Sigmund Freud, who claimed women “oppose change, receive passively, and add nothing of their own,” famously asked, “What does a woman want?” Freud’s overt bias isn’t voiced very often today, but variants of his question continue to be posed. Just last week, Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus offered his hypothesis about what influences women’s political perspectives.
Now, not all women agree, no more than all men do. Still, women as a group do have different views than men as a group.
After being asked why women so strongly favor Barack Obama over Mitt Romney, Priebus offered that women were swayed by what they had been told. Said Preibus, “If the Democrats said we had a war on caterpillars, and mainstream media outlets talked about the fact that Republicans have a war on caterpillars, then we have problems with caterpillars.”
The presumption that the media and the Democratic Party have hoodwinked susceptible women is patronizing. In fact, women have been more Democratic than men for decades.
Women’s political inclination is so strong that it led conservative Ann Coulter to say a few years ago, “If we took away women’s right to vote, we’d never have to worry about another Democrat president,” and her ideological compatriot John Derbyshire more recently to argue there’s a “case against female suffrage.”
Yet women’s attachment to the Democratic Party took awhile to emerge. After the Nineteenth Amendment passed, women tended to vote an awful lot like the men in their lives. Women mattered politically because they promoted clean politics. The League of Women Voters, which grew from a national women’s suffrage organization, sponsored debates and distributed information about policy positions. As scholar Kristi Andersen wrote, in the 1920s, women voters “encouraged the view of elections as a wholesome community event in which all good citizens could participate.”
Then in 1980, the Republican Party disavowed its previous support of an Equal Rights Amendment, a proposal they first championed in the 1920s, before the Democrats. With the emergence of the religious right, the Republican Party took up the banner of social conservatism. Reagan also stood for limiting government support for programs helping low-income individuals and expanding military spending.
From that presidential election on, sometimes majorities of women and men supported the same candidate, as more women than men voted for the Democrat.
What do women want? Women still spend more time than men taking care of children and care a lot about education and health care. These are not abstractions, but grow out of experiences like getting up in the night to care for a sick child and gauging whether medical help, for which they may not have insurance, is needed right away.
Women work and they want to treated and paid fairly. Nor is this an abstraction, but is linked to day-to-day experiences with bosses and co-workers. And women’s earnings are still lower.
Women use contraception and know that controlling their reproduction is critical to steering their future. Women tend to support a strong safety net and think about the collective good. These are concerns in themselves but also economic issues, ultimately about the ability of them and their families to prosper.
To appeal to women, Mitt Romney’s campaign released a video featuring his wife, Ann Romney, who talks about when her five sons were home and Mitt arrived from work, he was so mischievous it was like having a sixth son. While this sort of thing humanizes Mr. Romney, it does not change the fact that women have responded to the parties’ positions on issues that matter to them.
As President Obama recently said, women are “driven by their view of what’s most likely to make sure they can help support their families, make their mortgage payments, who has got a plan to ensure middle class families are secure over the long term, what is most likely to result in their kids being able to get the education they need to compete.”
Women are the majority of voters and don’t all agree. But if Republicans want to erase the decades-long gender gap, they could start by respecting women as active thinkers and then pay attention to how women’s lives are connected to their political wants.
Amy: What does a woman want? Unlimited access and funding to kill unborn babies
And that statement sports fans pretty much sums up the way tea party republicans and republicans as a whole look at women.
I look at a woman’s movement that made Monica the perp and Slick Willie the victim. I have a deep respect for woman but not woman who are proud of killing unborn babies. Amy Fried Brains idea of what woman should be will further tear families apart and accelerate the downward spirals our society.
That view of the Clinton/Lewinsky affair, is, actually, one of very conservative women — and men. Women like myself who value the life of children born or not…. Women in general care deeply for their families — Ms. Fried’s vision of “what a woman should be” is not apparent from this piece, but in reality, women care deeply about families; have been shown more likely to put families before themselves.
Apparently you’re evenagainst contraception. A transition from anti-abortion that was predicted and becomming apparent.
Speaking as a woman, who believes that a fetus is a human being with standing; worthy of our care and protection — I find that remark repugnant.
The pro-choice Democrats actually reduce the number of abortions when they are in charge; that number rises under a right-wing regime…. Every life is precious both before and after birth.
The hyperbolic stereotyping gets more and more extreme.
The GOP is not just out of touch with many women voters; it has also alienated millions of minority voters and probably just as many politically moderate white men. It is high time the almost exclusively white, male leadership of the party begins to understand that women matter, that younger voters are turned off by political orthodoxy and that well over 25% of the population is something other than white by skin color or culture. President Obama is as much an embodiment of change in America as he is its protagonist.
It appears that the White House may be out of touch a bit also.
At least where equal pay for equal work is concerned.
http://freebeacon.com/hostile-workplace/
This author finds it patronizing that the RNC believes the so-called “war on women” has been contrived by the DNC and media. Yet she has no problem with the insult on the intelligence of women by the DNC when they state that someone who doesn’t want our insurance providers to be forced to cover contraception is attacking women. These are the same people who stated that Sarah Palin’s disabled child should have been aborted. Liberal women are real role models.
CHOICE!
The decision to use contraception belongs to the patient, and she deserves the same privacy she would expect when using other prescription medications.
You didn’t back up your claim of liberals view of that beautiful, precious child — it’s disgraceful to anyone of any party.
Huh? When was that said?
As President Obama recently said, women are “driven by their view of what’s most likely to make sure they can help support their families, make their mortgage payments, who has got a plan to ensure middle class families are secure over the long term, what is most likely to result in their kids being able to get the education they need to compete.”
If this is true, Obama is in big, big trouble. He better hope he can still act cool, call them “sweety” and make them swoon, so they don’t pay attention to his job destroying, socialist policies. Mitt Romney is much more virile than old man McCain. This will get him 25% more women without doing anything.
There is no such thing as a “middle class” in Romney-land (or “Galt Gulch” — where the poor subsidize the rich) Women know that.
Mitten’s the Romneytron can take his “viral-ness” or whatever… to his Cayman Island tax shelter.
I don’t believe the Republican Party of 30+ years ago is even remotely akin to the GOP of today. IMO the Republican Party has been taken over by the parasitic influences of the radical right, mixed in with the Tea Party which doesn’t seem able to stand on their own.
As for what women want? Whew, I’ll just stick with, yes dear, whatevery you say dear.
Your last paragraph doesn’t jive with the rest. I assume it’s tongue in cheek but merely represents the way women behaved early in the last century.
” Women’s political inclination is so strong that it led conservative Ann
Coulter to say a few years ago, “If we took away women’s right to vote,
we’d never have to worry about another Democrat president,”
See the thing is with MAnn Coulter all s/he would have to do is “re……… invent” her/himself as a man.
What amazes me is that s/he is still drooled over by republican men………. guess that may explain why so many republican men end up getting caught in “same sex” love affairs. They certainly perceive beauty differently than normal people. ROFLMAO!!!
Ann Coulter is a WOMAN? Surely you jest…
Women Hoodwinked By the Democrat Spin Machine
By Susan Stamper Brown
I’m a bit disappointed that some of my fellow women have bitten the bait thrown to them by Democratic operatives promoting a so-called “Republican war on women.” In a way, Democrats have conducted a psychological campaign to fool many women into believing they are an eternal minority, destined to eat the scraps fed to them by a Democratic party more concerned about their votes than their contribution to society.
From start to finish, this con on women was created to distract us from seeing the truth: The Obama administration’s economic policies have caused women to lose ground previously won by women under administrations from both parties. Overall, Democrat economic policies “favored men over women in all but one of the 16 major sectors of the economy.” In five sectors, women lost jobs while men gained them. In other sectors, men gained jobs at a faster rate than women and lost them at a slower rate than women. State government was the only sector favoring women.
Undeterred, some women prefer to stick their head in the sand. Another recent Pew gender gap poll shows women now support Obama over the proven job creator Mitt Romney by 20 percent.
http://www.westernjournalism.com/women-hoodwinked-by-the-democrat-spin-machine/?utm_source=Western+Journalism&utm_campaign=acb522fb30-RSS_EMAIL_CAMPAIGN&utm_medium=email
Mitt Romney is a “proven job destroyer” not a “job creator”. He turns jobs into short term profits, then stashes those in his wife’s Swiss bank account, in the Cayman Islands…. on what the IRS manages to find, he pays a lower tax rate than the working poor. This “rugged individualist” extracted millions if not billions in corporate welfare from desperate economic development agencies seeking to pay Bain Capital to retain jobs….
Even Bush was smart enough to know any government is only three meals away from revolution, throwing more crumbs to the poor than Romney’s favored Ryan plan.
Thanks, but no thanks Mittens the Romneytron…
Speaking of hoodwinking (propaganda, whatever) …
”
The presumption that the media and the Democratic Party have hoodwinked susceptible women is patronizing.”
It’s not patronizing at all. It is a simple acknowledgement of the power of advertising. We all know that the message repeated over and over tends to be the message believed and repeated even more. Advertisers bank on it. It is not so different in politics. Someone charges that the Republicans are waging a war on women. Suddenly, the real issues are demoted to the spin issue. Because the word “contraception” is involved in the debate, the debate must be about women’s issues, and only women have the right to speak on it. And those who disagree, are against women.
There is not, and never will be a GOP war on women. There is, and has been for many years, a collusion between the media and the Democrat party. The vast majority of mainstream reporters, newscasters, and editors are members of the Democrat party.
There is no such thing as the “Democrat Party.”
If we insist on awkwardly inserting a noun, where an adjective should be, then, shouldn’t it be the “Republic” party too?
The media is ultimately controlled by right-wing corporate interests, who wield editorial control without the education in journalism.
Women’s disgust comes straight from what the GOP says and does — they evaluate the effects of Republican policies on their lives, and they don’t approve!
And of course the GOP does not use subversive advertising, invalid propaganda, etc. There is too a GOP war on women. It’s becomming less and less subtle.
Or possibly more and more contrived.
And the GOP does not participate in subversive advertising, invalid propaganda? There is too a GOP war on women. It’s becomming less and less subtle.
Really!!? When did this war begin? What battles have been fought?
“Women use contraception and know that controlling their reproduction is critical to steering their future. ”
And they can get contraception cheaply and at every Rite Aid, over the counter. Not agreeing that mandating contraception coverage in health insurance policies is not “controlling their reproduction.” Mandating this coverage simply adds, once again, to the overall cost of health insurance. Make it a mandated offer if you want – no, that makes too much sense. Better to insist on mandated coverage, then you can call it a war on women.
Your use of “they” 100% refers to females. Remember when condoms were purchased by males only… it was their responsibility because females didn’t have alternative contraceptive options and females were considered “loose” if they were to purchase them? You see, the contraception that can be purchased over the counter at the local drug store is designed for male use ….. it serves two purposes: a) decrease the risk of acquiring and spreading of STDs, which was its original purpose and b) to reduce unintended pregnancy. It is suggested this form of contraception be used with another over the counter product (for female use) to increase it effectiveness in preventing pregnancy. Oral contraceptives have more than one purpose: a) decrease the risk unintended pregnancy and b) treat conditions/diseases related to the female reproductive system.
Perhaps if contraceptives by prescription were designed for male use rather than female use, this would be a different discussion ……. historically male health issues (you know blood pressure, heart disease, etc) were at the forefront of medical care and female health issues ( like blood pressure, heart disease) were incidental.
What about prescriptive contraceptives? A condom doesn’t treat irregular menstration cycles, for example. And why should other prescriptions be covered but not this? Why do you get to say that specifically this coverage drives up the price? Every bit of coverage can drive up prices, even stuff like yearly physicals.
Medically necessary contraception is covered under normal circumstances even by the eeeeeevil people who run Georgetown, per Sandra Fluke’s own testimony. Your argument is bogus and you know it.
That isn’t, in fact true, but even if it were — justifying a need for contraception to either an insurance company or an employer violates the privacy rights of the patient.
Employers have no right to know why a woman was prescribed this or that… Do men want their employers to know why they are using Viagra?
That’s incorrect. Part of Fluke’s testimony was about the difficulty in receiving need-base prescriptions. Being denied, interrogated and the like even when the contraceptives were medically necessary.
Silly me. I don’t believe that chiropractic, alchohol and drug rehabilitation and pregnancy should be mandated coverage, either. Mandated OFFERS, sure. But not everyone wants these kinds of coverage. Every mandate increases the costs for those who cant afford health insurance. Maine needs a catostrophic policy but oh no, we must cover every possible expense that might conceivably be considered “healthcare.” Contraception should fall into the same category as “life style drugs” – if you want this kind of coverage you pay extra.
You are describing why our heathcare costs are so high — we allow insurance companies to profit selling inadequate coverage, and then, when the unthinkable happens? Guess who pays? Society.
Insurance does not work when people craft policies to what they believe they will need — as society pays either way, society should decide democratically.
Contraceptive drugs are a prescription like any other — a prescription is a prescription, and should be treated in the same way by insurers. That goes for Viagra too.
You must have good coverage TC. People who have NO coverage or have a high deductible want coverage in an emergency – not lifestyle drug coverage. They want a catosptophic policy not long term chiropractic care. But we don’t allow that in Maine. Either you get the Cadillac coverage or none at all. You might never reach your deductible amount but if you did, it’s Cadillac coverage from then on. Great system.
Our “insurance policy”, for which we pay dearly, would stave off bankruptcy for, maybe, a day…. Medical bankruptcy is unheard of in other countries where private insurers are utilized/regulated in a better way.
The underinsured cost taxpayers money, as private corporations are raking in huge profits selling these policies. You want to profit from the healthy? Then pay for the sick. Insure, or don’t — cherrypicking doesn’t work in an insurance market, and it certainly is no way to achieve universal coverage! There is no market; no incentive to pay for sick people!
I reject your premise that healthcare is a “Cadillac” style luxury item; we have decided to treat it as a human right however inefficiently.
I further reject your assertion that hormonal birth control is a “lifestyle drug”. It is no more so than any other prescription medication.
Go for it, Lisa.
Hormonal contraception is neither cheap, nor available over the counter; it is also used for medical therapeutic reasons other than birth control. (How is an aspirin between the knees supposed to help a woman suffering from polycystic ovaries?)
Birth control should not be treated any differently than any other prescription drug by an insurance company that is being paid handsomely to provide prescription drug coverage.
“Employer based” healthcare has NEVER made sense, as long as I’ve been alive. Their insistence on making decisions about what sort of care their employees should have access to is un-democratic and nothing short of disturbing.
If the conservative zealots had their way, even over the counter contraceptives would be resticted or banned.
There are perhaps some who would, but they are a very small minority. But that matters not to you and you will continue to use that far-right fringe ideology to further your far-left socialist cause.
I am wondering what the polls would have said had they not been taken with an 11 point Democratic party bias.
If the “bias” represents real feelings (and voting practices) there must be a reason (GOP misogyny) and be valid.
At least one of these recent “war on woman polls” by the Wash Post was taken with a demographic that was 11% more Democratic Party than the country at large.
There are polls out there; all policymakers have to do is read them — and their own mail!
~Women want every human being to have the healthcare they need without financial distress and ruin;
~Women want wholesome food; for no child to go to bed hungry, and have long stopped trusting what corporate food industrialists tell them;
~Women want wars to end;
~Women want clean air and water;
~Women want a precautionary principle applied to regulating the use of chemicals in our products, and sub-therapeutic antibiotics in food etc. Women do not want this left to “the market”;
~Women want labor standards conducive to fulfillment of their family obligations (maternity leave, family and medical leave)
~Women want decent wages, as, for the first time in our history, they represent the breadwinners for more children;
~Women want good schools for all children, not just their own; higher education without debt;
~Women want an end to corporate welfare; and to corporate power and personhood in general
~Women want security, but not a police state — the security of a fair and egalitarian society
Women want to determine the use of their tax dollars democratically — not surrender their civic power to “the market”… (the market can help achieve what we want efficiently, but should never decide what we deserve…).
I agree with your list of wants , I just realizied I must be a women. Oh and I must have wasted the last 60 years ! The way I looked at it before was that we were arriving full circle to the time when the men were hunter gatherers and the women stayed home to run the village ! We know how well that worked yet you seem to think that’s the way it should be .
I have been critical of the disdain second-wave feminists have long held for the “art of housewifery”, and the dearth of thought they gave to how the important work was to be accomplished in two-paycheck families…. but, certainly the third-wave feminists, “Radical Homemakers” and the like give it its due alongside other opportunities…. It’s about choices, and value of every human being.
I have no idea what you are talking about, really, or how you get that from my list. (I would be interested). Women and men like should be free to hunt and gather, but in a society headed for corporate feudalism — they’ll be equally likely to be arrested for “poaching”:)
– higher education without debt
You should talk to Amy directly about that. Seems she’s all for charging whatever the market will bear when it is she who is the beneficiary of the largess in the form of skyrocketing tuition. Anyone else who charges what the market will bear is an evil capitalist in her mind.
Let me know when Amy and her ilk take a big pay cut to benefit the students she claims to care so much about.
There are likely any number of issues on which Professor Fried and I would disagree. The fact that college costs have risen 600% in the last 25 years or so while the level of public funding for our public institutions of higher learning has shrunk… …hardly the result of Professors’ salaries. (Healthcare costs are a larger factor, but people seem to want our healthcare system to be ’employer-based for some reason.)
The notion that educators, including college professors “don’t care about kids” simply because they don’t submit themselves and their families to a vow of poverty….. Asinine.
This isn’t bleeding heart stuff — this is about responsibility we owe to future generations. …the same public support that afforded previous students to boast, “I WORKED my way through public university with no help from anyone.”
Maybe Mr. Farmer can write a companion Op-ed piece tomorrow about What Men Want.
I really think we should have a column on why white males, such as Farmer, tend to vote Republican. Are the Democrats not listening to what white men want?
“Still, women as a group do have different views than men as a group.”
Really??
Hm… now for your op-ed “What Does a Man Want?” outlining needed changes in the Democratic party to overcome men’s longstanding attachment to the Republicans.
Please tell me why the Democrats are waging a war on men? Men want decent wages, the ability to support a family. They want health care that addresses their needs. They want to pay their mortgage, keep their homes repaired.
Okay… I am not so good at this, being a woman. Maybe some men can tell me: what do men really want?
to
when
I’m guessing that a woman would want her work to be recognized and rewarded appropriately, whether a stay-at-home wife and mom or in the workforce, against whom Obama and his liberal counterparts have been waging war.
Word from the White House is that female WH staffers make about 17% less than their male peers. If the Obama administration was a private corporation or Republican, feminists would be up in arms, but since it’s not, they’re behaving like demure, obedient sheep.
Word also is that the vast majority of jobs lost since the Promised One took office were those occupied by women. The Democrat War on Women continues…
…and is furthered by Democrat strategist Hillary Rosen who vocalized her view that stay-at-home moms don’t work.
And we’re talking about a Republican war on women? Really.