September 23, 2010
Those Darned Women Voters Again
Grim notices something I wondered about, too:
Here at home, well-known right wing echo chamber The New York Times says that the real reason the Tea Party is doing well is women. Well, we knew that, right? Part of the power of the movement is that it represents a breakthrough in involving women with an interest in protecting the integrity of their families, and the traditions of liberty for their children.
Except the Times has a different point: actually, they say, the problem is that women aren't paying attention, are confused, and either depressed about politics or just unenthusiastic about it. If only women would outperform men at the polls, the Times says, the Democrats would do great!
That kind of underlines the problem, though, doesn't it? Why should it be true that the only portion of women to be generally enthusiastic and engaged this year is on the right, especially among those leading the Tea Party? Isn't this supposed to be the year that the Great Health Care Takeover represents such a relief to women (whom, we hear, disproportionately favor these kinds of socialist programs)? Shouldn't they be lining up to express their enthusiasm for more of the same?
The opposite is happening, and that's the real marker.
Of course he says it far better than I would have... probably because he's a man, and men are logical like that.
*running for the barricades*
Posted by Cassandra at September 23, 2010 08:59 AM
TrackBack URL for this entry:
David Yeagley, a Commanche Indian, cites a Cheyenne saying: "A nation is never conquered until the hearts of its women are on the ground." He quoted this in the context of his post what's up with white women, in which he expressed great concern about the alienation of (white) women among his students from their own history & culture.
To the extent that the Cheyenne saying is correct, the heavy participation of women in the Tea Party and related movements gives real grounds for hope.
Posted by: david foster at September 23, 2010 10:22 AM
Of course he says it far better than I would have... probably because he's a man
Wait, wait, wait -- I'm confused. Didn't you just say a bit downstream
that "Grim continued the discussion. Being female..."
Posted by: BillT at September 23, 2010 12:20 PM
WHAP WHAP WHAP!!!! :)
Posted by: Cassandra at September 23, 2010 12:23 PM
Wow, David. Just got a chance to read your link - it's magnificent.... and the perfect complement to something I'm thinking of writing about!
Thanks so much for posting it.
Posted by: Cassandra at September 23, 2010 12:26 PM
Great quote. While the Tea party present a positive, I just experienced a negative during "back-to-school" night at my daughter's high school. Her US / VA History teacher told us parents what she was going to be teaching....pure unashamed US hating. I know where her heart is.
Posted by: Sluggo at September 23, 2010 01:11 PM
The David Yeagley link was interesting. I would have thought that the Tea Party movement had so many active women in it because, at the end of the day, there are very few people who can successfully B.S. any woman over the long haul. The little darlings ultimately figure us out. You better be the real thing and a straight shooter or you get tossed out on your ear. And there are durned few real things and straight shooters inside the Beltway.
On the other hand I have heard a West Los Angeles woman describe all Tea Partiers as "mentally challenged". It takes some folks just a little bit longer to figure things out.
Posted by: Mike Myers at September 23, 2010 01:24 PM
The West LA woman...was she a blond? I ax the question because for a long time in the state of CA it was illegal for blonds to think...
The irony just drips. Women are deluded by the right. They might as well make the argument that it was the right that tried to stop women from voting in the first place, therefore women owe the left somehow...
I would far rather have it happen peacefully at the polls, and administratively in the halls of the legislature, the judiciary and the Chief Executive's office.
But, if a show of force is necessary, then so be it.
Posted by: Cricket at September 23, 2010 02:08 PM
If you're going to keep quoting that line, Bill, you have to stop dowdifying the quote. Just after the ambiguous lines, she clarified the matter entirely by showing me admitting I was wrong.
Posted by: Grim at September 23, 2010 02:18 PM
"Wait, wait, wait -- I'm confused."
Shhh....sometimes it's better that way.
Posted by: DL Sly at September 23, 2010 02:56 PM
I got a chuckle out of the last line on Grim's post. "Partially this is because they despair of the possibility, but partially it is because the Great Achievement has produced only fury from America -- not the expressions of love they told themselves to expect."
Its kind of like a kid taking cookies out of the cookie jar when they weren't supposed to. Or my daughter trying to sneak two Dove bars for dessert instead of one. If you smile and look all angelic all the while knowing you did something wrong- a good parent is not going to give you a pass.
Many women do realize that we've been handed a pile of % with all these bailouts and the healthcare debacle. Yet the Democrats are sitting there saying "See Mom? I helped!!" And they wonder why they are getting whapped over the head with Mom's ruler and are slowly being sent to their rooms. . . .
Posted by: Nina at September 23, 2010 03:33 PM
What's a woman?
Is that like a combination of woe and man? Woe to man?
Posted by: Ymarsakar at September 23, 2010 04:07 PM
If you're going to keep quoting that line, Bill, you have to stop dowdifying the quote.
But all the fun is in the dowdification.
Let's face it, she's not going to mention you in an easily-dragged-kicking-and-squalling-out-of-context post about possum-tossing in New Zealand.
Posted by: BillT at September 23, 2010 04:09 PM
If you're going to keep quoting that line, Bill, you have to stop dowdifying the quote.
i thought Bill was always a dandy? So how is he going to stop dandyfing the quote.
Women are greatly involved in the Tea Party because they were the first ones that could imagine it happening. They had the organization skills nature gave the female sex. They had the vision and imagination to believe that all kinds of people, like women, could together and do something. Isn't that what people do. Get together and talk, organize, get calendars, make party preparations, logistics, and all the other stuff that seems like magic to hunter men? Oh wait, we don't have many men that hunt in the GOP. We have a bunch of dogs that don't hunt instead, sad to say.
This was true of the local GOp-Tea Party organizer in California, specifically Marin. A woman. She was working on getting GOP votes from Californians, but you know what the GOP thought of that. They sold her out. They sold everyone like her out. Took the money she raised and worked deals with Democrats instead.
People like her had no alternative. Until the imagination of the Tea Party was introduced. Having seen futile efforts go to even greater futile waste over the years, this new challenge was something women organizers were going to try. And with Sarah Palin as one example, they had even more of a reason to try than otherwise. If she can be as successful on the national front as that, then why not all the other Republican women organizers and leaders? Why should they be stuck under the GOP Old Boy Club's rule and restricted to strictly local matters.
Course, it could also be like the Celtic women. They found out their men had ran and thus they shamed them. By going out to fight themselves. It really got their goat. To see their womenfolk fight... in their place.
Posted by: Ymarsakar at September 23, 2010 04:15 PM
As a consequence of being the first in the organization, women took leading roles. And since women tend to know a lot of other women, they brought in other organizers they knew and trusted, which just happened to be slightly in favor of women percentage wise.
Women are good at this stuff, I heard. Organizing, color coordinating, keeping complex (really complex) social rules and dates straight. All good stuff for national grassroots type organizations.
Posted by: Ymarsakar at September 23, 2010 04:18 PM
"To get ahead in this company, a woman's got to be twice as good at her job as a man. Fortunately, that's easy!"
Posted by: htom at September 23, 2010 05:10 PM
I don't know, it seems pretty straight forward to me. New health care laws, costs more, money out of women's pockets.
Dear, why don't you pick up that tab? Incoming!
In my experience most women tend to be ultra frugal compared to men.
Posted by: Allen at September 23, 2010 06:26 PM
An addendum, women tend to be more frugal with their money. Sheesh, if I'm gonna get pitched at I might as well be explicit. :)
Posted by: Allen at September 23, 2010 06:30 PM
Lots of people are fiscally money savers. They don't go into political organizing as a result of it.
Posted by: Ymarsakar at September 23, 2010 08:33 PM
Cassandra, you mentioned that the Yeagley link fits in with a post you're thinking about. I obviously don't know what the coming post is focused on, but another source you might find useful is an Arthur Koestler novel from 1950, The Age of Longing. The book is basically about the West's loss of civilizational self-confidence (in 1950!), as told through the medium of an affair between an American girl and a dedicated Russian Communist. An extremely important book IMNSHO, and very little-read, which is why I wrote a long review/essay about it: sleeping with the enemy.
Posted by: david foster at September 23, 2010 08:56 PM
Koestler’s deeper theme is that the decline in religious belief in the West (and Koestler himself was certainly no traditional religious believer) has created a hunger for faith which will likely be filled by those who carry their convictions with great certainty.
Yes, or by those who assert that conviction no longer matters with great certainty.
Bulls eye, David :)
Posted by: Cassandra at September 23, 2010 09:26 PM
There's an infinite regress there somewhere.
Posted by: htom at September 24, 2010 12:12 AM
...Times has a different point: actually, they say, the problem is that women aren't paying attention, are confused, and either depressed about politics or just unenthusiastic about it.
Well, this would explain the young and the middle-aged--their hormones are always in an uproar. But what about the, umm, age-progressed women, those post-menopausal dears? They should be more stable, and so more right (I mean, left) -thinking, shouldn't they? What explains their Tea Partiness?
Cue Bill the Cat....
Posted by: E Hines at September 24, 2010 09:16 AM
Well, Eric, I'm not a tea partier but certainly agree with their doctrine. It doesn't take a genius to realize that things have become quite dire just as one is waltzing off to retirement. I delivered 'Pub gubernatorial campaign signs over 45 square miles one day in May as one small step to reverse the rot.
Posted by: Mazzuchelli at September 24, 2010 02:33 PM
....certainly agree with their doctrine.
As do I. Hence my satirical criticism of the attitude that women must be out of their gourds for not agreeing with the liberal view of what our country should be doing for us.
Posted by: E Hines at September 24, 2010 02:44 PM