The New York Times reports that Hillary Clinton is seeking--with some success--to gain ground among elderly women impressed with the novelty of having a chance to vote for a woman. The story is a sad one because of what is missing (i.e., any substantive discussion of something other than HRC’s gender and the attributes these old ladies imagine she’ll have because of it). I have to believe that, in the end, most women are more worthy of the franchise than the broads in this story appear to be. Whenever HRC gets on this gender kick she induces groans from sensible women everywhere . . . she affirms every negative female stereotype in the book and--what’s worse--she appears to be doing it with a cynical consciousness of what she’s doing. With friends like this woman, we girls don’t need any enemies.
I wouldn't go too far out on that plank in your estimation of women responsibly exercising their vote.
I think the 20th century demonstrates the unwisdom of ever extending the franchise to women.
They haven't measured up. Doesn't mean of course that every man has, nothing like that. But on average, the votes tell a tale. And it's not very flattering to women.
Take a good look at the voting preferences of women in Wiemar Germany for instance. An appalling record, absolutely appalling.
Are you suggesting, EJ, that election, American election, results would have been significantly different if women had not been voting? Care to supply some evidence?
Not that we have seen the great moral influence that women were supposed effect on the electorate. I just do not see that women voting has made any difference, more is the pity.
This article cites what was predictable, if grievous. As a Grannie, I AM comfortable with the idea of voting for a woman. Not this one: politics wins the argument. Julie, you run.
"Gender gap" anyone?
Ann Coulter has gone off on this topic at some length. Often tongue in cheek of course, but often times not. You might want to check her archives.
But just cast your mind back to the last Presidential election, where we had two candidates sporting their "silky pony" like ways for the women of America. They couldn't highlight their leonine manes enough. And how many votes were swayed upon such silliness. But Edwards and Kerry, [and their campaign flacks] knew it wasn't silly at all, because they knew that votes moved on such nonsense. And was it the votes of American men, or was it that of American women? It's not a very pleasant thought, is it?
Or take a gander at the Presidential campaign prior to that, where we had Gore out there sporting earth tones for the women, but simultaneously trying to affect "the alpha male," AGAIN, all for the women vote.
And these recollections are just off the top of my head, without taking a more serious and probing look at the issue.
Given your evidence, would the results of those elections have been different had women not been allowed to vote? Are you saying there would have been a male landslide for Bush sans female voters? Those losers would still be losers. For me, that is a very pleasant thought.
Kate . . . no way.