with birth boards. Many women become more politcally active when they feel the new found weight of parental responsibility, and I believe that number falls back to the more studious as you get further away from the birth boards and the daily needs overwhelm those with less determination and/or time or their hands. Thus your experience with the less emotional parent boards. I believe we cannot ignore the fact that women are the ones who get pregnant, emotional, and still vote.

This should probably be sent to HT...

[RockEnds]

Interesting. My take would then be that they put religious beliefs over economic growth. Had they valued those beliefs less they could have enjoyed more material prosperity. So the general concept still translates, but I didn't realize how indirect it was.

Well, I guess that's one way to look at it. I kind of see it as they refused to sell their freedom. They certainly didn't remain in this situation forever. They came to America where they didn't have to make the choices they made in Europe. They're also not the only group in history that has been stripped of their lives and property because of a refusal to submit to tyranny. I'm personally of the opinion that freedom/liberty/civil rights be the first priority. If liberty doesn't exist, then no one's economic prosperity is secured.

[da32130]

Well, I guess that's one way to look at it. I kind of see it as they refused to sell their freedom. They certainly didn't remain in this situation forever. They came to America where they didn't have to make the choices they made in Europe. They're also not the only group in history that has been stripped of their lives and property because of a refusal to submit to tyranny. I'm personally of the opinion that freedom/liberty/civil rights be the first priority. If liberty doesn't exist, then no one's economic prosperity is secured.

I think that justification would weaken my point. But knowing some other religions that have been persecuted and economically weakened, I'm not sure that applies to everyone who made that sacrifice (religious freedom vs economic comfort).

An alternative example might be a monk who vows poverty for religious reasons.

One reason Paul can do well is that most people at the end of the day do want increased technology. Even some that want equality want it because they would immediately benefit. And others when forced to sacrifice might lose conviction in that value. But in theory equality is a valid desire.

[bobbyw24]

Romney got 40%

[Johncjackson]

I'll say it for you: More women vote based on physical appearance than men and unfortunately the ladies just don't think Ron Paul is a hot guy. :rolleyes:

Pretty much. Reminds me of a recent article about all these teen girls waiting to see Paul who were distracted by Romney's sons and even some thought SANTORUM was "hot." In addition to looks, women are definitely attracted to arrogance. And most of the grown women I know are just older versions of their teenage selves.

Men place a lot of value on looks, too- just for different purposes.