http://www.wvwnews.net/story.php?id=6621
… the Republican party continues catering to the Christian right, including the alien Middle Eastern culture embedded in Bible-based custom, including alien gender roles. If they would … release themselves from that hypocrisy … they could have easily won this last election. If conservative causes could drop their gender roles emphasis (assuming they were truly more interested in common goals than their own traditionalist conservative agenda), they too would see the ranks swell.
Normally, I’m a fan of Dr. MacDonald’s, but this time, I have to say I think he’s off the mark and works to prove a premise rather than to take data and develop one.
“The good news, of course, is that a majority of white women did not vote for Obama.”
Yes, he admits that. I wonder how many of the fraudulent votes were “female” vs. male. I wonder how many illegals voting for Obama were female vs. male. I wonder how many of them listed themselves as “white”, but, making the assumption the votes were indeed valid (keep in mind polls are taken on those who agree to tell their choices to the pollsters, and we assume they state what they actually voted, and the information is reported correctly), what he implies is the majority of white women did not vote for Obama (Did you give info on how you voted? I didn’t. I wasn’t even asked, so they didn’t know how I voted, or my gender, or my race).
But the underlying premise I love about voting period is that people vote “for” someone. I believe they voted AGAINST McCain. I believe they voted against Bush III, in essence, and correctly so.
I submit the majority of Americans believe they had no choices other than those the media highlighted in the primaries and in the final election. With this in mind, small wonder the results were what they were. I could not bring myself to vote for McCain either — co-sponsor of the McCain-Kyl amnesty bill, with his interesting conflict-of-interest choices of http://michellemalkin.com/2008/01/25/john-mccains-open-borders-outreach-director-the-next-dhs-secretary/ I remember quite well last year’s attempt to railroad through the McCain-Kyl amnesty bill behind closed congress doors, despite the very adamant voice of the American public against it. I recall both Obama and McCain lining up to support the bank bailout that the American public also adamantly and overwhelmingly opposed.
I think many Americans voted against continuation of the war in Iraq. I also think many Americans deluded themselves into believing that any change from the Republican status quo had to be a better one, just as I believe many Republicans deluded themselves into thinking we’d be any better off under a McCain administration. Neither party represents the American public anymore, only the interests of a hostile corporate elite. Also, there is the factor that the Republican party continues catering to the Christian right, including the alien Middle Eastern culture embedded in Bible-based custom, including alien gender roles. If they would but release themselves from that hypocrisy (look at the private lives of past presidents who have put their “Christianity” on their sleeves in the campaign in defining “hypocrisy”), or halfway truly represented the interests of mainstream America, they could have easily won this last election. If conservative causes could drop their gender roles emphasis (assuming they were truly more interested in common goals than their own traditionalist conservative agenda), they too would see the ranks swell.
So this past campaign was not as simple as Republican vs. Democrat, conservative vs. liberal, or McCain vs. Obama. As usual, it was the vote for the lesser of two (incredible) evils. Not lesser by much, but I still believe the lesser won.
On this, I cannot believe Dr. MacDonald’s statement:
[quoteJudith Warner of the New York Times describes the result of an informal “email inquiry” on women’s reactions to Obama. Some imagined having sex with Obama and replacing Michelle Obama as First Lady. Others imagined themselves at social engagements with Obama. All wanted deeply to have some of the Obama aura rub off on them. Warner’s email contacts doubtless reflect her liberal readership, but I wouldn’t be at all surprised if they are quite general, especially among white women who voted for Obama. [/quote
Yes. Judith Warner. Of the New York Times, which, of course, would not have any interest in promoting Obama’s popularity in this particular, um, way. An “informal email” survey. Of NY Times readers, logically many of them being from NY. You know, this reminds me of the “Sex and the City” myth — it’s on television, it’s popular, it must be indicative of how “women” are/think.
On this:
[quote”In any case, women do indeed prefer wealthy, high-status men. For example, a recent study found that wealthy men give women more orgasms: “The pleasure women get from making love is directly linked to the size of their partner’s bank balance.””[/quote
I’ll remember that the next time I see Bill Gates on television. Take a look at http://www.forbes.com/2008/03/05/worlds-richest-billionaires-billionaires08-cx_lk_0305all_slide_2.html at Forbes Magazine. Yes, well, if the women in their beds are orgasming, it’s at the thought of someone else rather than the man’s bank account, I’m certain.
[quote”Other research shows that women are likely to choose higher status men than their husbands when they have affairs, resulting in the possibility of a lower status male helping to raise the children of a higher-status male.”[/quote
I somehow doubt the wives of wealthy men follow this pattern, and dalliances are more likely to be with more easily available and more physically virile men. But it’s hard to argue when he doesn’t quote his sources.
Editor’s note: the reason Dr. MacDonald cites no sources on this is because the phenomenon is so well documented as to require no citation. He also doesn’t cite sources establishing that water is wet. Our correspondent is citing a specific case (wives of already wealthy men) to refute a general case (women prefer higher status men).
I was saddened to see this article. The last thing needed is for the gender gap to be widened on the basis of innuendo, mistaken premises, and opinions which are far from fully documented and supported. I think the white male readership here has enough “wallet envy” and frustration over what society seems to think “high status” is. I submit we need to set aside media images and propaganda and remember the true values behind “high status” — honesty, industry, and fidelity. While I believe there is a physical attraction based on indicators of offspring fitness, I believe in an economy when we are not so sorely pressed, it would be much easier to observe in everyday life that the kind of women who would make good life partners do indeed choose men with these qualities as marriage partners. I would start paying attention to what women who marry actually DO, than what the media says they do (including NY Times informal email polls), and rather than focusing on what the far minority of some incredibly spoiled and pretty young women do. I think it’s imperative the genders each believe the best possible in one another to deal with times that may be facing us not that far ahead.
It’s hokey, but I’m reminded of the http://www.secondhandlions.net/speech/SHLspeech.htm:
[quote”Sometimes the things that may or may not be true are the things a man needs to believe in the most. That people are basically good. That honour, courage and virtue mean everything ; that power and money … money and power mean nothing. That good always triumphs over evil. And I want you to remember this…. that love….true love never dies ! Remember that boy … remember that. Doesn’t matter if it is true or not, a man should believe in those things , because those are the things worth believing in…… got that ?”[/quote
I think it’s pretty imperative right now to believe in the best in each other, instead of assuming the worst. And I think socially and economically disenfranchised white men need this right now most of all.