I’ve got a post on PJM about the women voters and Hillary. PJM has a fairly conservative editorial board, but they have been open minded about linking to and supporting bloggers from across the political spectrum. Their readers, on the other hand, are unwaveringly conservative. The comments on my post range from thoughtful comparisons of Obama and Hillary (with qualifications that they wouldn’t vote for either) to completely bonkers. My favorite comment:
Let’s face reality here, most women vote based on either looks or how
many hand-outs the state will bestow. By their nature they are
emotional, nurturing beings, so why would women vote based on the
principles of reason when reason is not the big group hug-everyone gets
a medal-philosophy most women are attracted to. From what I can tell,
the problem started around the 19th amendment.
Apt. 11d 
This is almost as good as the supreme court limiting access to abortion to protect women from themselves.
LikeLike
Women are politically different from men in their voting patterns (although that depends somewhat on marital status, etc.). Even (or especially) in a “traditional” family, daddy represents the private sector (earning money) and mommy represents the public sector (redistributing the private sector’s resources according to need). Conservatives (especially male, libertarian-oriented conservatives) tend to recoil against “mommyism,” which I would define as the idea that the state is like your mommy and knows what’s best for you and will take care of you forever and ever, so eat your veggies, stand up straight, and iron your pants. (As a matter of fact, tweens and teens aren’t crazy about mommyism at home either.)
LikeLike
Well, except that a random poster on PJM is not five supreme court justices!
Have any of the candidates been ranked on “Hot or Not”? What is their relative hotness ranking? I mean, after all, I need to know, in order to make my voting decision, don’t I?
LikeLike
Hot? John Edwards. No question. Although Obama fills out a suit pretty well. Kucinich and Thompson have been seen with a lot of pretty women, so they must have something not apparent from the photos. My wife useta look at situations like that and say ‘Hidden Assets’… Romney has very smooth and regular features, but doesn’t ding the meter, somehow. One of the gravely unfair things about our society is that ‘hot’ pretty much runs out at 40 for women – except for Sophia Loren and Gloria Steinem, who have clearly been bathing in some sort of fountain not available to the rest of woman-kind.
But, no, bj, I don’t think you’ll get your ideological preferences served very well if you prefer your candidates in the order I gave. Better to look at position papers, and endorsements.
LikeLike
Comments like this (I mean the one Laura included from the man who doesn’t want to see women vote!) are why I roll my eyes every time someone mentions how religion is the root and font of all women’s oppression. This clown isn’t arguing that women shouldn’t have the vote on the grounds that God doesn’t want it to be so, he is arguing on pseudo-scientific grounds. Evolutionary psychology is something of a religion of choice for male atheists who want to see women kept in their place but can’t justify it on religious grounds, so they bring in “science” and “reason.”
Bleah. Now I want to go take a shower. Then I’m going to go vote for whatever candidate is Teh Hawwtness, because my teeny weeny female brain compels me.
LikeLike
Dave, are you advising looking into the candidates’ performance and preferred positions?
LikeLike
Really the problem started when they let women learn to read.
LikeLike