6 votes

Ladies, Get With The Program

We've spoken of this before but again another crosstab shows dreadful performance among women, this time in FLA (see this

It could be an outlier but there have been quite a few with similar results and I certainly can't recall one where women supported him significantly more than men.

So what is it about RP that seems to turn women off? I hate to be crass but is it because he isn't an "attractive" man anymore (hard to be at 76)? Or are women in the GOP bigger hawks then men? (kinda hard to see that)

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

How Many Women Have a Crush on Milton Friedman?

I do! I do! I'm in the minority, however.

He obviously did quite well with women in his practice. We just need to run more of those ads showing that side of him, and featuring Carol and the grandkids.

Most women aren't going to relate to macro-economics.

What do you think? http://consequeries.com/

My take

No offense to other women, but he needs to bring his message home a bit more, literally....he needs to talk about the cost of butter doubling in the last 3 years and the cost of food going up 25%-50% across the board while wages stayed flat and dropped....point out the lie of low inflation, describe how they cook the numbers....and how the printing of more money CAUSES the cost of everything we buy to go up while we lose real value on things like our houses and time....economics isn't taught even on the most basic level in schools (I'm a 30 year old mother of 5 with a genius IQ and I never did take an econ class)....he needs to make the message more clear for a completely uneducated person to understand...and I'm not blaming women (including myself, I don't understand much beyond the basics) for not being educated in this area, this is where massive sub-par public schooling has gotten us...but most of us don't have time to learn anything new, we're too busy keeping up with the fast-paced family life or staying in the social loop to think about it much....women tend to vote for the guy that seems the most confident and sounds like he knows what he's talking about (understanding what is being said help here) and we want a compassionate man too, he really needs to talk up his treatment of women for FREE in lieu of Medicaid/Medicare, his whole medical practice needs to be talked up more...and good looks do help - better fitting suits would do wonders in this area....just my $.02.....

ConstitutionHugger's picture

It may be the safety net issue and we need to paint a picture

I'm female and RP's message resonated with me instantly. Here is my theory for the gender gap: it's the libertarian lack of safety net. One female friend of mine said this when I told her about Ron Paul a few months ago: "You mean the crazy one? Isn't he the one who said we should just let people die in the street? Churches aren't going to take care of people." Healthcare was her big issue. She is a CNN brainwashed democrat, so I'm not sure how republican ladies might be different. But the libertarian system has been characterized as barbaric and uncaring in the media.

Education can solve this. I'd take on healthcare- and how the government screws up supply and demand. (RP did this last night.) And how health insurance should only be for serious illness and regular visits should be paid for with cash (fully tax refundable until the elimination of the IRS). Prices for healthcare would drop without all the middlemen.

It also must be shown in context of a freer America- life wouldn't be hard if our economy wasn't being choked to death by corruption and overregulation. The lack of opportunity in our country has frightened many people. Living from paycheck to paycheck does not make people feel secure.

At a previous debate, RP was asked what his vision is for our country. He went into an economic lesson and didn't paint a picture for us. I think he doesn't want to make promises he can't guarantee (since it's up to individuals to make this country a success, not the president), but he could still say how he envisions it. Get a vision out there of what it could be like because it is new and dramatically different and most PEOPLE DO NOT HAVE GOOD IMAGINATIONS. Picture this: New companies opening up all over the country. Existing companies hiring more workers. People have jobs and job security. Food and gas prices drop. Money put in the bank and into investments dependably earns interest instead of jumping up and down erratically. No more income tax means you can work 3 months less a year, or have more cash to spend, give to charity, or save. The cost of visiting your doctor will be similar to getting a haircut. Anymore suggestions for what life will be like with a Ron Paul presidency? It will be reassuring for the ladies (and everyone else) to hear.

On the pro-life question

My understanding of Dr. Paul's potential actions as President is based on what I have read from the campaign website, the legislation that Dr. Paul has authored and especially his clarifying statement to the PersonhoodUSA organisation.

Ron Paul is strongly pro-life. Of all the candidates he is the most genuinely pro-life and the most likely to make a sea-change in the country on this issue. He is convinced that life begins at conception and has introduced legislation to have this written into law with the Sanctity of Life Act. This could be passed in the Congress with a simple 51% vote.

He has also authored and introduced the We The People Act that would transfer the jurisdiction on abortion to the States because once it is established that life begins at conception by the Sanctity of Life Act this means that abortion becomes an act of murder which Constitutionally comes under the jurisdiction of the States via the Tenth Amendment.

This definition of the beginning of life and the transfer of jurisdiction would also have the effect of overturning Roe v. Wade since the Supreme Court in its original decision stated that if at any time it was established that life begins at conception then this would have the effect of negating their decision thereby returning the question to the States.

I have been very impressed by Dr. Paul's surgical precision on this issue which he dissects with a scalpel rather than a meat cleaver like all the other ~so-called right to life candidates and organisations who frankly seem to me to be more interested in their own continuance than in achieving the goal for which they ostensibly exist.

Having said this it always bemuses me that Christians accuse Dr. Paul of being in favour of abortion while pro-abortion advocates accuse him of being intent on removing their choice to kill their unborn child. This simply demonstrates the profound confusion that has been created in the world on this subject by those for whom it is merely a political wedge issue.

Dr. Paul is 100% correct. You cannot have protection of human Liberty without protection of human Life and human Life begins at conception. He has never compromised on this position and we should not expect him to do so when he is President.

Whether this removes him from consideration by women is an open question. My own opinion is that his unpopularity with this demographic is a result of misrepresentation of his positions by the media and other commentators who are simply ignorant of what he proposes. They have painted him on an emotional level as being uncaring and ideologically doctrinaire intent on destroying the social safety net in America.

We all know this to be a gross mischaracterisation of the man but I believe it has taken root in the American mind and can only be eradicated and dissipated by an act of God and a strong presentation of the Truth on a personal level by Ron Paul's followers.

"Jesus answered them: 'Truly, truly, I say to you, everyone who commits sin is a slave to sin. The slave does not remain in the house forever; the son remains forever. So if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed.'" (John 8:34-36)

some really good points in these comments

and I do hope RP2012 reads them as we really do need to get more women behind him. As with foreign policy, he need not change his position but sometimes the way you deliver the message can make all the difference - maybe be more focused on how his plans will result in better 'security' for families than what exists now or is likely in the future.

gedankenexperiment.dk views on finance, politics and science

Well, I think this is really

Well, I think this is really a much larger issue than it seems. It's not just Ron Paul's stance on foreign policy, or domestic programs, or even his attractiveness. Some of those things may play a part. But the truth is that the progressive/left wing establishment has really been allowed to define the idea of feminism in our society, as much as they have dominated and defined civil rights. Many women that do take issue with things like civil liberties, who like the idea of independence and freedom, etc...are women who are more inclined to vote Democrat.

Why? Well take the issue of abortion, for example. The pro-choice camp has completely dominated the national discussion and defined pro-choice as being a feminist issue. So if you are pro-life and female, you don't get to be called a "feminist". Now, whatever you might think of Sarah Palin, just think back to how feminists and the media treated her. In fact, female conservatives in general are just not very well respected by the feminist movement anymore. Free thinking, freedom loving women are more likely to vote Democrat for these reasons, because the Democrats are supposedly the party of civil liberties (or so they say). Unfortunately, this means that more women in the GOP tend to be either social conservatives or pro-war neocons.

There ARE women who like Ron Paul, but they are more likely to be part of the Independents or Dems who are crossing over for him. But I believe, if Ron Paul's message wins....we will see political realignment of many more freedom loving women coming over to the Republicans. We just need to keep showing that WE are the party of civil liberties...and we will win them over. Keep driving that message home.

Your Title

slightly offends me. One does not encourage women to support Ron Paul by telling them to "get with the program."

RP isn't a turn off to women who understand freedom.

I'm an older woman and I have lived through the dawn of feminism and beyond. There is one basic instinct in play here:

Men are more inclined to side with the idea of freedom.

(Or at least most were. Things have changed since Marxist radical feminism was implemented.I'm not opposed to women standing up for themselves, but I used to be a radical feminist and there were other agendas in play back then.)

Women, no matter how modern or feminist, are still inclined to side with the idea of security.

When Ron Paul talks about getting the government out of our lives, it may be scary to some women. They want to know that if THEY fail at providing for themselves or their kids, someone will be there to take care of them, or at least take care of their children.

If you want to encourage more women to support Ron Paul, then talk to them about how much better off their kids will be in a freer society where they can grow and thrive. Talk to them about not having their kids blown up thousands of miles away. Talk to them about how RP's economic views will lessen the burden on them and on their families. Talk to them about the compassion of Ron Paul.

Teach them to understand that although the idea of freedom may be dangerous and uncertain, more government will make them slaves and destroy their children's future.

“The only way to deal with an unfree world is to become so absolutely free that your very existence is an act of rebellion.”
― Albert Camus

the title was provative

to try to cut through the usual multitude of posts on DP...

You made some very interesting points and I hope that the campaign reads them, or at least is thinking about these things. In fact, thinking about the debate last night maybe he could have given a better answer to the women who asked about lost healthcare. What RP said was not wrong, but it didn't address her question per se (how to get care/insurance now) and I can see how that fits in with what you have said.

gedankenexperiment.dk views on finance, politics and science

I just twted asking Ron-Paul-fembots to comment

Hopefully they'll shed some insight.

I'm pretty active on twitter

and there are a TON of Ron Paul women supporters on there, we definitely need to grow this demographic but if you do a search for: Ron Paul, you'll see he has the prettiest supporters too. :)

"Fairy tales are more than true; not because they tell us that dragons exist, but because they tell us that dragons can be beaten."
— G.K. Chesterton

What's your twtr handle?

I'll follow you. @btwnunemploymnt

Already following you!

I'm trying to keep the identities separate. But would you agree the Ron Paul women supporters are by far the prettiest and smartest?

"Fairy tales are more than true; not because they tell us that dragons exist, but because they tell us that dragons can be beaten."
— G.K. Chesterton

A majority of women are

A majority of women are well-intentioned liberals who believe the government welfare state actually helps people. It is the natural emotional response. They just need to be shown that these programs actually hurt the people they are designed to help, no easy task.

There have been studies that show women vote for attractive candidates more often, but I don't think men are exempt from this bias either, as attractive candidates look healthier and more apt to be good leaders. I see no other way to explain the success of Mitt Romney. But I don't think this necessarily hurts RP, as many women on twitter think he is cute in a grandfatherly way, plus he was pretty striking in his youth.

as a woman

i have to say that ron paul is freakin' hot. those pictures of him at the baseball game---wow! how many 76 yr. olds look that good without plastic surgery? carol is one lucky lady...and his family is really good looking, too. rand...yup.
(let me throw in here that my husband is also very good looking, lucky me, and a wicked smart liberty-lover.)

Agreed with all points...

Agreed with all points... Ron was MUCH more attractive than Mitt. Maybe we should flash around those baseball pics? And he still looks good for his age. Rand dresses a little, quirky, when left to his own devices...but he's attractive.

Your first paragraph says it all

IMO.

“It is the food which you furnish to your mind that determines the whole character of your life.”
―Emmet Fox

egapele's picture

Household financial decisions - not usually woman's role?

I am a woman and I take care of all the finances in our home, which is why I think I "get" RP's message more so than most women. Also, Ron Paul doesn't go out of his way to "woo" people, which is what most women expect and gravitate to. If they were looking for a young male candidate with raging testosterone levels, certainly John McCain and Bob Dole would never have been nominated so I don't think it's got to do with his age. I realize I am over-generalizing women and I apologize in advance for any offense I may have caused anyone - not my intent.

"Or are women in the GOP

"Or are women in the GOP bigger hawks then men? (kinda hard to see that)"

You'd be surprised...

Social Security and Medicare

We are the caregivers.
There is real fear that somehow Ron Paul will eliminate Social Security and Medicare, because he thinks they are unconstitutional.
So where does that leave our parents?
Living in our homes, being cared for with our limited dollars.
No more vacations for us, that's for sure.
Get it?
Quit saying stupid stuff about how he looks.
Keep saying "We can save Social Security and Medicare if we bring the troops home, and Ron Paul is the only one who is willing to do that. As President he can bring the troops home immediately, keep paying them, we will have an economic boom here."

I completely agree

and it's also the Pro-Life position. Many women see their bodies as their property, and Pro-life as an assult on their freedom.

Pro-life is his belief but he

Pro-life is his belief but he would never impose that on a women.

I completely agree

That's when we get into this argument that goes, "we need the federal government to protect us from tyranical states".

I made a huge mistake in talking to a pro-choicer by saying, "abortionists". She hit the roof on that note.

I think many know that he would not impose it, but they fear that once he is gone, someone else would.

That's a very good point.

That's a very good point.