Here’s an interesting bit of commentary by Myrna Blyth:
… the importance of the gender gap in voting — which we have heard so much about over the years — is frequently overblown. It began in 1980 when Eleanor Smeal, a political scientist who became the president of the National Organization of Women, noticed one bit of good news in what she considered the bad news of Reagan’s victory over Carter. Though more women voted for Reagan than Carter, a higher percentage of men had voted for the Republican candidate. Smeal turned this statistical disparity into an effective long-term political game plan. NOW met with the Democratic National Committee to highlight what they labeled “Reagan’s female problem†and called it “the gender gap.†Throughout the next two decades, in election after election, the notion that women and men voted differently, and that, regardless of class, education, and income, women all voted alike simply because they were women, became an accepted fact, endorsed by Democratic operatives and a sympathetic media.
Blyth ponders when the gender gap matters for campaigns; how to know when it will materialize. Women don’t just vote for women because they are women, rather women are a higher percentage of the voting population, and constituencies of women take certain issues seriously.
The idea that sex necessarily, in an of itself, provides a sense of solidarity with other members of the same sex—except for those who first think it does—seems a bit goofy to me. It seems, obvious enough, that any solidarity relating to sex arises from contingent issues important to a large constituency of one sex rather than much of any constituency in the other sex; greater solidarity resulting from issues effecting one sex by virtue of being of that sex: say the enfranchisement of women 100 years ago. Where there are fewer issues able to bind one sex together as a “constituency,” the gender gap will be weaker.
As an aside, it’s curious to me how so many liberal minded people realize that sex matters come election time—which it does—but they don’t like to think it has any bearing whatsoever on the definition of marriage.  When it comes to actual sexual conduct, sexual orietation becomes a much more convenient dogma for spouting off about the “Genderless Gap;” what we’ve come to know in Canada as “equal marriage,” not between one man and one woman, but equal regardless of sex.
…. Ahhh, and a groan goes out across the blogosphere … here we go again …
anonymous wrote:
It’s insulting to women to be classified as voters who would naturally vote for women candidates, no matter the qualifications, experience, or expertise.
Posted on 31-May-07 at 8:28 am | Permalink
George Freeman wrote:
True enough. It neglects that sex is not always that coherent of a faction; that women, as do men, are loyal to umpteen other factions, unrelated to sex, that they take seriously.
Posted on 31-May-07 at 8:39 am | Permalink
Smarter than Ezra wrote:
Once again, another post that asks us to stretch and jump to conclusions that the author of the original article did not draw herself. George, you are truely persistant, and a broken record. I can’t wait for you to make the jump to 8 trak!
Posted on 31-May-07 at 10:41 am | Permalink
George Freeman wrote:
8 trak? I prefer automatic repeat tape cassette; play and repeat for the stubbornly slow learners.
Yes, the author herself did not come to the final conclusion I offer, how astute of you. But then I believe I wrote, “As an aside …”
Learn to read buddy.
Posted on 31-May-07 at 10:45 pm | Permalink
Smarter than Ezra wrote:
Pfft… whatever dude. I think I read well enough to understand your very simple and poorly organized arguments.
Posted on 01-Jun-07 at 5:27 am | Permalink
George Freeman wrote:
How so? You never demonstrate that you actually understand much.
Posted on 01-Jun-07 at 6:57 am | Permalink
Smarter than Ezra wrote:
Maybe you are right… you are so deep.
“Hi, my name is George, and every topic I stumble over makes me mad that Canada has same sex marriage.” [insert feet stomping here] “In fact, I will show you this article I found on the internet and then tell you the same thing that I have been trying to tell you all for so long - that same sex marriage is the result of a dogma I am trying to prove exists.” [insert link and quotation here] “But you are all too stupid to understand me because I am SOOOO deep. You can’t read, you can’t understand, I am super smart and hate what same sex marriage has done to my broad and vast word view.”
Give me a break George… It isn’t that hard.
If you maybe picked another topic, it would allow others to demonstrate their ability to converse with you on your highly elevated and multi-faceted level of understanding. However, the way you argue this point doesn’t do your intellect justice.
Enlighten the unwashed masses, George.
PLEASE, we need you.
Oh shit, I went and made it personal again. Bad, bad Ezra.
Posted on 01-Jun-07 at 7:23 am | Permalink
George Freeman wrote:
Thank.
But there’s nothing that deep about it; nothing that broad and vast about saying human beings are moral, and are what they choose to become—what I always argue.
Where people get “deep” is when they start explaining human behaviour away with concepts like “sexual orientation;” not fully appreciating the contingent contexts for applying such concepts.
I’m not interested in unwashed masses. Individuals are more interesting.
Posted on 01-Jun-07 at 8:39 am | Permalink
Smarter than Ezra wrote:
“I’m not interested in unwashed masses. Individuals are more interesting.”
Awesome. Then your ideas will take longer to spread.
Posted on 01-Jun-07 at 10:31 am | Permalink
George Freeman wrote:
Not necessarily. There’s networking, and people talk.
Posted on 01-Jun-07 at 3:44 pm | Permalink
Smarter than Ezra wrote:
Well then I wish you luck on your networking and people talk crusade. *rolls his eyes*
Posted on 01-Jun-07 at 5:32 pm | Permalink
George Freeman wrote:
Thanks. xoxoxo
Posted on 03-Jun-07 at 2:01 pm | Permalink
Smarter than Ezra wrote:
Maybe some gift baskets for men, as featured in thepolitic’s sponsored links, will help. I know that is the only way I would consider sticking around listening to one of your ridiculous sermons. Kinda like a time share, you need to lure them in with a free week-end.
Posted on 03-Jun-07 at 5:36 pm | Permalink
George Freeman wrote:
So you’re saying no to imaginary hugs and kisses?
That’s a shame.
I’m thinking two dudes who think they can actually marry each other is more ridiculous. And on par, thinking one’s sex should have little input on their gender, or thinking we are all born with a sexual orientation.
Sigh … how ridiculous.
Posted on 04-Jun-07 at 12:44 pm | Permalink
Smarter than Ezra wrote:
Actually, between you and a woman, I think you would lose, George.
Posted on 04-Jun-07 at 5:56 pm | Permalink
George Freeman wrote:
Lose what?
Posted on 04-Jun-07 at 6:33 pm | Permalink
Smarter than Ezra wrote:
Your imaginary hugs and kisses… Are you really that thick?
Posted on 04-Jun-07 at 8:15 pm | Permalink
Grog wrote:
And on par, thinking one’s sex should have little input on their gender, or thinking we are all born with a sexual orientation.
You keep making these assertions - that you keep repeating them does not make them true.
Posted on 04-Jun-07 at 10:10 pm | Permalink
George Freeman wrote:
STE: Why would I lose my imaginary hugs and kisses to a woman? Wouldn’t I want to give them to her?
Grog: The fact that you cannot refute my assertions because they are simple statements of obvious knowing is what makes them true. Obviously the physiological fact of sex impacts conventional gender roles because it means something different to be a man than to be a woman. Obviously, human beings desire all sorts of things, and some people are able to justify acting on their desires without giving lame nature-makes-me-do-it excuses. Obviously.
Posted on 04-Jun-07 at 11:12 pm | Permalink
Grog wrote:
my assertions because they are simple statements of obvious knowing is what makes them true.
We’ve had this conversation before. I’ve said it repeatedly - you argue this purely from a position of your personal morality and project that upon others, rejecting anything that challenges your assumptions.
You can argue that the world is flat all you like, George. That doesn’t make it so.
Posted on 05-Jun-07 at 10:30 am | Permalink