Women's vote not going to Dr. Paul

[Carole]

Women's vote not going to Dr. Paul.:(

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

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

Do not know him?

Anyone have any thoughts and how to fix it?

[Devil_rules_in_extremes]

I find women aren't keen at all to a Libertarian message.

[Paul10]

....

[winston_blade]

I told RP that he should work on his abs.

[Deborah K]

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

[quickmike]

Most women dont care about liberty, they want security. Of course im not talking about ALL women, so dont jump down my throat please. :D

Sure there are some women that understand that liberty is ultimately more important than letting the government take away your freedoms to keep you "safe".

This is just one of those unfortunate realities that we have to deal with in the long term. Theres not enough time to get all these women to understand the concept, but its something that needs to be worked on for the future.

[stefans]

I find women aren't keen at all to a Libertarian message.

believe it or not, but that problem is an international one.
I know of two classical liberal parties in different countries in europe that have the same problem.
can't give you a reason though.

[Antonius Stone]

we should make tasers and/or mace bottles that say "Ron Paul For President 2008" and give them out freely to women at campaign rallies

all the "security" they'd ever want, without the government

[K1RBY]

this is why we should never have givin them the right to vote!!

[Ron LOL]

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

This is a well known result from many, many, MANY polls. And if you don't trust "the MSM," check Meetup group membership...it's easily verified.

I suspect we find ourselves in this situation because Ron Paul won't "THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!"

[Devil_rules_in_extremes]

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

Look at the Iowa Caucasus results and the percentage of women that voted for RP. It was only like 14% of women.

[RonPaulCult]

I would think he would be an easy sell to all women that are pro-life and/or against the war.

[MsDoodahs]

quickmike is correct. Think about it. Women are genetically programmed to nest and nurture. They want security.

They fall for the false promises of security that the enemies of liberty are so quick to offer them.

[stefans]

Look at the Iowa Caucasus results and the percentage of women that voted for RP. It was only like 14% of women.

14?!

[TheIndependent]

this is why we should never have givin them the right to vote!!

You might want to put a /sarcasm tag there.

[bolidew]

What can we do?

Convince our wife, daughter, mother, sister, and grandmother.

[Devil_rules_in_extremes]

14?!

Actually I was wrong. Only 8%!!!!

http://www.usaelectionpolls.com/

Republican Caucus Results

Born-Again or Evangelical Christian Voters decided this election in Huckabee's favor.

* Huckabee - 46%
* Romney - 19%
* Thompson - 11%
* Paul - 10%
* McCain - 10%
* Giuliani - 2%

Women also helped to decide this GOP election, here is how the women votes broke down.

* Huckabee - 40%
* Romney - 24%
* McCain - 13%
* Thompson - 10%
* Paul - 8%

Independent Voters in the Republican Caucus

* Ron Paul - 29%
* John McCain - 23%
* Mitt Romney - 19%
* Mike Huckabee - 17%

Ron Paul was the best at converting the Independent voters and this proves that he will be a formidable threat in New Hampshire.

Ron Paul finished third among the youngest of voters but excelled in the 17-29 age group with 21%.

17% of voters decided as to who they were supporting the day of the caucus. Here is how those voters broke down.

* Huckabee - 29%
* Thompson - 19%
* Romney - 18%
* McCain - 17%
* Paul - 13%
* Giuliani - 2%

[ProBlue33]

Well if this is true Ron Paul may have no choice but to pick a female VP, like Sarah Palin.

[Deborah K]

My meetup has just as many women as men. I see just as many women with signs as men. Look at all the Utube clips.....just as many women.....I don't buy this crap for one second!

[Azprint]

Women are liberal, always were, it's a norm.

[Paul10]

....

[Devil_rules_in_extremes]

My meetup has just as many women as men. I see just as many women with signs as men. Look at all the Utube clips.....just as many women.....I don't buy this crap for one second!

http://www.usaelectionpolls.com/

Women also helped to decide this GOP election, here is how the women votes broke down.

* Huckabee - 40%
* Romney - 24%
* McCain - 13%
* Thompson - 10%
* Paul - 8%

[RevolutionSD]

Actually I was wrong. Only 8%!!!!



This is misleading, he did not do that poorly with women.
He got 12% of men and 8% of women, 10% overall.
Really that's not a big deal, although I'm well-aware of the liberty message being much more broadly accepted by males.

[CountryRoads]

quickmike is correct. Think about it. Women are genetically programmed to nest and nurture. They want security.

They fall for the false promises of security that the enemies of liberty are so quick to offer them.

This is the correct answer.

[stefans]

we got 10% of evangelicals and born-agains. that's interesting.

[atilla]

i could give you an explanation, but 5 women on this board will jump up and argue with everything and say
it can't be true because it doesn't apply to them and besides their meetup group is all female.

it is what it is, it's confirmed by the zogby polls. if you go to a libertarian convention you will find no need for feminine hygiene products. seriously, if you want female voters, Obama is your man.

[crink]

Well if this is true Ron Paul may have no choice but to pick a female VP, like Sarah Palin.

This is actually a great idea. If there is ever problems with the female vote in the future i think this is an awesome idea.

[quickmike]

Women are liberal, always were, it's a norm.


Well, not ALL of them are obviously, but its definitely the trend. Like Msdoodahs said, they fall for the promises of security made to them by the enemies of liberty.

My mother is one of the few "tough broads" that is voting for Ron and has donated the max to his campaign, but of course she had to deal with me and my brother at each others throats when we were kids because dad was always on business trips, so shes pretty tough and understands having to deal with things on your own sometimes.:D

[Deborah K]

ROFL!!! I love the way men think they know what women want!!

[Goldwater Conservative]

Women tend to be economically populist, even among Republicans and self-described "conservatives," hence Huckleberry's results. If we had more time and even money, I'd say there should be a concerted effort to philosophically sway female primary voters. We definitely must make this a top priority for the general election.

[Sandy]

Carole,

I am not going to be politically correct so going to say what I think. Women especially have been sold on the socialist agenda, women are more emotional beings and the propaganda has tugged at their heart strings. There is also a growing number of single mothers who are struggling and are looking to the gov't for the answer and for help.

You and I are women, so obviously there are women out there who are aware of the brainwashing and know what socialism is really about. Lots of women don't understand and are looking for the nanny state in one way or another. The brainwashing is everywhere, from the schools/colleges to the media. "The children, the children!" "People are without health care!" "Ron Paul would leave people on the streets"

If they only knew. The only way to change this is through education and that is difficult to do quickly. They don't realize that getting back to a true free market would change things because the propaganda going around is capitalism (should be corporatism) is evil, etc. They aren't really aware of the monopoly in health care for example, or that one of the reasons health care costs are so expensive is because of socialist programs like Medicare.

Education is the key, and ads/information pertaining to this is the ticket to getting more of the female vote. Also, he wants to end the Roe vs Wade law the SC created, as if that is their right to make a law in the first place. :mad: He wants things to return to the state and local levels. Some women won't vote for him on this issue alone. They would vote for Stalin over RP, as you can see we have plenty of people out there that would vote for Stalin or Hitler before voting for the honest and worthwhile candidate.

[Molly1]

The women I talk to love his message--once they understand it.

Don't worry about women, we aren't buying Hilary's free pre-K in return for 100 years of war.

We raise 'em up for free to go to war and die.

[r3volution]

strippers & hookers like Ron , thats all i need to know ..

[Laja]

They go for the one's that are more "handsome".

I don't believe that. Most women naturally are social creatures and they like to help people in need. Social programs are supported by many women, as a result. The Ron Paul Republican message doesn't speak to their hearts. Also, many don't know what incredible danger this country is in thanks to the propaganda machine of the Old Media.

I'm one of those former Democrats who realizes our peril and therefore can find Dr. Paul's message to be the perfect antidote to the problem. Women, as a rule, don't like men telling them what they can or can't do with their bodies. Therefore, just the thought of repealing Roe v. Wade after all the years it took to gain this freedom, is too much to bear for many women. They say that leaving it up to the states will be a disaster.

For what it's worth...

[pacelli]

Women's vote not going to Dr. Paul.:(

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

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

Do not know him?

Anyone have any thoughts and how to fix it?


I think it has something to do with Dr. Paul being pro-life. Not saying it is right or wrong, but the women I've spoken with cite that as their primary cause for concern. They seemed unwilling to accept Dr. Paul's statement that despite his personal views, it is not the president's job to dictate to the states what they can and cannot do.

[Sandy]

Oops, forgot about the security issue, too.

[hawks4ronpaul]

Explain how liberty IS security.

Use my site for security moms.

http://hawks4ronpaul.blogspot.com/

[hawks4ronpaul]

Women, as a rule, don't like men telling them what they can or can't do with their bodies.

Then show them a picture of the Roe Supreme Court justices.

http://hawks4ronpaul.blogspot.com/

[Goldwater Conservative]

I imagine the abortion issue is more of a problem for getting first-time voters or swaying independents in open primaries. Within the GOP, everybody but Julie is running pro-life.

[Antonius Stone]

i think the abortion issue should only be a problem for liberal women in red states

liberal women in blue states (probably) won't care as much because even if roe gets reversed their abortion rights arent going anywhere. CA and NY will NEVER have state abortion bans.

also, tell those women who are voting on the abortion issue that it would be cheaper, more affordable and more efficient to have private charities help pregnant women in Red States get extradited to blue states for the purpose of getting an abortion rather than TAXING THE PEOPLE to enforce Roe V. Wade

then ask them if they'd rather vote with their money (donate to a charity) for preserving women's rights or pay income taxes to an increasingly corrupt federal government

[susano]

we should make tasers and/or mace bottles that say "Ron Paul For President 2008" and give them out freely to women at campaign rallies

all the "security" they'd ever want, without the government


hahaha! I love that idea.

[scooter]

I have found the abortion issue to be a very successful way to actually get women to support RP. Once I tell mothers that he's a baby-delivering doctor and opposes abortion they perk up.

Remember to tell them he's a kind and caring doctor. Not a nasty, lying lawyer.

[tamor]

Ron Paul needs to stress he has "transition" plans for the changes he suggests, so we, women, are not as concerned with the security issue -- also the idea of a draft really scares mothers - so, if that word could be used in the response to the question about ending our presence around the world that may help.

[Sey.Naci]

Carole: "Why is this happening?"

Carole, I suspect it's the abortion issue, first off.

But also that a disproportionate number of poor people are women and they haven't been exposed to any political views other than welfarism. The system makes sure of that. Re the latter, you can't blame the very poor for not knowing that alternatives exist; they've tough lives, with many of them, especially women, having been widowed or abandoned with children to raise alone. They are unlikely to have Internet access and many don't even have phones. How do you reach them? And how can they come to know that there are alternatives to welfarism that do them far less harm?

I'm convinced that poor women could be a huge demographic for RP if only they could be reached. I say this as a woman with disabilities, on very low income, and a poverty activist.

When we get together and talk amongst ourselves, it becomes very clear that there's a STRONG streak of independence and a general abhorence for those on the system for being beholden to it. These women want off, know political change is required, but don't, in general, realize their own power to help make that change. I make it my job to help them see this.


I find women aren't keen at all to a Libertarian message.No, the vast majority are unaware of it.


They go for the one's that are more "handsome".Right, like you're going for Clinton? After all, she's the only woman running.


I would think he would be an easy sell to all women that are pro-life and/or against the war.The anti-war message needs to be emphasized far more. It is huge issue with women, more than it has traditionally been for men (which baffles me, but the stats bear this out).


quickmike is correct. Think about it. Women are genetically programmed to nest and nurture.Strongly disagree with this. We are culturally programmed to nest and nurture. No genetic predisposition for this has been scientifically validated, but cultural pressures have been shown to play a strong force - just as men have been conditioned to be the aggressor, unemotional, etc. These are just stereotypes.


Women are liberal, always were, it's a norm.No. Another stereotype.


They vote for whoever is younger.No. Remember that women do go for OLDER men, not just younger ones. Stop belittling women, supposing we haven't a brain in our head enough to know that character and a stance on issues are more important than appearance.


ROFL!!! I love the way men think they know what women want!!:D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D

[dude58677]

I told RP that he should work on his abs.

Ron Paul was a state champion in track and his abs may have had something to do with it.

[hawks4ronpaul]

RP is/was an athlete, a military man in uniform, officer and a gentleman, and a doctor who delivered babies and is faithfully married to the same woman for 50 years with a big family who will end a war and end the draft (selective service registration) and provide a safe transition plan for financial security (IRS/dollar) and provide privacy security (PATRIOT Act).

What other candidate can beat that?

http://hawks4ronpaul.blogspot.com/

[Birdlady]

Most young women I know don't care. They would rather be out with their boyfriends, buying new clothes and shoes than vote for the president.

Our media has trained them that being a politically active women isn't popular or good.

Men on the other hand feel that is their duty to pick the next president. There is that expectation when you hit 18 to start voting. Women don't have that at all!

Older women on the other hand, I have no experience with them, so I have no idea.

[Sandy]

Then show them a picture of the Roe Supreme Court justices.

http://hawks4ronpaul.blogspot.com/

Wow, good one! Also, ask them why the Supreme Court should make laws when that is not the funtion of the Supreme Court.

[Carole]

Yes, that part I can sort of see, but have they no sense that we cannot afford it?

[thechitowncubs]

Motherly instincts to take care of everyone and keep everyone safe.

[Carole]

Women are voting for other candidates though.

Percentage wise Dr. Paul polls low with women as compared with other candidates.

On pro-life it is a simple matter to qualify that his message intends the states to determine the abortion issue. That should certainly help. He says this occasionally, but it isn't getting through to women.

[LibertiORDeth]

this is why we should never have givin them the right to vote!!

yep...

[Paul4Prez]

I find women aren't keen at all to a Libertarian message.

Some are, some aren't, but you would think women would be more receptive to Ron Paul's anti-war message. Maybe we can sell them on his concern for the future of this country, and how it will affect our children and grandchildren....

[Birdlady]

I was a little different because for some reason my Mom is very political (Still working on her RP support). She encouraged me to vote at 18 and to research candidates before I blindly vote for them haha. However my friends were not the same at all. They would just go along with whomever their parents were voting for or their boyfriend liked. Women (that I knew) have the follow the group mindset. Right now Obama is winning in that regard. I think we need to start going after Obama's supporters. Make YouTubes showing how he won't get us out of the war etc. They have been duped.

[Carole]

Well, I am a woman and have always taken an interest in the more libertarian view--all my life.
But, still why would one issue like abortion be more important than economy and the war?

I must be uh, "quixotic." :)

[Carole]

Oh my gosh, you are absolutely right.

I FORGOT that!!!!!!!!

I do wish all Americans would think for themselves. :eek:

[familydog]

My meetup has just as many women as men. I see just as many women with signs as men. Look at all the Utube clips.....just as many women.....I don't buy this crap for one second!

Well, I'd say that a lot of the visable, vocal support is skewed towards men. But I'm not buying into all these sterotypes about women and do recognize, at least in my area, the ratio is fairly even.

[Carole]

We still need a solution.

[Birdlady]

Oh my gosh, you are absolutely right.

I FORGOT that!!!!!!!!

I do wish all Americans would think for themselves. :eek:

hehe You know women won't even go to the bathroom by themselves! Just think what it is like for them to walk into the polling center alone...Not gonna happen. :p

Solution would be to go after the Obama supporters. They obviously are very enthusiastic. However they have just been duped into thinking he is for "change" and "hope". Just show them how he really isn't going to stop the war and they will come our way, slowly but surely.

Unfortunately having closed primaries really hurt us!

[Carole]

That is what I think, too.

Maybe just do not mention pro-life (sneaky) and talk about sons and daughters fighting this wrong war and high prices at grocery store and gas prices.

[Carole]

I have seen over the months some breakdowns-can't remember where that showed low support from women and thre to four times support from men.

The Iowa caucus breakdown seemed to show this also.

[Carole]

OKay, maybe I am mistaken about Iowa, but definitely have seen it somewhere.

Was that consistent in Iowa counties or did it not vary across the counties?

[Carole]

:D

[Carole]

:::::slapping I1RNY::::::: :D:D:D:D

[Carole]

Glad to hear that and it always looks that way in the You Tubes.

Maybe women will prove me totally wrong. I really hope so.

[tx08]

In an Iowa entrance poll, Ron got 8% of the women to vote for him and 11% of the men, not terribly lopsided.

http://edition.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/epolls/index.html#IAREP

Also note that the "hunk" Romney got 2% less women then men voting for him.

[Carole]

Yes, been there, done that.

Maybe that is a part of it. Women who have had to be responsible from and eraly age.

No way to tell though. Silly women's lib did not help.

[TruckinMike]

Just something to ponder...

Why did women want to vote? Maybe, they NEEDED to vote. Why?

Because us MEN let them down. We did not live up to our responsibilities in providing for and defending the woman and the families. We as a group should have castigated any man that didn't live up to his duties. We didn't, thus, we had the woman suffrage movement.

Sorry fellows, but it was our fault. Had we Taken better care of women, they would be content, happy, and still living longer than men. -- Those days are over. Now all we can do is relay the freedom message and hope it takes hold.

Point one: It is IMPOSSIBLE for the government to protect you from rapists, thieves, murderers, or terrorists.

Point two: You must protect yourselves.

Point three: So get fire-arms training.

Point four: then defend the constitution and your rights to protect yourself.

Point five: Vote for Ron Paul and he will help you with point four.


Any help with domestic issues can be had at the state level, so petition them with those concerns.

TruckinMike

[Carole]

Got to humor them Deborah. :)

[Carole]

Thanks Goldwater. I agree with you.

Wonder if anyone at HQ is looking at these things at all. I certainly would be.

[Carole]

Carole,

I am not going to be politically correct so going to say what I think. Women especially have been sold on the socialist agenda, women are more emotional beings and the propaganda has tugged at their heart strings. There is also a growing number of single mothers who are struggling and are looking to the gov't for the answer and for help.

You and I are women, so obviously there are women out there who are aware of the brainwashing and know what socialism is really about. Lots of women don't understand and are looking for the nanny state in one way or another. The brainwashing is everywhere, from the schools/colleges to the media. "The children, the children!" "People are without health care!" "Ron Paul would leave people on the streets"

If they only knew. The only way to change this is through education and that is difficult to do quickly. They don't realize that getting back to a true free market would change things because the propaganda going around is capitalism (should be corporatism) is evil, etc. They aren't really aware of the monopoly in health care for example, or that one of the reasons health care costs are so expensive is because of socialist programs like Medicare.

Education is the key, and ads/information pertaining to this is the ticket to getting more of the female vote. Also, he wants to end the Roe vs Wade law the SC created, as if that is their right to make a law in the first place. :mad: He wants things to return to the state and local levels. Some women won't vote for him on this issue alone. They would vote for Stalin over RP, as you can see we have plenty of people out there that would vote for Stalin or Hitler before voting for the honest and worthwhile candidate.

Thanks Sandy.

I know you are right about a lot of that. Now that I think about it. We have all of us grown up in the same status quo America for years and years. I could never understand why Americans did not change it. For years I did not have the answers.

I guess I was too busy struggling myself. Still I thought about it a lot. I was frustrated and still am by all of it. I have waited forty years for this candidate. It is very important to me, but you are on the mark that many women might fail to see things as some of us do. Well, guys too, fail to see it and unless it is a high percentage of two income families (so many broken ones), I can understand why men would get it before women would get it, especially for the poinats you made.

[Carole]

That is encouraging. :)

[Carole]

:D :::smacking face::: :D

[Carole]

So they just do not buy States rights as being on their side. Interesting.

[JAlli41]

these are emotional voters... ETHOS WINS!!!

[Carole]

At least it should for some, plus the leave it to the states to decide explanation if they are still doubtful.

[amy31416]

Carole,

I first noticed the discrepancy in women vs. men supporters on opensecrets.org and I also believe it's due to stereotypical female concerns of caretaking. This is an area that needs to be addressed for all the right reasons.

So this is sort of a bump for all the women out there--let's brainstorm how to talk to the soccer moms of the world. That certainly helped Clinton when Naomi Wolf did that for him.

[Carole]

We need to find a way to convince women we will be more secure with our protectors here at home. So many have bought into the "terror" sale around the mideast and the world, they fail to see the simple reason people hate us--for intrusions into those countries.

[Carole]

Thanks everyone. You have given me a lot to consider and think about.

[hawks4ronpaul]

We need to find a way to convince women we will be more secure with our protectors here at home. .

There is a marriage gap. Maybe half of married women look outside the house to government for security but large majorities of single/divorced women look to government for security.*

*very rough proportions

http://hawks4ronpaul.blogspot.com/

[Carole]

"But also that a disproportionate number of poor people are women and they haven't been exposed to any political views other than welfarism. The system makes sure of that. Re the latter, you can't blame the very poor for not knowing that alternatives exist; they've tough lives, with many of them, especially women, having been widowed or abandoned with children to raise alone. They are unlikely to have Internet access and many don't even have phones. How do you reach them? And how can they come to know that there are alternatives to welfarism that do them far less harm?

I'm convinced that poor women could be a huge demographic for RP if only they could be reached. I say this as a woman with disabilities, on very low income, and a poverty activist. "

Good points. Wonder if there are stat available on women's support through all income levels.
Might be interesting.

I think I agree that some lowere income women could be reached.

Alot of men in finance world seem to get it. Maybe the women being reached now are not lower income. I bet the Libertarian party has a bunch of stats on this sort of demographics.

[Politeia]

Women's vote not going to Dr. Paul.:(
I find this a real problem. Why is this happening?
Anyone have any thoughts and how to fix it?

I have a little difficulty believing you don't already understand why this is, if, as it appears, you're a woman yourself. Most women, I've found, have a pretty realistic view of other women -- much more so than most men do. And with good reason on both counts.


quickmike is correct. Think about it. Women are genetically programmed to nest and nurture. They want security. They fall for the false promises of security that the enemies of liberty are so quick to offer them.

Exactly. Like females of all other mammalian species that live in groups, women are natural, instinctive collectivists. I know of no case where males cluster together while females run free; it wouldn't make sense.


ROFL!!! I love the way men think they know what women want!!

Well, speaking for myself, given my male lack of "intuition" and other higher cognitive powers, I can only judge by what women do. And after six decades of observation, I have noticed that what they do is very often very different from what they say they "want".

And what women mostly do in regard to Ron Paul -- despite the presence of many in the ranks (including my local Meetup, which is mostly women -- though they all "disagree with" him on abortion) -- is stay away from him in droves. I'm not at all surprised.


this is why we should never have givin them the right to vote!!

Well, since I believe that women actually rule the world -- though they like to pretend they don't (and some of them may actually believe this) -- I don't really think they were "given" anything. They decided they wanted it, and they got it.

And I think it's instructive to look at the 20th Century in this light: as the first time in human history when women have taken active, direct part in politics on a large scale. And what was the result? The Soviet Union, Nazi Germany, Communist China, Khmer Rouge Cambodia, etc. were all built on a foundation of gender equality. China is actually ruled by the block wardens -- grandmother types who sit on stools at the corner of the street and watch (and remember) everything everyone does, 24/7.

Politicians, of course, love to have women voting, because women are (a) easily frightened, and (b) easily led. I hear in Europe there's even a campaign to give the vote to children -- for all the usual reasons. Better yet.

I don't know the solution for this, or if there is one. Whatever women want, one way or another, they will get. If they don't want Ron Paul, well, the good Dr. will, I am sure, enjoy his retirement.


I would think he would be an easy sell to all women that are pro-life and/or against the war.

I'd guess there are actually rather few "pro-life" women who are also anti-war -- difficult as that may be to understand, given that women are always unfailingly logical. Beyond that, remember that to conventional "conservatives" many of RP's ideas seem really nuts -- you mean you actually want to let all those drug addicts do whatever they want? Utter chaos, end of civilization-as-we-know-it.


My meetup has just as many women as men. I see just as many women with signs as men. Look at all the Utube clips.....just as many women.....I don't buy this crap for one second!

Sorry, although I admire and applaud those in the meetups and demonstrations -- and am always happy (I might say overjoyed) to meet and converse with an intelligent woman -- a few thousand motivated activists do not equal the tens of millions of votes we need. Now that the voting's started, we will see if we have them.


They vote for whoever is younger.

This is also a factor. Women like younger men, because they understand children, and younger men are closer to children. Older men are a lot more difficult, even a man as kind and gentle as Dr. Paul. Thing is, behind that kind exterior, he is a man of real, inflexible principle; few American women feel comfortable with that anymore.

Women have always controlled men, but it used to be harder to do. American women have figured out a way to cripple their sons (it's called circumcision) and created several generations now of easily biddable boy-men, so have gotten out of practice in dealing with real men, whom they now find frightening.

And meanwhile the power hungry are having a field day; a nation of women and children is far easier to manage than a nation that is half men.


They would vote for Stalin over RP....

Well, of course; publicly-funded abortion on demand has always been a pillar of socialist states of every kind.


Women, as a rule, don't like men telling them what they can or can't do with their bodies.

Well, just for the record, Dr. Paul doesn't want to tell women what they can or can't do with their bodies -- nor do I. He just believes -- as do I -- that you should keep your agreements. It's the body (and the life) of the child -- created by the woman's free choice what to do with her body -- that is at issue.


I think it has something to do with Dr. Paul being pro-life. Not saying it is right or wrong, but the women I've spoken with cite that as their primary cause for concern. They seemed unwilling to accept Dr. Paul's statement that despite his personal views, it is not the president's job to dictate to the states what they can and cannot do.

Well, of course they're concerned. They don't want there to be any place on the planet where abortion is not allowed, or even not publicly funded -- because (a) some woman there might want an abortion, and (b) allowing any dissent from the Sacredness of Abortion threatens their ideology. There have been cases of people who've changed their mind on the issue, and so long as any dissent is allowed, there's a danger others may do so as well.

I've never yet come across a pro-abortionist who him- or herself has been aborted. There are, however, a number of abortion survivors, and, amazingly enough, they are not pro-abortion. I just can't figure out why. Don't they want "freedom"?


Once I tell mothers that he's a baby-delivering doctor and opposes abortion they perk up.

Women who've had abortions, then later become mothers, often seem to have a different view of the issue. Curious.


Some are, some aren't, but you would think women would be more receptive to Ron Paul's anti-war message.

Yes, you would ... if you believe the myth. Some 45 years ago I saw the movie Lawrence of Arabia; there was a scene where the Bedouin are riding camels off to war (to be betrayed, of course, by Lawrence and the Brits) -- and a crowd of women were cheering them on! What??!! I thought women didn't like war? That was the beginning of my education.

Recently a woman gave me the whole line again. I suggested she go see the films The Four Feathers and An Officer and a Gentleman. (Just for starters, off the top of my head.) I was a draft-dodger during Vietnam. When I saw the latter film -- in which Richard Gere's reward for straightening up and being a good soldier was to get the girl, not at all against her will -- in 1983, my first thought was, "There's going to be another war." Didn't take long.

See above for the difference between what women claim to want (even probably believe they want) and what they actually do. Men go to war for two reasons: (1) To amass territory, goods and glory; and (2) to protect the territory, goods and glory they have from (1). Both are simply means to an end: The Prime Directive. Can you guess what the Prime Directive is? You get a gold star.

If women really wanted to end war -- enough to forego what they gain from it (when their men are the winners), war would end. Period.


We need to find a way to convince women we will be more secure with our protectors here at home.

Well, that may not be easy, since many (most?) American women now regard the government -- "the new husband", as Warren Farrell put it in The Myth of Male Power -- as a better "protector" -- more responsive, more easily managed, less demanding -- than the imperfect men they know personally.

What mothers make of their sons are what their daughters will have for husbands. Women in our culture really need to get together -- across the generations, as in indigenous cultures -- and figure out what they really do want. A man who is easily controlled by women is a man who is not in control of himself, thus susceptible to control by whatever stronger force happens by, thus unreliable. Real women need strong men, even if such men are not easy to control. Makes you grow up too.


Well, I am a woman and have always taken an interest in the more libertarian view--all my life.
I do wish all Americans would think for themselves.
But, still why would one issue like abortion be more important than economy and the war?
I must be uh, "quixotic." :)

Well, you're certainly unusual. Women can think; sometimes they even do. But evolution (whether RP believes in it or not) has not given them the incentive to do so; as a rule, they can get everything they want (or at least need) without the effort involved in disciplined thinking.

Perhaps women learning to think might be our next major evolutionary development. That would be great. I'd love to see a world where the two sexes really are equal in that regard -- and, of course, where men also think in greater numbers than they do now. Perhaps the Ron Paul rEVOLution (as a 60s hippie, I do love that "EVOL" part) is really the first glimmering of such an evolution. There do seem to be a lot of really smart, eager young people suddenly. Gives me heart, it does.

[Carole]

I forgot. :) Need to go back and read up on Susan B. Anthony and others. Suppose it was because of increasing numbers of women working? Nurses at least. Teachers?

Maybe I will look it up. But for our era, men and women both stay away in droves from the elections. And we can ll understand reason for that.

[Carole]

Need more samples. I think I may have seen some polls online months ago that made me start wondering about this.

[jclay2]

Ok this is my guess: Men are more interested in politics than woman. If you arn't really into politics than it would be pretty hard to discover ron paul. Therefore, ron paul has more men supporters than woman.

Note: I could be completely wrong, but that is just my opinion.

[MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2]

I have found the abortion issue to be a very successful way to actually get women to support RP. Once I tell mothers that he's a baby-delivering doctor and opposes abortion they perk up.

Remember to tell them he's a kind and caring doctor. Not a nasty, lying lawyer.


That works when I meet objections on the abortion issue.

Them: But he's against abortion.

Me: He's delivered over 4,000 babies in the last 50 years. It's an issue that he's had to deal with on a very intimate level. I imagine some of those babies weren't full term, and it was his obligation to save them. With prenatal care being a focus, a doctor treats an unborn baby much like a patient.

I then explain he doesn't want to force his view on the nation, but that he wishes it to be a state issue, and it's unlikely much will change. Most politicans use this issue to keep people from thinking. Women seem plenty willing to deal with his thoughts on the issue when they know that he's dealt with it on a very personal level.

[Politeia]

Why did women want to vote? Maybe, they NEEDED to vote. Why?

Because us MEN let them down. We did not live up to our responsibilities in providing for and defending the woman and the families. We as a group should have castigated any man that didn't live up to his duties. We didn't, thus, we had the woman suffrage movement.

Sorry fellows, but it was our fault. Had we Taken better care of women, they would be content, happy, and still living longer than men. -- Those days are over. Now all we can do is relay the freedom message and hope it takes hold.

Sorry, I don't buy it. You've been programmed. Surface appearances are not always -- very seldom, in fact -- the truth.

Men have always been imperfect, to be sure. But where do men come from? Think about it.

The history you outline also includes the Industrial Revolution, which drove men off the land, where they lived and worked with their families, to factories and jobs which made them strangers from their families. This has been disastrous for both relations between the sexes -- always difficult, but rewarding if done right -- and relations between fathers and children. Men are hard, for both women and children; but the difficulties of these relationships, if properly understood, are what give us opportunities to grow. But when men are strangers, they lose the benefit of being around women and children, and become frightening to them instead of admirable and trustworthy.

And it spirals down from there, until we get to where we are now: open war between the sexes, and a collapsing culture.

Why did men leave the family? Well, for one thing, to invent and produce the "modern conveniences" that have made the lives and work of women so much less onerous. Another event was the development of modern weaponry, which made war even worse than it was before, now "total". See above for why men go to war.

There's much more to all of it, which would take a book to explore. But still: Whatever men are, we are what women have made us; whatever we do, one way or another, we do it all for you.

"Women rule the world. No man ever did anything unless a woman allowed or encouraged him to do it." - Bob Dylan, Rolling Stone interview, ca. 1988

[Mark37snj]

we should make tasers and/or mace bottles that say "Ron Paul For President 2008" and give them out freely to women at campaign rallies

all the "security" they'd ever want, without the government

Thank you for implying that American Women need Protection from American Men. :cool:

[eyeswideopen]

this is why we should never have givin them the right to vote!!

Careful there, Kirby. :cool:

So here's the deal - fellas:

1. "I like to help poor people"

2. " I want to be a part of history and vote for the FIRST woman President"

3. "Bill balanced the budget"


It's simple really. BTW, I AM a woman and converted my 75 year old mother into a Ron Paul WOMAN. It can be done. Pick apart their reasons and it CAN be done.

[Ronin]

Most women dont care about liberty, they want security. Of course im not talking about ALL women, so dont jump down my throat please. :D

Sure there are some women that understand that liberty is ultimately more important than letting the government take away your freedoms to keep you "safe".

This is just one of those unfortunate realities that we have to deal with in the long term. Theres not enough time to get all these women to understand the concept, but its something that needs to be worked on for the future.

I'm with you on this. Not to stereotype, but women like to be held. Next time your girlfriend or wife asks to be held, ask her what she likes about it so much.

[rebelforacause]

if Bobby Kennedy hadn't negotiated. Then tell them to watch the end of that movie the day after. Then in detail remind them that everyone would have been experiencing HELL ON EARTH

[VoluntaryMan]

Women's vote not going to Dr. Paul.:(

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

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

Do not know him?

Anyone have any thoughts and how to fix it?

Yes. Many women just want a sugar daddy. That's what socialism offers, to "take care" of us, in exchange for our "worthless" liberties. An alarming number of men succumb to the guile of statist paternalism, but with women the numbers are truly staggering. That so many women crave a sugar daddy, at all costs, is sad, but somewhat understandable; that so many men apparently also want a sugar daddy is a national embarrassment.:mad:

[SophisticatedFarmGirl]

Ron Paul is very popular with my friends.

I believe any thinking person, male or female, who gives Dr. Paul a few minutes will love him or at least respect him.

[Marceline88]

I am going to wager a guess that the reason many women voted for Huckabee instead of Paul in the Iowa Caucus is as simple as what attracts women to men often......sense of humor. Huckabee is disarmingly witty and that plays well to those who aren't going to research policy positions and voting records. He made them giggle with a witty sound bite, deal sealed.

The Doc is right and honest and has the best record, BUT, he's waaaay too serious and dour for your "average American woman" to stomach. He is correct to sound the alarm on the Fed, and the War and our Constitution in crisis....but most folks don't want to hear that we have to change the way we do EVERYTHING. They would rather turn the channel and watch some nice scripted reality tv show. Fear, apathy, ignorance, and vanity are greater enemies than any terrorist or international banker.

[Young_Apprentice]

I always try to avoid the "churches and charity organizations can help the poor, mothers, mentally handicapped, etc." argument and instead inform people that RP wants to avoid a federal welfare system because how innefficient and beaurocratic it is and leave it up to states to decide. I don't know why exactly, but a lot of people I've talked to don't respond very well to the private organization thing.

[haaaylee]

the pro life part of ron is alot of the reason. i've meet many women who say they love ron paul, expect he's pro life. and as a woman they could never accept that. we have to help explain to them state level is better, and everything else he stands for is so much more important than if they happen to get pregnant one day in the future. i mean, i'm a woman. and i hate kids. would never want a child ever. but i fucking love ron paul.

[VoluntaryMan]

I am going to wager a guess that the reason many women voted for Huckabee instead of Paul in the Iowa Caucus is as simple as what attracts women to men often......sense of humor... and that plays well to those who aren't going to research policy positions and voting records.

So, women just vote for clowns, and don't care about their policy positions? That sounds like more of an argument against women's suffrage than anything else.:D

If Robin Williams runs for President, can he automatically count on 50% of the vote?:confused:

I'm sorry, but I stick to my original thesis. Men like hot blonds, but Britney Spears will never be President. Certainly, women have better sense than to throw their panties, room keys, and ballots at any politician who can tell a good joke. If not, I'd like to propose a repeal of the 19th Amendment.:eek:

[MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2]

I always try to avoid the "churches and charity organizations can help the poor, mothers, mentally handicapped, etc." argument and instead inform people that RP wants to avoid a federal welfare system because how innefficient and beaurocratic it is and leave it up to states to decide. I don't know why exactly, but a lot of people I've talked to don't respond very well to the private organization thing.

You don't have to convince everyone (or women) to believe what Ron Paul believes. You only need to convince them that they can have a greater effect on policy when the policy decisions are made at a local level, with people they can see, who are more accountable because they're closer to them.

[Young_Apprentice]

You don't have to convince everyone (or women) to believe what Ron Paul believes. You only need to convince them that they can have a greater effect on policy when the policy decisions are made at a local level, with people they can see, who are more accountable because they're closer to them.

exactly

[Sey.Naci]

Think it would be helpful if some ads were produced with a female voiceover rather than a male one. And focus those ads on things like choice in healthcare and education, bringing the troops home, protecting the borders. Even the tips issue could grab some attention.

[The Idea Man]

I swear I had this conversation with my mother:


Mom: Women shouldn't vote. All my female friends are so stupid. They loved Bill Clinton just because they thought he was cute.

Me: So who do you like in this race?

Mom: I like Mitt Romney.

Me: Really?! Why? What about him do you like?

Mom (in all seriousness): Oh, I don't know. He just looks presidential.


*sigh*

[VoluntaryMan]

I swear I had this conversation with my mother:


Mom: Women shouldn't vote. All my female friends are so stupid. They loved Bill Clinton just because they thought he was cute.

Me: So who do you like in this race?

Mom: I like Mitt Romney.

Me: Really?! Why? What about him do you like?

Mom (in all seriousness): Oh, I don't know. He just looks presidential.


*sigh*

I agree with your mother: she shouldn't vote.

[AceNZ]

I agree that we're not reaching as many women voters as we should.

How to fix it? I suggest running lots of small ads in local newspapers. The ads should touch on issues that are important to women, and should try to avoid controversial or divisive issues. Perhaps things like:

-- Education (not allowing the Federal government to dictate how and what your kids are taught)
-- Environment (strict enforcement of property rights can solve many environmental problems)
-- Reduce inflation (a hidden tax on the middle class and the poor)
-- Health care (make all medical expenses tax deductible, allow nurses to perform basic medical functions)
-- Abolish taxes on tip income
-- Racism (the true antidote to racism is liberty)

In some locations, it might be worth mentioning that Ron Paul is a former OB/GYN -- although I think I would leave out the potentially divisive abortion issue in most places. Most women I know really like their OB/GYNs; that background could provide an air of trust. The same is true for his history in the military and in congress.

[Bloody Holly]

I am a female and supporting Ron Paul.

From what I've seen, alot of women that don't want women to be viewed of as sexual objects might be put off by general attitudes. I'm sure that isn't what you want to hear but it's true. Those women will want to either support Ron Paul alone or just walk out all together.

Women have this problem all throughout their lives. I don't expect males to get this as they often shrug and tell women they are just overreacting instead of addressing the problem.

Also, women that watched the view and the subject of abortion was brought up, may have viewed that and snarled. However, Ron Paul is a OB/GYN. Use that. He actually has no problems with women, he just cares about life.

Sometimes when something feels too much like a boys club it will disenfranchise women just like if it felt too much like an all white club it would disenfranchise blacks.

The problem is, on this board in general, most of the time when I've seen the word woman involved it was to use her as an object for the campaign which can be thought of as belittling to the more intelligent female crowd.

This is a community on this board. We should make it feel like one. Also, women love to be included and treated as contributors and equals rather than told what to do, barked at and treated like objects.

Men do not like to hear that and react harshly as if it's tough criticism but if there is no compromise, it's going to push alot of females out. Women have more to contribute than just their bodies and looks.

When you keep pushing for females to use their looks to attract attention, that sends a message that male votes matter more because you are using the female to attract male voters.

Women do vote. Women do donate. Women do spread the word. Women do come up with ideas.

I asked Ron Paul on myspace in the summer of 2007 for a donation ticker. He wrote back and said, we'll work on that!

[SleepingNative]

I don't want to approach my reply to this thread by treating anyone as a member of a group, but since that's kinda hard in this case, I'll instead just change the group-centric thread for myself into one pertaining to most Democrats.

Most lefties hold a strong soft spot for the environment.

We just launched (yesterday) a grassroots project for Dr. Paul which is specifically designed to convert enormous numbers from the otherwise heavily guarded territory of the "still-wistful-for-Gore" Left (of which I used to count myself as one). There are a lot of talking points, after the spiel about the project itself, which folks can use in their own efforts as well; particularly in regards to overcoming the objections many people on the left still have in regards to Dr. Paul's stance on the environment, but also in regards to women's right to choose.

If folks think those talking points will prove useful for themselves, we're asking them to consider helping us make the same message to the entire country, but there's a little reading to do, so I want to encourage folks to just enjoy the thoughts expressed regardless! =)

It's a totally new kind of hybrid media-driven event, for which we've partnered with numerous talents, including Adam Franklin (aka frankdogg), James Gucciardo, and even Depeche Mode has granted us the free use of an incredibly spine-tingling track for our music (valued at $30,000.00 per airing!)!

Thanks to our additional partnership with Yahoo!, via the Give2Network, folks don't even have to spend a dime to actually help us make this project a reality either; thanks to a snazzy little charity searchbar they gave us (if they can't otherwise spare the ten bucks we're actually asking for to make it all happen.).

Please check us out at http://sleepingnatives.org. There's a little reading involved, but not much. If you read the entire site you'll understand how stupendously effective this project could really be for Dr. Paul's campaign. We feel people are forgetting about the gigantic pool of Ron Paul sympathizers from the left who voted for Gore in 2000, but who don't yet understand how Dr. Paul's stance could actually help the environment better than even Gore's! Just imagine the flood of support that would ensue if they got that message loud and clear!

Please help us and spread the word if you like what you see! =)


Yours in Peace,
Philip de Souza
philip@sleepingnatives.org

[sunghoko]

I blame this on Oprah

[Cali4RonPaul]

We need Sarah Palin !!!

[DjLoTi]

The best reply I can give is the example that I saw at a debate. I asked a lady why she supported Rudy Giuliani, and she said "because he makes me feel safe"

[stefans]

I swear I had this conversation with my mother:


Mom: Women shouldn't vote. All my female friends are so stupid. They loved Bill Clinton just because they thought he was cute.

Me: So who do you like in this race?

Mom: I like Mitt Romney.

Me: Really?! Why? What about him do you like?

Mom (in all seriousness): Oh, I don't know. He just looks presidential.


*sigh*


think about the conversations that'd go on among men if there were 10 very different women running for president.
it wouldn't stop at "she looks presidential" :D

[txgirl]

Well, that's does not appear to be the case here in Texas..

I haven't seen any material that suggest this... link please :)

[Richandler]

Woman throughout history are traditionally theives for humanitarian effort. They don't think that being alone is a big deal.

[Bloody Holly]

Woman throughout history are traditionally theives for humanitarian effort. They don't think that being alone is a big deal.


Male perspective. How do you know that women haven't been pushed out of group efforts? I know I have several times and not related to Ron Paul but alot of instances in my life where I had to walk alone.

[txgirl]

Male perspective. How do you know that women haven't been pushed out of group efforts? I know I have several times and not related to Ron Paul but alot of instances in my life where I had to walk alone.

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

[nbhadja]

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

There are a million sources out there lol. Most of RP's support comes from men.

[Richandler]

Male perspective. How do you know that women haven't been pushed out of group efforts? I know I have several times and not related to Ron Paul but alot of instances in my life where I had to walk alone.

General observations don't pertain to everyone. I'm a big fan of independent women. I'm not however a big fan of collectivest feminist women. The latter group is the growing one. Eventually I hope the former will thrive.

[Bloody Holly]

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

Well txgirl. No matter if Ron Paul's campaign is viewed of as a male's world, you are welcome.

I'm not a catty bitch either so welcome :)

[nbhadja]

My meetup has just as many women as men. I see just as many women with signs as men. Look at all the Utube clips.....just as many women.....I don't buy this crap for one second!

Overall meetup members are overwhelmingly men.
The Iowa results (along with every poll out there) had men making up most of his support.
Women need to get on the ball!

[Bloody Holly]

General observations don't pertain to everyone. I'm a big fan of independent women. I'm not however a big fan of collectivest feminist women. The latter group is the growing one. Eventually I hope the former will thrive.

I am not a big fan of feminazi's. I am a big fan of feminists that stick to the foundation like the right to vote. I am not a big fan of males who call all women who stand up for their rights as feminazi's.

That's a form of bullying in my opinion and I used to beat up bullies in school. It was fun too.

[Bloody Holly]

Overall meetup members are overwhelmingly men.
The Iowa results (along with every poll out there) had men making up most of his support.
Women need to get on the ball!


We need more women to do that ;)

[Richandler]

I am not a big fan of feminazi's. I am a big fan of feminists that stick to the foundation like the right to vote. I am not a big fan of males who call all women who stand up for their rights as feminazi's.

That's a form of bullying in my opinion and I used to beat up bullies in school. It was fun too.

Ok.... That's wonderful. Women have the right to vote. As far as I'm concerted the 19th Amendment is even necessary. Women should naturally have the right to vote as individuals as much as anyone.

[Politeia]

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

And who told you that? That's not what men actually experience. Though it's hard -- nearly impossible -- for a man to admit it, because it makes him look weak. And females don't pick weak males. So everyone pretends, without knowing why we pretend.

The whole thing is a charade, but it has its reasons. The problems come when you believe it without understanding the deeper levels. This understanding used to be transmitted in indigenous cultures in Women's Societies and Men's Societies, but we've lost all that; we're traveling blind.

I suggest reading Camille Paglia (note -- a woman) for some clarity on these issues: For starters, the introduction ("Sex and Violence, or Nature and Art") in Sexual Personae (the rest of the book is very dense, not of general interest); and "No Law in the Arena" in Vamps & Tramps. Probably in a nearby library, or cheap in a second-hand bookstore. Smartest woman I've come across, or at least most honest.

[VoluntaryMan]

think about the conversations that'd go on among men if there were 10 very different women running for president.
it wouldn't stop at "she looks presidential" :D

It has to do with expectations and experience. Women live in a different world than men. It's no shame for a woman to depend on others. Self-reliance is praised in women, but taken for granted in (or at least expected of) men. Women, often, go straight from being supported by their parents to being supported by their husbands. I'm not speaking in absolutes, here, but in generalities: this is how life generally treats the different sexes.

Of course, there are many exceptions, and I don't need to hear about them, because I'm already well acquainted with them. However, the conversation was about the different ways the sexes respond to Dr. Paul and his message. If opposition to abortion explained the difference there would be little difference between the female support ratios of Hack and Paul. The difference is that men tend to favor independence more strongly than women, although even men do not favor it as strongly as they should and once did. The difference is that Hack attempts to make people feel "safe and secure," while Paul wants us to be truly free and independent.

This really is a competition between a masculine and a feminine view of the world. Women still favor men who are strong and independent, but the majority of women continue to vote for a paternalistic state that emasculates society's men.

[txgirl]

And who told you that? That's not what men actually experience. Though it's hard -- nearly impossible -- for a man to admit it, because it makes him look weak. And females don't pick weak males. So everyone pretends, without knowing why we pretend.

The whole thing is a charade, but it has its reasons. The problems come when you believe it without understanding the deeper levels. This understanding used to be transmitted in indigenous cultures in Women's Societies and Men's Societies, but we've lost all that; we're traveling blind.

I suggest reading Camille Paglia (note -- a woman) for some clarity on these issues: For starters, the introduction ("Sex and Violence, or Nature and Art") in Sexual Personae (the rest of the book is very dense, not of general interest); and "No Law in the Arena" in Vamps & Tramps. Probably in a nearby library, or cheap in a second-hand bookstore. Smartest woman I've come across, or at least most honest.

Thanks for the literature suggestions :)...

I know that we are conditioned from the time we are born to fit into a certain mold.... the mold that society thinks we should fall under. I love the book 'The Four Agreements" by Don Miguel Ruiz... it talks alot about this conditionaing/brainwashing we go through from the time we're born.

Fortunately, I know that I do not have to fit into this mold... I have a voice... I am a contributor to this society, and what I have to say matters as much as anyone else!

I just think that alot of people still struggle due to what society believes we should be. Kinda sad.

But, in regards to the subject matter of this thread... I am consistently talking to other women about Dr. Paul, and it's disappointing to me that most of the women I speak with (who btw are not Rp supporters) say they can not grasp political verbage...therfore, they loose interest. This blows my mind, for I can not understand why someone wouldn't want to educate themselves on something they couldn't "grasp"... that's a BIG problem!

[Bloody Holly]

Thanks for the literature suggestions :)...

I know that we are conditioned from the time we are born to fit into a certain mold.... the mold that society thinks we should fall under. I love the book 'The Four Agreements" by Don Miguel Ruiz... it talks alot about this conditionaing/brainwashing we go through from the time we're born.

Fortunately, I know that I do not have to fit into this mold... I have a voice... I am a contributor to this society, and what I have to say matters as much as anyone else!

I just think that alot of people still struggle due to what society believes we should be. Kinda sad.

But, in regards to the subject matter of this thread... I am consistently talking to other women about Dr. Paul, and it's disappointing to me that most of the women I speak with (who btw are not Rp supporters) say they can not grasp political verbage...therfore, they loose interest. This blows my mind, for I can not understand why someone wouldn't want to educate themselves on something they couldn't "grasp"... that's a BIG problem!


Same problem. I have managed to get some males interested and one female might be in but she listens a little too much to Fox news. It's devastating.

I think females need to come together and come up with a plan. We are females so we understand what's going on.

Also I know of an Obama supporter who likes him because of his charisma and she didn't know what he actually stood for. She also liked him because he was a minority and can relate to that however it's Ron Paul who is being excluded.

Ron Paul is being discriminated against for his brain.

[txgirl]

Same problem. I have managed to get some males interested and one female might be in but she listens a little too much to Fox news. It's devastating.

I think females need to come together and come up with a plan. We are females so we understand what's going on.

Also I know of an Obama supporter who likes him because of his charisma and she didn't know what he actually stood for. She also liked him because he was a minority and can relate to that however it's Ron Paul who is being excluded.

Ron Paul is being discriminated against for his brain.


Yes, I've also heard that... which angers me to think that someone would support/vote for our countrys President based on his looks and/or charisma :eek:

I wish I had the time, or could find a group that would help, to write a Ron Paul "for dummies" pamphlet or something.

I'm not trying to suggest that these people are actually dummies, but put the information into a format to which they can process the information... help them make an informed decision.

[Nefertiti]

Also note that the "hunk" Romney got 2% less women then men voting for him.

Romney is no hunk-I mean he is good looking-but it is in a Ken doll plastic way. It's hard to find someone attractive when they look like a Ken doll. In fact, he looks so much like one that I find it quite disturbing.

Of the Republican men, I'd say Huckabee is the best looking, but I'm still voting for Ron Paul.

[Bloody Holly]

We can make this grassroots effort more friendly through the following methods.

-Meetups. Specifically outline in your meetup group that it is female friendly enviroment. Women want to support Ron Paul not feel like they are going to show up to meetups and get hit on by other members.

-T-shirts. Make some more girl t-shirts and tank tops. I went to the Ronpaul2008.com to look for a shirt but there were no girl tees. I don't like those long t-shirts. I like the girly tees.

-When telling other females about Ron Paul, the topic of abortion will be brought up. Take this time to tell the female about Ron Paul's personal experience as an OB/GYN and how many babies he's brought into this world and even how he didn't charge for the delivery to those on medicare.

Mention that he is strong on his stances and strongly opposed to corruption.

-Do not boast about male vs. female achievements. Even though you may strive on competing against other supporters and dividing based on gender, it is a turn off to most women because we hear enough of that macho crap in our lives. It turns into an exclusive behavior that most women view of as "Fine, you don't want me here and I don't belong so see ya."

-Having a Ron Paul girl is fine and dandy but where I draw the line is if there is a push for every attractive Ron Paul supporter you meet is pressured into being displayed as an object. She is not an object, she is a human being. Respect.

-In meetups, don't let male members get pushy and aggressive towards a female or treat her as though her ideas are not welcome. While most males don't pick up on this behavior because to them it's no big deal, females do. If you cannot pick up on that behavior then I also encourage females to speak up about it to the one in charge of the meetup.

If you are told by the female there is someone belittling her and trying to outcast her, do not dismiss that. Pay careful attention and speak to the male and the female. Remind them both that this isn't a gender war and the more people who vote for Ron Paul, the merrier. We are all in this together.

[Nefertiti]

Also I know of an Obama supporter who likes him because of his charisma and she didn't know what he actually stood for. She also liked him because he was a minority and can relate to that however it's Ron Paul who is being excluded.

Ron Paul is being discriminated against for his brain.

Yes, I was also initially taken in by Obama for similar reasons. Quite charming. But then I am married to a doctor so naturally the brain won out in the end!

[Nefertiti]

Not surprisingly, the most thoughtful and convincing posts on this thread are by women. This is the first time I have seen this topic come up where the responses were mostly from women rather than men spouting off what they THINK is important to women. If we want to come up with a plan to get more women, it is clear that the men should stand back and let the women come up with it.

[thehittgirl]

Not this brawd :) I don't need no stinkin' "security"

[txgirl]

Women are liberal, always were, it's a norm.

That's a very BOLD statement!

[amy31416]

I am a female and supporting Ron Paul.

From what I've seen, alot of women that don't want women to be viewed of as sexual objects might be put off by general attitudes. I'm sure that isn't what you want to hear but it's true. Those women will want to either support Ron Paul alone or just walk out all together.

Women have this problem all throughout their lives. I don't expect males to get this as they often shrug and tell women they are just overreacting instead of addressing the problem.

Also, women that watched the view and the subject of abortion was brought up, may have viewed that and snarled. However, Ron Paul is a OB/GYN. Use that. He actually has no problems with women, he just cares about life.

Sometimes when something feels too much like a boys club it will disenfranchise women just like if it felt too much like an all white club it would disenfranchise blacks.

The problem is, on this board in general, most of the time when I've seen the word woman involved it was to use her as an object for the campaign which can be thought of as belittling to the more intelligent female crowd.

This is a community on this board. We should make it feel like one. Also, women love to be included and treated as contributors and equals rather than told what to do, barked at and treated like objects.

Men do not like to hear that and react harshly as if it's tough criticism but if there is no compromise, it's going to push alot of females out. Women have more to contribute than just their bodies and looks.

When you keep pushing for females to use their looks to attract attention, that sends a message that male votes matter more because you are using the female to attract male voters.

Women do vote. Women do donate. Women do spread the word. Women do come up with ideas.

I asked Ron Paul on myspace in the summer of 2007 for a donation ticker. He wrote back and said, we'll work on that!

Well said. You have my respect and ears.

[txgirl]

We can make this grassroots effort more friendly through the following methods.

-Meetups. Specifically outline in your meetup group that it is female friendly enviroment. Women want to support Ron Paul not feel like they are going to show up to meetups and get hit on by other members.

-T-shirts. Make some more girl t-shirts and tank tops. I went to the Ronpaul2008.com to look for a shirt but there were no girl tees. I don't like those long t-shirts. I like the girly tees.

-When telling other females about Ron Paul, the topic of abortion will be brought up. Take this time to tell the female about Ron Paul's personal experience as an OB/GYN and how many babies he's brought into this world and even how he didn't charge for the delivery to those on medicare.

Mention that he is strong on his stances and strongly opposed to corruption.

-Do not boast about male vs. female achievements. Even though you may strive on competing against other supporters and dividing based on gender, it is a turn off to most women because we hear enough of that macho crap in our lives. It turns into an exclusive behavior that most women view of as "Fine, you don't want me here and I don't belong so see ya."

-Having a Ron Paul girl is fine and dandy but where I draw the line is if there is a push for every attractive Ron Paul supporter you meet is pressured into being displayed as an object. She is not an object, she is a human being. Respect.

-In meetups, don't let male members get pushy and aggressive towards a female or treat her as though her ideas are not welcome. While most males don't pick up on this behavior because to them it's no big deal, females do. If you cannot pick up on that behavior then I also encourage females to speak up about it to the one in charge of the meetup.

If you are told by the female there is someone belittling her and trying to outcast her, do not dismiss that. Pay careful attention and speak to the male and the female. Remind them both that this isn't a gender war and the more people who vote for Ron Paul, the merrier. We are all in this together.


Very well put! Excellent suggestions... Thank you so much for providing us with another creative approach!

Let's get started ladies! As Bloody Holly said in a previous post... we are women, so we know... WE need to make a combined effort to get more women on board.

Once again B. Holly, GREAT ideas!

[Bloody Holly]

That's a very BOLD statement!

Perhaps women "think" they are liberal because they haven't woken up to the fact that the "lib" in liberal isn't the same "lib" in libertarian.

We need to poll women and ask when they hear the word liberal, what crosses their mind. In a literal sense.

If it does in fact come out that the woman thinks "freedom"

then we must wake her up to the term "libertarian"

Looks can decieve.

Also we must ask if she wants war.

If the answer is no

Then ask well what liberal are you going for?

Most likely it will be Obama or Hillary

Then we must wake up the women to the fact that Obama's plans include more war which can be proven here

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/foreignpolicy/


BARACK OBAMA’S PLAN TO SECURE AMERICA AND RESTORE OUR STANDING
“When I am this party's nominee, my opponent will not be able to say that I voted for the war in Iraq; or that I gave George Bush the benefit of the doubt on Iran; or that I supported Bush-Cheney policies of not talking to leaders that we don't like. And he will not be able to say that I wavered on something as fundamental as whether or not it is ok for America to torture — because it is never ok… I will end the war in Iraq… I will close Guantanamo. I will restore habeas corpus. I will finish the fight against Al Qaeda. And I will lead the world to combat the common threats of the 21st century: nuclear weapons and terrorism; climate change and poverty; genocide and disease. And I will send once more a message to those yearning faces beyond our shores that says, "You matter to us. Your future is our future. And our moment is now.”

[amy31416]

I think females need to come together and come up with a plan. We are females so we understand what's going on.



Excellent suggestion. Let's do it.

[Politeia]

Also I know of an Obama supporter who likes him because of his charisma and she didn't know what he actually stood for.

That's an easy one: What Obama stands for is getting Obama elected. Whatever it takes. That's it. "Won't take anything off the table." Oh, and "The Audacity of Hope." There's always that.


She also liked him because he was a minority and can relate to that however it's Ron Paul who is being excluded.

Yeah, but RP is a white male, who by definition cannot be discriminated against. Whatever happens to him, he already deserved it.

Anyway, what I wrote here about Obama:
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=824909&postcount=68

[Politeia]

Originally Posted by Azprint
Women are liberal, always were, it's a norm.


That's a very BOLD statement!

Like it or not, it's assumed in professional political circles that the great majority of women can be counted on to vote "liberal", i.e. Democrat. For good reason: They always have. If you want to change that fact, you're going to have to talk to a lot of sistahs. Good luck. Really.

[electronicmaji]

my meetup groups organizer is a women :/

[Adamsa]

Like it or not, it's assumed in professional political circles that the great majority of women can be counted on to vote "liberal", i.e. Democrat. For good reason: They always have. If you want to change that fact, you're going to have to talk to a lot of sistahs. Good luck. Really.

Tell that to the millions of females who vote GOP every election. They tend to be more religious though.

[Politeia]

Not surprisingly, the most thoughtful and convincing posts on this thread are by women.

Gee, I spent something like half an hour composing a lengthy commentary on numerous posts, which I thought was "thoughtful", some of it perhaps provocative (I like a good discussion), and this is all the response you're willing to offer?

Women are always complaining about how men don't listen, etc.


This is the first time I have seen this topic come up where the responses were mostly from women rather than men spouting off what they THINK is important to women.

So it's disallowed for men to have any THOUGHTS about what is important to women, based, say, on 60+ years of careful observation? Why does it have to be a war? If you think I'm wrong, show me.


If we want to come up with a plan to get more women, it is clear that the men should stand back and let the women come up with it.

Great, just do it! Why do you need the men to "stand back" first? Do it, please! I'd love to see more women pushing for Ron Paul. As I wrote, in my local meetup it is mostly women, and they're mostly great. But they're very few compared to the general population.

Where I live, though, for both historical (my background and counter-culture) and geographical (one of the most liberal towns in the country) reasons, most of the women I know just aren't interested in Ron Paul. Their reactions are exactly as described in this thread (by women): (a) abortion is the only issue, and anyone who isn't an enthusiastic proponent thereof will not get even a second's hearing (I don't bring it up, they do); (b) "He's a Republican" (end of discussion); (c) they just can't be bothered to think; etc.

I've been trying to interest everyone I know in libertarian ideas and Ron Paul for over 25 years; almost no one's been interested, and of those, the women have been less than zero -- including some long and (otherwise) close friends, who clearly wish I'd just shut up about it. They just don't get it. Kucinich is their man, no reason why, just no further discussion.

Okay, I'll "stand back" now, and get ready to cheer when a whole lot of new women join the rEVOLution. All together now...

[Politeia]

Tell that to the millions of females who vote GOP every election. They tend to be more religious though.

I didn't say all women. But more millions vote Democrat. It's just a fact.

[Politeia]

my meetup groups organizer is a women :/

Same here. But she can't elect Ron Paul by herself. Gonna take a few tens of millions more women. That's the problem this thread was begun to discuss.

[JosephTheLibertarian]

Women's vote not going to Dr. Paul.:(

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

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

Do not know him?

Anyone have any thoughts and how to fix it?

We can only blame women's suffrage lol

[txgirl]

This discussion has been good... .it's important to hear different opinions in order to make a better plan of action.

The point is that we do need to target more women, and I think Bloody Holly had some very good, constructive, suggestions.

Men need to help too though... talk to your Grandma, Mom, Wife, Daughter,Sister, Aunt, etc.

Let us all band together in this fight for freedom, and "let it not be said we did nothing"

[danberkeley]

They go for the one's that are more "handsome".

Thank God for universal suffrage!

[Bloody Holly]

You're right. Thank God for women's right to vote. Now let's go let the women know that Ron Paul is the one to vote for.

[Bloody Holly]

Also women, I made this page a while back but I've been busy offline but concentrated efforts will be made to bring in more women right now.

http://www.myspace.com/fems4ronpaul

[JosephTheLibertarian]

Whatever happened to the days when women were used as currency? Was there any inflation? lol jk

[noztnac]

Ron Paul should do more photo ops with children. I hate to say that because I hate the cliche of politicians being calculated, kissing babies, etc. but it works.

Ron Paul has a bunch of grandkids. Why do we never see pictures of him with them?

[noztnac]

http://www.nhps.org/

Maybe Ron Paul should visit some children's hospitals. He's a doctor.
A good photo op for sure.

[Bloody Holly]

Whatever happened to the days when women were used as currency? Was there any inflation? lol jk

RARRRR....Must attack must attack

Okay I'm joking too;)

[Politeia]

Also women, I made this page a while back but I've been busy offline but concentrated efforts will be made to bring in more women right now.

http://www.myspace.com/fems4ronpaul

Great, I wish you every success. (A little loud, tho :) )

It is nice to see that some females do get what a neat guy Ron Paul is.

Rachel's a cutie. I love to watch her videos. We just need a lot more like her. And you. And the women in my local meetup. And Carol Paul. Fine women.

[Politeia]

Ron Paul should do more photo ops with children. I hate to say that because I hate the cliche of politicians being calculated, kissing babies, etc. but it works.

Ron Paul has a bunch of grandkids. Why do we never see pictures of him with them?

The Christmas video was great. I think Dr. Paul just doesn't like to get anywhere near pandering. The thing is, with him, it's real. What an irony.

I still have that call from Carol Paul saved on my voice messaging. She's just super. Be nice if she'd come out a little more; I can't imagine women, of any age, not listening to her. I'd sure listen to her; reminds me of the best of both my grandmothers. (Actually she's only seven years older than me, but she sure has that grandmotherly gravitas. Like a Taos Indian grandmother I used to know. That kind. A male just doesn't misbehave around a woman like that.)

[Grandson of Liberty]

this is why we should never have givin them the right to vote!!

Yeah, it's all been downhill since then! :D

[txgirl]

Ron Paul should do more photo ops with children. I hate to say that because I hate the cliche of politicians being calculated, kissing babies, etc. but it works.

Ron Paul has a bunch of grandkids. Why do we never see pictures of him with them?

He aired a Christmas commercial with all of them here in Texas.

[RonPaulVolunteer]

It's funny...

80% of the members in our meetup are men.
80% of the work is done by the women.

Go figure...

.

[literatim]

It's funny...

80% of the members in our meetup are men.
80% of the work is done by the women.

Go figure...

.

:rolleyes:

[Bloody Holly]

Great, I wish you every success. (A little loud, tho :) )

It is nice to see that some females do get what a neat guy Ron Paul is.

Rachel's a cutie. I love to watch her videos. We just need a lot more like her. And you. And the women in my local meetup. And Carol Paul. Fine women.

WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY LOUD?????

:p

I have a strange sense of humor and often must tell others when I am joking.

Thanks and yes all Ron Paul supporters rock.

[Soccrmastr]

Too many women jumping on the Feminazi bandwagon

[txgirl]

WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY LOUD?????

:p

I have a strange sense of humor and often must tell others when I am joking.

Thanks and yes all Ron Paul supporters rock.


You crack me up!! :D:D:D:D:D

[Bloody Holly]

Too many women jumping on the Feminazi bandwagon

Too many men falsely accusing women of being feminazi's for not being meek and quiet.

If being a feminazi now means "female that won't take crap" or "female that wants to see a good change for the future and will not take abuse while doing so" then that is what you may call these "too many women".

[Soccrmastr]

Too many men falsely accusing women of being feminazi's for not being meek and quiet.

If being a feminazi now means "female that won't take crap" or "female that wants to see a good change for the future and will not take abuse while doing so" then that is what you may call these "too many women".


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feminazi

Women who are blatantly anti-conserveative and usually liberal, pro-choice etc. thats what feminazi means. way 2 do your research. You'll usually find them at Hillary rallies

[Bloody Holly]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feminazi

Women who are blatantly anti-conserveative and usually liberal, pro-choice etc. thats what feminazi means. way 2 do your research. You'll usually find them at Hillary rallies

I don't need to do a wiki research. I have life experience. Did you know that wiki can be written by anyone?

If you do want to know the difference between a feminist and feminazi, let me know.

[Politeia]

I prefer the term "Femmunist", as closer to the real nature of the ideology.


"Feminism" means so many different things that it appears to mean very little. Its theoretical advocates constantly contradict each other and themselves. Rather than damaging feminism, its incoherence offers an easy defense against all criticism: whatever the complaint, the response is that it misses the mark because feminism is really something else.

A system as complex and subtle as human life cannot be reconfigured in fundamental ways merely at will. Nonetheless, opposition to gender as a principle of social order - to what is called "sexism" - is what unifies the things called "feminism." Since the opposition is absolute and categorical, feminism is in no way reformist. It treats a fundamental and evidently necessary principle of all human societies, sex-role differentiation, as an oppressive arrangement that must be abolished at whatever cost.

The aim of feminism, therefore, is to create a new kind of human being in a new form of society in which age-old ties among men, women and children are to be dissolved and new ones constituted in accordance with abstract ideological demands.

The objections to anarchist and communist theory apply with yet more force to feminism, because what the latter seeks to eliminate touches us far more deeply than private property or the state. Like the other two theories, feminism can be presented as a lofty and necessary ideal set up in opposition to a long history of dreadful injustice. After all, things like gender that are implicated in all social life are necessarily implicated in all social injustice.

Nonetheless, the practical implementation of feminism, especially by force of law, can only lead to catastrophe. Like anarchism it calls for categorical opposition to distinctions and patterns of authority people find natural, and like communism for ceaseless radical reconstruction of all aspects of life, and consequently for absolute bureaucratic control of everything. Both tendencies are thoroughly destructive, and their mutual opposition does not render them harmless.

The result of the victory of feminism has been a combination of disorder and state tyranny cascading from America throughout the world, from the most immediate personal relationships to high culture and international politics. Feminism has meant suspicion and hostility where mutual reliance is an absolute necessity. It has meant growing deceit, heartlessness and brutality in daily life, resulting in particular suffering for the weak. It has meant confusion and misery for the young, who have been deprived of stable family life and concrete ideals of adulthood. It has meant the destruction of local and popular institutions by ever more powerful and irresponsible state bureaucracies. It has set women free mainly to be low level employees and unattached sexual commodities.

It is not surprising that feminists, who misconstrue so much, misconstrue the nature of the opposition to them. Since their position requires a comprehensive and minute system of ideological regimentation they assume antifeminists must also be aspiring tyrants. They thus recreate their opponents in their own image.

The power of feminism despite its evident irrationality shows the strength and pervasiveness of the institutions, interests and ways of thinking that support it. Its triumph has been part of the triumph of state and market over all other social powers, the culmination of a trend that has been sweeping all before it for centuries and become horrendously destructive. Government and business are now uniformly feminist, ultimately because family life hems them in by establishing a principle of social order not reducible to money and state regulation. The media, the educational system, and even organized scholarship take their lead from government and business and are therefore feminist as well. No significant social authority takes an opposing view. Without exception the articulate and powerful benefit from absorption of the functions of the family by formal public institutions.

In the end feminism cannot win because it radically undermines any stable and productive ordering of private life. By disordering reproduction and childrearing and the most basic human connections it puts long-term social survival in question. It has done a great deal of damage, however, and will do much more before it destroys itself.

-- Jim Kalb (condensed; full essay at http://turnabout.ath.cx:8000/node/2)

[pickfair]

Um, I see this thread is turning into more of a discussion on feminism...

Anyway, I do not get this at all. I've noticed a lack of female support for Ron Paul and I just don't understand why. I'm a freedom-loving Libertarian lady and I'm 100% behind Dr. Paul.

[shasshas]

well most women aren't thinkers.

all they want is someone with a GOOD BONER and a big wallet.

[Revolution9]

Strongly disagree with this. We are culturally programmed to nest and nurture. No genetic predisposition for this has been scientifically validated, but cultural pressures have been shown to play a strong force - just as men have been conditioned to be the aggressor, unemotional, etc. These are just stereotypes.


It is not a genetic predsposition but a neurochemically enhanced set of perceptions. My stereotypical overamp of testosterone will be louder and rife with more externally vectorized actioning than your sedentary, inturning rush of estrogen. Though we both may be just as bitchy in the wash of our neurochemicals hormones.

Women get PMS. Is that stereotypical or a medical condition? In honor of mens equal rights I have monikered two distressing hormonal syndromes to compete with PMS in court cases. One is PTRS (peters) or Post Testosterone Release Syndrome and the other is PUDS, or Post Uterine Departure Syndrome.

Randy

[Noble]

WHAT THE HELL IS GOING ON IN HERE?

Quit bitching, you're never going to settle the gender divide.

Mods : why do you let these pointless debates go on?

[MsDoodahs]

In honor of mens equal rights I have monikered two distressing hormonal syndromes to compete with PMS in court cases. One is PTRS (peters) or Post Testosterone Release Syndrome and the other is PUDS, or Post Uterine Departure Syndrome.

Randy

You cracked me up.

[Noble]

I can see it now... the year 2108.... men and women living in perfect harmony...

Sitting naked on a park bench, sipping lemonade, a woman turns to a man and says

"I sure am glad the Ron Paul Forums solved all gender issues back in 2008 with their spirited, intelligent debate"

[Politeia]

Um, I see this thread is turning into more of a discussion on feminism...

Anyway, I do not get this at all. I've noticed a lack of female support for Ron Paul and I just don't understand why. I'm a freedom-loving Libertarian lady and I'm 100% behind Dr. Paul.

Well, the fact that you are unusual is just what this thread was begun to discuss. Thus the discussion of feminism, which is the prevailing ideology, and is hostile (to say the least) to what Dr. Paul represents.

[Triton]

Women's vote not going to Dr. Paul.:(

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

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

Do not know him?

Anyone have any thoughts and how to fix it?Mrs. Triton is voting for Ron Paul, but even she is scared by the drumbeat of "9-11". She is worried that if we don't take the war to them, they will bring it to us.

[ecliptic]

I am keenly interested in all perspectives on the issue of modern feminism and it's relationship to government tyranny. As a victim of forced ( so-called "no-fault" ) divorce and it's partner pogram so-called "child support" I have dedicated myself to exposing radical feminism for what it is: a fast-track to totalitarianism. At the same time I respect women's right to equality and I practice respect for women in all areas of life. I don't want the Ron Paul rloveution
to discourage women because of real or perceived bias or just plain rude behavior on the part of it's testosterone-charged men. Freedom is good for men and women, simple as that, but in my experience women are much much easier to "frighten" with elusive "threats" such as "terrorism" or "crime waves" or "domestic abuse" ... etc. etc. etc.

http://img239.imageshack.us/img239/2185/votinghitleryw9.jpghttp://img159.imageshack.us/img159/9751/ipromisetoneveriy9.jpg

Yet so many women I meet today do NOT fall into these stereotypes. I know of many women who understand the futility of denying their god-given nature as modern feminism would have them do. Many women who see through the fear-mongering war-mongering propaganda. Many women who understand that much of the hysteria used to make them think as "victims" is really being used to enslave society and hasten totalitarianism for us all.

The most important lesson we should all learn is the hijacking of the People's movements for the purposes of the elite. The globalist machine is not capable of generating real enthusiasm for their one-sided goals. But they ARE experts at hijacking any movement of the people using their endless supply of paper money.

So please consider me a friend of women's equality... a friend of women's rights... and know that I love women!!! and I'm a great father to my two fantastic daughters!

Yet I am dedicated to exposing modern ( 'hijacked" ) feminism for what it really has become: a "cruel hoax".

http://img220.imageshack.us/img220/6785/picture57wy2.png (http://www.cruelhoax.ca/)

Feminism, our official gender ideology, masquerades as a movement for women's rights. In reality, feminism is a cruel hoax, telling women their natural biological instincts are "socially constructed" to oppress them.

Feminism is elite social engineering designed to neuter both sexes, making women masculine and men feminine. Thus, women are less fit for marriage and motherhood, and men are unable to lead and sacrifice for family.

The Rockefellers and Rothschilds created feminism to weaken the family and poison male-female relations (divide and conquer.) Their twin objectives are depopulation and totalitarian world government. Why? These bankers create money out of nothing and think they are God.

"Cruel Hoax" shows the connection between feminism, Communism and 9-11. It examines male-female relations and shows how we can take back our heterosexuality.

I highly recommend Dr. Henry Makow's extensive writings on this subject:

Save The Males (http://www.savethemales.ca/)

... perhaps the single best source for information on the cruel hoax known as "feminism" and it's relationship to efforts towards one world government.

Question for the gals here:

Do you think that one world government could be a good thing?

[AdoubleR]

'I support Hillary Clinton because she has the same menstrual cycle as me!'- Female supporters...

That's your answer right there ;)

[SlapItHigh]

Direct quotes from other women who oppose Ron Paul from three very different high volume all women message boards:


Ron Paul is to me a lot like Ross Perot, he may have some intresting ideas but to radical for me and all he may end up doing is pulling votes away from candidates who have the chance to make changes.

I like a few of his points, but overall his ideas of reduction in centralized government and balance of the States and Federal government seem a bit extreme.



He will not get elected, don't bother wasting your vote.




Wow - I thought it was just me. I totally agree about his supporters. The kid that came to our door the other night was dressed sloppily and kept talking and making no sense whatsoever. Finally he said "I think you should just check out his website. I'm not doing a good job talking about him." You think?

At any rate, I think he has some good ideas; but he is a longshot candidate so I haven't spent much time learning about him.



There is a reason why RP isn't a front runner: his views are not in line with the majority of the GOP, or any signifant group of Americans in general.



In re-reading comments and starting at the top, I will explain why I think some of the Ron Paul platforms and ideals scare me (and his followers/supporters)

1. The Gold Standard, it is a scary concept to have a candidate standing on the idea of putting the country back on the Gold Standard(yes I understand the economy and money standard now as does Ron Paul)I know it is not exactly the same as wheat both the US and Russia moved away from, but same idea.

2. His supporters are very unorthodox (not in a good way) in getting information out about Ron Paul around us. In fact many in a confrontational way and when you try to walk away or tell them you are not intrested 7 different people in 7 different venues have continued to follow me around and try to talk about it more.

3. He is "the new thing" and makes it seem like he is going to make the US this great country again and make it better for everyone. I personally don't think it is all that bad living in the US, but his ideas seem like they will impact more lower and Middle class citizens then anyone else.
- Abolish the Dept. of Education and Ditch NCLB. Ok, but in cutting federal Subsidies to schools and increasing the liability to the states, explain how education will improve? Ron Paul is a strong proponent for homeschooling and that control should be put back into the hands of the parents. (SCARY WHEN YOU LOOK AT SOME OF THE PARENTS IN THE US)
- Abolish the IRS. Ok, so there is major waste and it needs to be overhauled as well as the tax code, but talking abolish?
- Giving doctors the freedom to collectively negotiate with insurance companies and drive down the cost of medical care. (I am not sure about this one either. I see collective bargin and think Unions and worry that we could in the future see Dr.'s on strike or refusing to take more and more medical insurances)
- His take on repealing parts of the Brady Laws and then voting to allow Assulat rifles, and from keeping the mentally ill (Veterans and some other)legally elligible to buy guns. Sure some wacko's can get them, but I can imagine this has helped keeping weapons (assualt rifles and pistols) from people who would have them. What is next felons with records of violence with firearms should be allowed to have them?

I know there are more to some of his issues and that some of this may pointed back on me as not understanding, but I have been all through his site and others and I can say the majority of candidates have not said or done much to say what they will want to do. Ron Paul has and unfortunatley in my case it is a negative for him.

Oh and if you see me out and come up and ask if I have heard of Ron paul and I say yes, but I am not intrested....IT MEANS I AM NOT INTRESTED...Please either drop it or walk away. Do not come over and continue to point out how Ron Paul will save me.



Some of the statement on that website don't sound like the statements of a rational person.

"Get rid of taxes, get rid of spending" sounds lovely in theory, especially if you are a libertarian, but if you sit down and look at it, how does the govt do what it is constitutionally required to do without any taxes? Has he spelled that out?

"If economy were good there would be no immigration problem"; well, the economy has been quite good at various times in the last 30 years and we have had an increasing immigration problem. I don't agree that the economy is the issue, and the above statement smacks of "if the economy is good, we don't care if there are illegal immigrants because there are plenty of jobs to go around". That attitude scares me.

"We don't need any troops abroad" -- does anyone remember a guy named Pat Buchanan? This is his philosophy as well. Isolationism wasn't helpful prior to WWII, and it would not be helpful now.

"Not appropriate to prosecute all illegal adult pornography" "repeal drug laws" --

I'm not libertarian, though some of the ideas mesh with conservative views, and that's where he's picking up support, imo. But looked at in totality, I don't think he is going to be the president so many of his supporters believe he will be.




He has too many ties to extreme groups. Click here to see - http://www.townhall.com/blog/g/77711671-de32-47da-a721-8f606d586ad0



I was looking at him for a little while until he recently and openly accepted money from a white supremecy group. I appreciate the fact that he didn't try to hide it, but it tells me I don't want to go there even if I agree with some of his views on politics.

[Soccrmastr]

I don't need to do a wiki research. I have life experience. Did you know that wiki can be written by anyone?

If you do want to know the difference between a feminist and feminazi, let me know.

It's not debateable at all. Thats what a feminazi is. They're socialists. Are you a socialist? Are you a feminazi? Why dont you go back to your pro-choice rally.

[TwiLeXia]

Women don't like the good Dr. b/c of many issues, here's how to convince them:

1. Ron Paul is pro-life, but he won't mess with each individual state's decision to have choice or not.
2. Ron Paul is for withdrawal of troops and PEACE, which is an additional bonus to freedom and liberty.
3. Ron Paul is for no income tax.
4. While Ron Paul is not for welfare, the very idea of free market system is a welfare system since it provides the greatest good to the most people. Government regulation simply makes many people poorer, and what about all the people on the streets? Also, remember that the money you get from health care, social security, etc, came out of your own pocket.
5. You should take care of others through your churches, your communities, your own decisions, not through the government who will mess it up.

I also think that making Ron Paul's message more Christian-friendly will also attract women followers. Christians and Women have a lot of similar interests (for example family values) so arguing how Ron Paul will get the government out of their family's lives, their education, and their money, will allow their family to prosper.

[SlapItHigh]

and more...


Makes me wonder if perhaps RP is more intrested in money for a campaign then he is the true moral fiber of the groups donating.

He strikes me as wanting to get in no matter what to get HIS agenda in. He is like Hilary. They know what is wrong, get the Federal Government and Constitution and all the laws out of there way and they will fix it.



I agree somewhat with local control, but to do away with the Dept. of Education entirely? I would think that would create a whirlwind of issues considering some states have massive tax bases and others not.

My opinion about Ron Paul is he is saying quite a bit of what some people are thinking so it is striking a chord. However, other candidates don't say this sort of thing (like do away with the IRS) because they know that actually doing it can create a whole lot more mess than what it would solve.


Esther what about him allowing hate groups to post his columns?



He owns copyrights on his columns and so has a say in where they appear. Here is what real clear politics says about his ties to hate groups - http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/11/memo_to_ron_paul_supporters.html


I don't agree with his views towards womans rights and gay rights and education.



Be careful of Ron Paul - he is only pro - CHRISTIAN home schooling...



http://www.issues2000.org/Ron_Paul.htm

If you scroll down to education ...he is not great in education....

Close Dept. of Education, but don't dismantle public schools. (Dec 2007)
Don't impeach judges for decisions on legislature prayers. (Sep 2007)
Present scientific facts that support creationism. (Sep 2007)
Equal funds for abstinence as contraceptive-based education. (Sep 2007)
Tax-credited programs for Christian schooling. (Sep 2007) Guarantee parity for home school diplomas. (Sep 2007)
Voted NO on allowing Courts to decide on "God" in Pledge of Allegiance. (Jul 2006) Voted NO on $84 million in grants for Black and Hispanic colleges. (Mar 2006)
Voted NO on allowing school prayer during the War on Terror. (Nov 2001)
Voted NO on requiring states to test students. (May 2001)
Voted NO on allowing vouchers in DC schools. (Aug 1998)
Voted YES on vouchers for private & parochial schools. (Nov 1997)
Abolish the federal Department of Education. (Dec 2000)
Rated 67% by the NEA, indicating a mixed record on public education. (Dec 2003)
Supports a Constitutional Amendment for school prayer. (May 1997)



Ron Paul and Darfur

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

An act designed to reduce the genocide in Darfur recently passed through Congress.

The intent of the act was to dictate that the US government would no longer purchase goods or services from companies who are, in essence, *helping* with the genocide in Darfur. Companies who are directly helping fund the Sudanese government's murder of their own citizens would no longer be recipients of Government contracts or funds.

Fair enough, right?

The bill passed, 418-1.

Guess who the "1" was?

You can read his rationalization here:
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/reco...&person=400128


I also liked his response to this unrelated-to-Sudan clause in the bill:


Quote:
Originally Posted by Ron Paul
By allowing State and local governments to label pension and retirement funds as State assets, the Federal Government is giving the go-ahead for State and local governments to play politics with the savings upon which millions of Americans depend for security in their old age.

Huh? What about State's Rights? I thought the Feds shouldn't provide Social Security anyway?



That's one of my biggest problems with RP and his philosophy, this notion that no matter how bad something gets, the US shouldn't provide any help.


Nope, we just need to sit back and wait for "market forces" to stop a genocide.



He has no faith at all in government's ability to help anyone, and yet he seems to have every faith in the world that the free market will take care of everything. Why is government so evil and business (when left to its own devices) so benevolent? I don't get that.



Aw c'mon, he just wanted them to have freedom and liberty. You know, the antidotes to all that ails us. (insert up and down laughing emoticon here)



Ron Paul is even more of a scary candidate than Huckabee or Romney. Of course, I just realized he is from my hometown!



no. seriously. ron paul supporters are given script sheets to refer to. none of them seem to be interested in engaging in open dialogue about some of the more serious issues. which is disheartening, but not surprising.



Awright!!!!! Lots of money!!!!! Great!!!!!

Hopeful that with some of that money he'll make his views on the genocide in Darfur, and what the US should do about it, clear.

And hopeful that it was donated by nonfascists, since we know that the fascist organizations in the US, and the white supremacist organizations, and the neoNazi organizations, are all backing Ron Paul.

Hopeful that David Duke and Don Black (recent Grand Wizards of the Ku Klux Klan) will disclose how much they donated to this fundraising effort, since they did donate to Ron Paul in his previous fundraising efforts.

You know?



I don't believe that he ever supported the KKK. However, the KKK themselves do support him. David Duke and Don Black, both recent former Grand Wizards of the KKK, openly support him and donate to his campaign. As do their various affiliated websites.


Ron Paul has also had connections with the John Birch Society and other anti-immigrant and racist organizations through speeches made at their meetings/conventions, and some of his more prominent supporters being involved in/officers of those organizations.


Which doesn't make it a prima facie case for him being a bigot, but it certainly does leave room for reasonable doubt. And it does certainly make one think twice, to wonder what about his policies would be good for fascists, racists and neoNazis, since they all support him so strongly.



isn't he a "states rights" candidate? Which in itself is code for racist bigotry.



Well, for one, I'm guessing Ron Paul would never have sent the National Guard to escort those students into the University of Alabama. He has stated that he thinks the Civil Rights Act was a mistake because it "reduced individual liberties". At the very least, his radical notions of states rights would allow for states to segregate (seriously!) because apparently it would be wrong for the federal government to impinge on "state's rights", no matter how UAV they are.



Right, and it happened here in VA. An entire county decided that rather than integrate they would just CLOSE the school system. And white students went to private schools and the poorer black students were just SOL.

And had it not been for the FEDERAL GOV'T stepping in and forcing them to integrate and reopen, it would probably still be happening.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prince_..._Edward_County


Quote:
As a result of the Brown decision, and changes in Virginia laws, in 1959 the Board of Supervisors for Prince Edward County refused to appropriate any funds for the County School Board at all, effectively closing all public schools rather than integrate them. Prince Edward County Public Schools remained closed for five years. Prince Edward County was the only school district in the country to resort to such extreme measures. In 1963, schools were ordered to open, and when the Supreme Court agreed in 1964, the supervisors gave in rather than risk prison, and public schools were reopened. [2]

And, whaddya know? The folks who supported this act talked about how all they really wanted was STATE RIGHTS. Why, it wasn't about race at all.



I have a coworker who's really starting to feel RP. Me-notsomuch. I think he's a racist (that's not against the UA, is it...since it's not techincally an insult so much as a classification based on direct quotes he's made) and I don't agree with the Libertarian/Republican views he holds.



He also has introduced a bill called the We the People act which would restrict the Supreme Court from judging the constitutionality of state and local laws. I think this is a very bad idea, partly because then we would have 50 different interpretations of what the Constitution means and partly because historically states have proven that they can justify all sorts of distasteful things as being constitutional. Look at the South's Separate But Equal policies which were ruled constitutional in the state courts but thrown out by the Supreme Court. I think we need that extra check and balance. But again, this bill would be great for the racists.

[ProBlue33]

Many young women just want to party and have fun, they are not into anything deep that requires serious thinking, thats well just boring. Especially true of American women.

Some women are deep thinkers and follow the news, these are the types that we have a chance with.

Ron Paul makes logical sense with his arguements, most men know this doesn't always fly with women, they run off of feelings and emotions.

And if their feelings and emotions don't jive with Ron Paul message then forget it.

A man may strongly disagree with some of Ron Pauls platforms but his logic pulls him back on the most important issues to him. I don't think that works as well on a woman, once they get a bad emotion on something it's game over, then again they could change their mind again anyway, lol.

[Thanehand]

Not all women.

My sister (very pro-choice) is voting for Ron.

My mother (pro-life, but respects choice) is voting for Ron.

My wife (pro-choice) is probably going to vote for Ron.

[gaazn]

maybe need to show that because the dollar keeps going down in value, women get to shop less. a lot of times the people need to see what happens to them at the end without dwelling on the economic jargon.

[SlapItHigh]

and more....


I can't remember what debate it was, but I lost all respect for Ron Paul when he kept referring to POC as "the blacks." Not just once but many times. "The blacks" this..."The blacks" that... He sounded like a crazy racist uncle after too many drinks.



Wait... RP wants to disallow the USSC from ruling on the constitutionality of laws? Wow, that disbands the Union and takes us right back to a confederate style of government.

Let us be clear: Ron Paul has no chance AT ALL of getting the GOP nomination. None.
Let's just be very thankful for this fact, as well as being thankful for the fact that all the unreconstructed confederates among us have, historically, lost, and lost, and lost again.



Ron Paul is opposed to a separation of church & state.



While my sister and I were standing outside at 3:30 am on Black Friday (don't ask), we had 2 people going down the line handing out Ron Paul pamphlets. I took one look at it and handed it back saying "no thank you"- to which one of the supporters says to me in a loud voice "what, you support illegal immigration?" My sister looked at me with a oh crap look and I said to him "my political opinions ar none of your business especially at 3:30 in the morning so have a good holiday season." His friend pulled him on down the line and the people around me started laughing- then when the tool came back past me in line, he says again "anyone who is against illegal immigration should vote for Ron Paul." And I just said "and anyone who supports a woman's right to choose will vote against him." And got a ton of applause from the women around me. I was just so freakin' irritated with that guy. I mean, come one- if you're going to support someone, that's fine but don't make it all about 1 issue and don't bother me when I am standing in line in 30 degree weather waiting to try to grab a cheap KitchenAid mixer for my MIL.



I am not a Libertarian. I believe in government. I think Government is Good. Frankly, I don't know why anyone who thinks government is bad wants a job in government. That would be like me trying to get a job at Dow Chemical, or within the Republican party, for that matter.

But (and this is a big but) I understand the principles behind Libertarianism. Basically, it's like, "Leave me alone to make my own decisions". So how can someone claim to be a Libertarian, and want to take away women's legal choices? I don't get it.



My postition on Ron Paul is very simple. Ron Paul does not believe that my family should have the right to exist, or the same access to services as other families (health insurance,employment,housing,etc.) Therefore Ron Paul can't possibly get my vote.

I really don't get why any poor/working class people could support him also, since he believes in less social services and more breaks for big corporations who don't want to invest here anyway-so no safety net AND no increase in Jobs or Wages.



Not only that, but the "Gold Standard" is just silly. Gold is no more "real" in value than paper money. Just like paper money, gold only has special value because we believe it to have value. It could just as easily be the "Sand Standard" or the "Salt Standard".

To really understand this, read two books: Gulliver's Travels (pay special attention to the section with the Whinnams and the giant diamonds) and The Wonderful Wizard of Oz. When you are done, do some research about Oz's author, L. Frank Baum, and get the backstory on what he was really writing about.



My apologies if this has been mentioned, but I would like to suggest you read the article titled "The Ron Paul Campaign and its Neo-Nazi Supporters" in the November 14, 2007 edition of American Thinker dot com. It is quite eye opening.
A bit OT but there is some interesting information in there about Cindy Sheehan too.


I just printed the above referenced book. Ugh.

He spouts off about how unfair it is that blacks and hispanics can have civil rights groups and a caucus, but whites can't without being called racist. And so far I'm only on the 3nd page of chapter 1.



Well, the problem is that many states would opt to curtail citizens rights if given the power. This doesn't just apply to abortion rights, but other civil liberties, including those based on race and gender.

Ron Paul would leave it to the states to decide if blacks and whites could marry. After all, that's not in the constitution.



While I am 100% against the Iraq War, I am also opposed to Ron Paul's "let the Iraqis deal with the mess we made of their country" plan. It simply isn't realistic (or fair) for every single US soldier to be out of Iraq that day after the election. Or rather, it's about as realistic as returning to the gold standard.



The source is lewrockwell . com, which is a site that makes no bones about its appreciation for the Confederacy. And considers Abraham Lincoln virtually a criminal.



He still believes that having access to health care isn't every human being's right.. I can't understand why THAT alone isn't enough to make any compassionate person realize he is bad news. He supports raw milk farmers? Groovy enough. He still rather you die in a gutter than use taxes to fund health care.



Tax deductions will not make healthcare affordable for me. I already pay no taxes and get the EIC (which he opposes). He does nothing for me in regards to healthcare, and there are many others out there just like me. What are we supposed to do, just go without? Oh wait, that's what we are doing.



Well, it may not be his "idea" that people go without, but it may very be the reality that comes from his plan.

I mean, I think it's terrific that the administered to folks who couldn't pay, but how many doctors actually do that?? Many won't even take cash. Why would that suddenly change?

So I say, "Yay" for raw milk, but the "cost" of that elsewhere (like less medical care and social programs) just are NOT worth it to me.



Most doctors will laugh in your face if you ask them to make payment arrangements. And pro bono? Dream on!

[atilla]

Direct quotes from other women who oppose Ron Paul from three very different high volume all women message boards:

another good argument for the abolition of woman's suffrage.

http://imagecache2.allposters.com/images/pic/ATA/24818BP~The-Simpsons-Nelson-Haha-Posters.jpg

[Thanehand]

My mom actually said to me that she'd like to see women not being allowed to vote. The reason: because she knows that many women vote with their emotions (as is evident by many voting for Hillary because "they have a connection with her" and "because she's a woman").

I don't agree with her (my own mom!) but see her point.

I think education is the key, and our poor excuse for an education system just keeps churning out misinformed individuals.

[angelatc]

ROFL!!! I love the way men think they know what women want!!

Indeed.

[Sey.Naci]

Well, the fact that you are unusual is just what this thread was begun to discuss. Thus the discussion of feminism, which is the prevailing ideology, and is hostile (to say the least) to what Dr. Paul represents.Huh?! I'm a feminist and am 100% for Dr. P. While I disagree on a couple of issues, those pale in comparison to the major ones.

[Bloody Holly]

Another problem, all the woman bashing going on. There are females here. Do you want to drive them away? Do you want the new female on board to say....hmmm nevermind?

[ronpaulitician]

The entrance polls to the Iowa caucus (http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/epolls/#val=IAREP) tell a different story.

Paul got 11% of the male vote and 8% of the female vote.

What stands out is that Huckabee received 29% of the male vote but a whopping 40% of the female vote.

[Nefertiti]

Gee, I spent something like half an hour composing a lengthy commentary on numerous posts, which I thought was "thoughtful", some of it perhaps provocative (I like a good discussion), and this is all the response you're willing to offer?

Yes, that's all I have to offer now. I've got to leave for a 6 week trip in less than 48 hours and have a lot to do between now and then, like making sure I get an absentee ballot to vote for Ron Paul. Do you have a problem with that?

[amy31416]

Huh?! I'm a feminist and am 100% for Dr. P. While I disagree on a couple of issues, those pale in comparison to the major ones.

I'm a feminist in the sense that I'm mostly an "equalist." and am 100% for Ron Paul as well.

The misogyny in this thread will do nothing but fuel opposition and annoy and alienate female newcomers. Those of us who've been on board with Paul for a while won't be swayed. We need everyone, whether anyone likes it or not and women hold a lot of sway.

Do any of you seriously think that Ron Paul is a misogynist?

[Bloody Holly]

Ron Paul doesn't hate women but can't say the same for some men in here.

Also when someone left last night for being called a troll....wow. Women here must have thick skin to have stayed here.

Bryan also made a thread last night that specifically states. NO PERSONAL ATTACKS.

I don't think that excludes females and for a candidate getting excluded left and right, it does not make sense to have people treat women this way and the more this is allowed on this forum, the less women you will have.

Ron Paul phenomenom started online. Remember that. They come here seeking answers and if they see "Women suck. I hate feminists" and they see you attacking any female by calling her a feminazi for defending herself, that is going to drive people away and then I will have a question for you...

WHAT TEAM ARE YOU ON? If you are here to exclude people and attack them, I'm going to think you are on another political candidates team and you are a mole.

That is something moles do.

In the near future....after this post. Any person on here who degrades someone for their race, gender, sexual orientation, age will be put on ignore.

If it's a joke, no big deal.

[atilla]

after this post. Any person on here who degrades someone for their race, gender, sexual orientation, age will be put on ignore.



please ignore me, i have super secret information i need to tell men about and i don't want the women to know it.

[daniroyer]

It's very easy to fall for the "we'll protect you and take care of you" crap.

Some also believe that women aren't supposed to be loud with their support.

Both are b.s.

I don't need Ron Paul to think of my kids. He needs to think of all Americans and leave the specifics regarding my kids to me.

[amy31416]

please ignore me, i have super secret information i need to tell men about and i don't want the women to know it.

Calling you a name would be the obvious and easy thing to do. I won't sink that low.

I'll just say that you must have some redeeming qualities if you support Dr. Paul, I wish we could see more of that aspect of yourself.

[Bloody Holly]

please ignore me, i have super secret information i need to tell men about and i don't want the women to know it.

Done. Anyone else?

[Politeia]

A nice looking site just linked at Lew Rockwell:
http://www.women4ronpaul.com

Claims to be the first person to actually vote for Ron Paul (absentee ballot in California primary).

[Politeia]

Huh?! I'm a feminist and am 100% for Dr. P. While I disagree on a couple of issues, those pale in comparison to the major ones.

Well, that's just the problem. No one who isn't a "feminist" can figure out what a "feminist" is. As Jim Kalb put it:


"Feminism" means so many different things that it appears to mean very little. Its theoretical advocates constantly contradict each other and themselves. Rather than damaging feminism, its incoherence offers an easy defense against all criticism: whatever the complaint, the response is that it misses the mark because feminism is really something else.

Be nice if all you "feminists" would get together and sort it out and come up with a single definition that the rest of us can work with.

Meanwhile, I prefer to do what I can to further the welfare of all humans, in fact all beings, rather than promoting conflict between different groups.

[txgirl]

Thanks for the info Politeia!

[Politeia]

Direct quotes from other women who oppose Ron Paul from three very different high volume all women message boards:

Well, you've certainly demonstrated that a lot of women are unwilling to (a) think; (b) take the trouble to learn what RP is really about, rather than judge him entirely from misleading sound-bite slurs promoted by his enemies; and (c) think.

It's true that it takes some effort to figure out Ron Paul, because what he presents doesn't fit in the tidy little categories in which the sheeple have been trained to "think" -- the categories that make it so easy for the Rulers to rule them. However, it can be done. If they choose not to do so, it's their call, and their life.

For years now, a kind of mantra has been running through my mind, as I observe the days' continuing insanities: "It's what the people want."

Clearly, these women want more of the same. They'll probably get it. Don't complain to me.

Some years back, I used to listen to Rush Limbaugh's radio program. He was kind of an ass much of the time, but amusing and sometimes insightful and clever (this was before his drug troubles), and those he skewered often deserved it, even if they were friends of mine. One day I happened to mention to a woman friend, a liberal peace-activist type, that I listened to Rush. "I'm ashamed of you," she said. What? Apparently, to her, listening to someone on the radio was equivalent to being brainwashed. The option of managing one's own mind didn't exist?

She went on to talk about something, "I think blah blah..." I thought, "No, Mary, you don't think; you emote, and you call it thinking."

[Revolution9]

Another problem, all the woman bashing going on. There are females here. Do you want to drive them away? Do you want the new female on board to say....hmmm nevermind?

You have never of course cast aspersions in the general direction of males. methinks a look in the mirror and an STFU is in order.

Feminist = manufactured societal artifice.
Feminine = natural femaleness with all its grace and beauty
Feminazi = Worst of man in a womans body coupled with the worst of womens attitudes. Pure aggressive bullshit and cross gender condescension.

HTH
Randy

[pinkmandy]

It's because women are more trusting of what they hear in MSM. That's jmho as a woman. I can also say that I'm on several mommy boards and RP has gotten a nice following on each one. We have lots of discussions and even more lurkers. ;)

[amy31416]

Well, that's just the problem. No one who isn't a "feminist" can figure out what a "feminist" is. As Jim Kalb put it:



Be nice if all you "feminists" would get together and sort it out and come up with a single definition that the rest of us can work with.

Meanwhile, I prefer to do what I can to further the welfare of all humans, in fact all beings, rather than promoting conflict between different groups.

Why the hostility? I, personally am for equal rights for all people (with some exceptions*), are there some feminists who aren't? Of course! Are there some males who aren't, of course! Why waste time defining a person, when there really is no one true definition?

*I wouldn't want a mentally retarded person doing much other than getting me fries or other simple tasks. I also believe that there are some jobs where physical strength is important and thus, the majority of positions go to males. There are also some jobs that are stereotypically female and thus, there are more females in those positions. What I don't agree with is placing more value on stereotypically male positions.

[UziSprayTF]

-- I SWEAR I'm not a male chauvinist! --

Now Ayn Rand and other great capitalists aside,

Men are paid to reason, think, design and build.
Women make the children do their chores or organize files for their boss.

Sad but true.

Men go on the Internet for wikipedia.
Women go on the Internet for facebook.

Sad but true.

Men are taught at a young age to stand up for themselves: "punch that bully square in the nose."
Women are taught to spread rumors about the girl that iced them off.

Sad but true.

Boys play with Lego, Civilization 4, Sim City, etc...
Girls play with barbie, easy bake ovens, The Sims, etc...

Most of the smart girls I've come across were "tom boys" when they were younger or had allot of brothers or male friends. The culture around raising female children needs a complete overhaul.

Liberty is tied to reason, not feeling. Girls should be taught from a young age to respond to challenges by finding logical solutions, not by using feelings and relationships.

[Spideynw]

This is a good question. Whatever the reason, it is really too bad that more women are not interested in freedom.

[Bloody Holly]

-- I SWEAR I'm not a male chauvinist! --

Now Ayn Rand and other great capitalists aside,

Men are paid to reason, think, design and build.
Women make the children do their chores or organize files for their boss.

Sad but true.

Men go on the Internet for wikipedia.
Women go on the Internet for facebook.

Sad but true.

Men are taught at a young age to stand up for themselves: "punch that bully square in the nose."
Women are taught to spread rumors about the girl that iced them off.

Sad but true.

Boys play with Lego, Civilization 4, Sim City, etc...
Girls play with barbie, easy bake ovens, The Sims, etc...

Most of the smart girls I've come across were "tom boys" when they were younger or had allot of brothers or male friends. The culture around raising female children needs a complete overhaul.

Liberty is tied to reason, not feeling. Girls should be taught from a young age to respond to challenges by finding logical solutions, not by using feelings and relationships.


I was a tomboy. I'm sure there are several tom boys here. We shouldn't make all women here feel bad for other women's choices.

From an early age, I've had my own interests and let such social upbringings of what I was supposed to be for being female go one ear out the other.

I continue to do so and actually as a result, guys will pick at you for that reason alone because they were taught that women are just exactly as you described.

Also, we can also use this same arguement to put down other targetted groups but this is all being very counter productive and making it a white man's club only.

I'm telling you from experience how such behavior usually results in people who want to be apart of the team feel that since they don't belong and putting down certain types of people aren't allowed, it results in those people feeling like they have no place here.

So if more females were converted, they would come here and think, WOW, maybe my other female friends were right and Ron Paul is not the right choice for females.

I'm telling you, it's counter productive to sit here and bash women. I also remember a thread a while back about "Why don't we have black supporters" and some of the messages in that thread were white men speaking for blacks and using some really lame stereotypes and also saying some really bad things about black people.

If I were black and looked at that, I wouldn't want to stick around.

We have alot of different types of supporters. It's wrong to allow people's own prejudisms to further exclude others.

Our candidate of choice is going through exclusion. There's alot of complaining about that so isn't it a little hypocritical to turn around and treat others like they are not welcomed here which is exactly what is being done when women are treated as though they should not speak their mind. I speak my mind. You may not like it but that is what being an independant thinker is about.

Also a friendly reminder that Dr. Paul himself is against group thinkers.

There is a difference between grouping up for a campaign and a group thinker mentality.

Group thinker mentalities are exclusive and often bigoted and prejudice.

You want to listen to stereotypes, that is fine and dandy but the truth of the matter is, it's not going to help Ron Paul get elected if it's used in a derrogatory manner which excludes more Ron Paul supporters.

I am through with this subject. For now on like I already said, anyone wants to show they have a group thinker mentality will be put on ignore.

I am an individual. I am also on your team and so are the ladies here. You want respect, I will treat you with respect but not if you are going to run around on a messageboard like a chicken with your head cut off to promote bigotry and exclusive group thinking mentality.

I belong here. The ladies belong here. All races belong here. All human beings belong here.

If I don't ignore people like that, I'll end up leaving the board because it's crossing agendas and counter productive.

Thanks.

[amy31416]

-- I SWEAR I'm not a male chauvinist! --

Now Ayn Rand and other great capitalists aside,

Men are paid to reason, think, design and build.
Women make the children do their chores or organize files for their boss.

Sad but true.

Men go on the Internet for wikipedia.
Women go on the Internet for facebook.

Sad but true.

Men are taught at a young age to stand up for themselves: "punch that bully square in the nose."
Women are taught to spread rumors about the girl that iced them off.

Sad but true.

Boys play with Lego, Civilization 4, Sim City, etc...
Girls play with barbie, easy bake ovens, The Sims, etc...

Most of the smart girls I've come across were "tom boys" when they were younger or had allot of brothers or male friends. The culture around raising female children needs a complete overhaul.

Liberty is tied to reason, not feeling. Girls should be taught from a young age to respond to challenges by finding logical solutions, not by using feelings and relationships.

So, seriously, I am an exception because I've never once been on facebook, only rarely on myspace and am constantly on Wikipedia?

I agree completely that the culture around raising female children needs a complete overhaul, I've seen it in action with nieces who are raised to be overly concerned about their looks. Women were the worst offenders and men never understood what I was talking about! I won't be so bold as to assume that you think I'm "smart" but yeah, I was, and still am a tomboy. Believe me, it makes life harder for the most part, except when my car breaks down ;) But I'm still emotional when it comes to relationships, and I don't think that's such a bad thing until the relationship goes awry. The fact that women will psychologically damage each other rather than physically damage for an alleged affront is really much more harmful, in my opinion.

It's a side battle to this one. One that can't be easily solved through a group like this, with the exception of planting an idea. It's never made sense to me that anyone would want the approximately 50% of the population that's raising the children to be weak, uneducated and powerless.

[amy31416]

I was a tomboy. I'm sure there are several tom boys here. We shouldn't make all women here feel bad for other women's choices.

From an early age, I've had my own interests and let such social upbringings of what I was supposed to be for being female go one ear out the other.

I continue to do so and actually as a result, guys will pick at you for that reason alone because they were taught that women are just exactly as you described.

Also, we can also use this same arguement to put down other targetted groups but this is all being very counter productive and making it a white man's club only.

I'm telling you from experience how such behavior usually results in people who want to be apart of the team feel that since they don't belong and putting down certain types of people aren't allowed, it results in those people feeling like they have no place here.

So if more females were converted, they would come here and think, WOW, maybe my other female friends were right and Ron Paul is not the right choice for females.

I'm telling you, it's counter productive to sit here and bash women. I also remember a thread a while back about "Why don't we have black supporters" and some of the messages in that thread were white men speaking for blacks and using some really lame stereotypes and also saying some really bad things about black people.

If I were black and looked at that, I wouldn't want to stick around.

We have alot of different types of supporters. It's wrong to allow people's own prejudisms to further exclude others.

Our candidate of choice is going through exclusion. There's alot of complaining about that so isn't it a little hypocritical to turn around and treat others like they are not welcomed here which is exactly what is being done when women are treated as though they should not speak their mind. I speak my mind. You may not like it but that is what being an independant thinker is about.

Also a friendly reminder that Dr. Paul himself is against group thinkers.

There is a difference between grouping up for a campaign and a group thinker mentality.

Group thinker mentalities are exclusive and often bigoted and prejudice.

You want to listen to stereotypes, that is fine and dandy but the truth of the matter is, it's not going to help Ron Paul get elected if it's used in a derrogatory manner which excludes more Ron Paul supporters.

I am through with this subject. For now on like I already said, anyone wants to show they have a group thinker mentality will be put on ignore.

I am an individual. I am also on your team and so are the ladies here. You want respect, I will treat you with respect but not if you are going to run around on a messageboard like a chicken with your head cut off to promote bigotry and exclusive group thinking mentality.

I belong here. The ladies belong here. All races belong here. All human beings belong here.

If I don't ignore people like that, I'll end up leaving the board because it's crossing agendas and counter productive.

Thanks.

Very, very well said. I laud you, you came at this from a completely different direction than me and were very eloquent about it.

[electronicmaji]

What ever happened to the Ron Paul dating service?

[pinkmandy]

What ever happened to the Ron Paul dating service?

Eharmony excluded us. ;)

[webber53]

I would have thought that because Ron Paul is an OB-GYN doctor
that most woman would relate to him better than the rest of the candidates? :confused:

[electronicmaji]

I know eharmony sucks they only accept people above 21....

meh it was only created to create more marriages.

I personally worship women and am a male Feminist so the more women we get the more I love our campaign :D

[Terry82]

I find women aren't keen at all to a Libertarian message.

Well, that sure is great when you're starting off with 55% of the population not voting for you as a given.

[amy31416]

I would have thought that because Ron Paul is an OB-GYN doctor
that most woman would relate to him better than the rest of the candidates? :confused:

As you've probably noticed, the candidate and his followers are very, very different. Ron Paul himself is not a misogynist. Some of his followers--ohhhh yeah. He's also not many other things that his followers are, that's the beauty of freedom and the worst quality of it.

Freedom certainly doesn't mean that we all agree, it means that we are allowed to disagree.

[Finn]

One thing I've notived many times when women are bashed (like in this forum, face it, it happens constantly).. Women then take this "tomboy" role and try to make sure they really think like the guys do and they have nothing to do with feminim or female emotions. It's like they try to harden themselves so they fit, cause as females all they get is shit.

I'm a woman. It's just something I see a lot.

[electronicmaji]

Hey I'm not manlike at all. I'm straight and effeminate and proud ;)

[amy31416]

One thing I've notived many times when women are bashed (like in this forum, face it, it happens constantly).. Women then take this "tomboy" role and try to make sure they really think like the guys do and they have nothing to do with feminim or female emotions. It's like they try to harden themselves so they fit, cause as females all they get is shit.

I'm a woman. It's just something I see a lot.

Interesting. I've said time and time again though, that when it comes to relationships and children, I'm a stereotypical female who is far more emotional than practical. I don't think this is such a bad thing.

But yeah, all the bashing can push a person to harden themselves. I've always been a tomboy though and couldn't be anything else.

[pinkmandy]

Hey I'm not manlike at all. I'm straight and effeminate and proud ;)


Ditto. And I think, I research a lot, I love learning. Just like anyone else out there it's a matter of getting the message to women. I think *my* biggest concern- as a woman and a MOM- is the burden we are leaving our children if RP does not win. We are setting them up for a welfare state.

[BrianH]

I guess it's been said already but I'll post again:

http://www.women4ronpaul.com

[amy31416]

Hey I'm not manlike at all. I'm straight and effeminate and proud ;)

Great! I don't really consider myself manlike either, with the exception that I have a degree in a male-dominated field, work on cars and like to watch the History channel.

And I'm completely and utterly straight. I just like to know how things work, whether it be politics, cars, science or anything.

[electronicmaji]

Well I'm actually a male lol..

[amy31416]

Well I'm actually a male lol..

I know.

[Highstreet]

Women's vote not going to Dr. Paul.:(

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

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

Do not know him?

Anyone have any thoughts and how to fix it?

They need to see more jokes and smiles from him.

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

[txgirl]

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

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

Put me on "ignore" if you want.

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

[amy31416]

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

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

Put me on "ignore" if you want.

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

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

[txgirl]

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


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

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

[amy31416]

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

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

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

Now, we aren't getting female votes because:

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

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

[electronicmaji]

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

[electronicmaji]

blimp

[quantized]

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

[jb4ronpaul]

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

[JustAnotherV]

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

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

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

Good job Iowa women. Hoping HN women kick your ass though. ;) :P

[smartpeople4ronpaul]

Women's vote not going to Dr. Paul.:(

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

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

Do not know him?

Anyone have any thoughts and how to fix it?


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

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

[voisine]

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

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

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

[ecliptic]

Feral Scholar (http://www.feralscholar.org/blog/index.php/2008/01/04/my-ron-paul-rant/) Stan Goff makes excellent points:



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

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

Damn.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That’s all.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Category: General | Comment (RSS)
51 Comments

highly recommended - especially for Dems and Fems on the fence

[Politeia]

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

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

[amy31416]

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

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

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

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

[politicus]

The solution couldn't be simpler:

Paul needs Brad Pitt's Endorsement.

[amy31416]

The solution couldn't be simpler:

Paul needs Brad Pitt's Endorsement.

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

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

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

[Maltheus]

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

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

[amy31416]

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

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

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

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

[Maltheus]

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


True, both sides have potential power, but in general, women tend to be move talkative when they have issues and guys generally keep stuff to themselves in an attempt to move past their issues. Guys will often just agree to whatever the woman wants in a relationship in order to get back to peace and quiet as quickly as possible. This gives women the advantage in most of the relationships I've observed. At least, in modern Western society.

[amy31416]

True, both sides have potential power, but in general, women tend to be move talkative when they have issues and guys generally keep stuff to themselves in an attempt to move past their issues. Guys will often just agree to whatever the woman wants in a relationship in order to get back to peace and quiet as quickly as possible. This gives women the advantage in most of the relationships I've observed. At least, in modern Western society.

And on the flip side, men can just be bullies physically or verbally and get their way. I've seen that happen as well.

Still think it's pretty even and that it's what you do with power over who is "born" into it.

I grew up in a family where the man had all the power, some of my friends, the opposite. One individual possessing all the power in a relationship is not a healthy thing, in my opinion-whether they be male or female.

[atilla]

cool, let's keep this thread rolling, i think if we all work together we can get this thread to 100 pages!!!

as a reminder, would all women put me on ignore. i have important things to discuss but i need to make sure the information only gets into the right hands.

here's an important video everyone needs to see if we want to get ron paul elected.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=mGjqVCtyRKo

[amy31416]

cool, let's keep this thread rolling, i think if we all work together we can get this thread to 100 pages!!!

as a reminder, would all women put me on ignore. i have important things to discuss but i need to make sure the information only gets into the right hands.

here's an important video everyone needs to see if we want to get ron paul elected.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=mGjqVCtyRKo

What was that? Did anyone else hear a baby crying?

[atilla]

lets keep it up, the thread made it to the bottom. somebody else needs to bump it the next few hours i'm going to be busy.

bump