U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Missouri
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
 
Old 08-22-2012, 03:19 PM
 
Location: 32°19'03.7"N 106°43'55.9"W
8,291 posts, read 18,232,330 times
Reputation: 7781

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by aragx6 View Post
So why has the gap for women between Rs and Ds grown so much? They were no where near so high in previous elections.

You're telling me you do not think this is because of the 1,000 anti-women bills that have surfaced in the U.S. since 2000, but rather because of empathy as a whole?

Frankly I don't buy it. Empathy is one thing (and I am the true, stereotypical "bleeding heart" liberal, so I totally understand what you mean), but self preservation is a far greater motivator.
I am going to stand by empathy as a whole, and the female gender is infinitely more compassionate in my many dealings in business and in the social world. In fact, an interesting paper from Harvard exists that suggests this divide is pre-2000, and spans beyond the U.S.: rather, the gender gap is global.

http://www.hks.harvard.edu/fs/pnorri...orris_2000.pdf

I would venture to say since at least the New Deal, the Democratic Party, through taxation policies that take increasing percentages of income from high earners, has used this gain to enact policies that provide for the welfare of families, and individual citizens. The Republican Party, in contrast, has garnered the perception that military intrusion for geopolitical gain augers unfavorably to women in general, who through different methods of socialization as youngsters, will react to policy differences in adulthood by favoring Democrats.

Arag, I don't think your personal liberty as a woman is being directly threatened, not yet anyways. I think there are many more moderate men like myself who will act as a balance in elections of consequence. I would like to hear about some of these bills you categorize as 'anti-woman'. When you use this terminology, do you mean specifically 'anti-abortion', or is there a greater meaning to it? I am not trying to be snarky or cute, rather, I am trying to learn from your point of view, and have a greater understanding of what some of your concerns are.

As much as you harbor these concerns, and I do not doubt your sincereity for a minute, I am also going to venture to say that you are an advocate for what many call 'progressive taxation' as well, and that this issue matters greatly to you. As you admit, you are a 'bleeding heart' liberal, and rarely have I encountered someone armed with this philosophy that believes in citizens being able to keep more of their money.
Rate this post positively Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-22-2012, 03:41 PM
 
Location: Tower Grove East, St. Louis, MO
12,063 posts, read 29,108,915 times
Reputation: 3775
I just feel like you're willfully missing my point. Unless women have grown systematically more empathetic since the previous presidential election, there's no way that can be the reason for such a vast, increased disparity. Do you believe that women have?

I could rail all day about what anti-women means, but it goes well beyond abortion and even access to imperative preventive care for women. Every single Republican senator voted against the most recent incarnation of equal pay legislation. But really, that's beyond the scope of the point I was trying to make -- it's not about my particular brand of politics. I was trying to engage in a broader dialogue about political strategy, which I find fascinating.
Rate this post positively Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-22-2012, 03:55 PM
 
Location: 32°19'03.7"N 106°43'55.9"W
8,291 posts, read 18,232,330 times
Reputation: 7781
Quote:
Originally Posted by aragx6 View Post
I just feel like you're willfully missing my point. Unless women have grown systematically more empathetic since the previous presidential election, there's no way that can be the reason for such a vast, increased disparity. Do you believe that women have?

I could rail all day about what anti-women means, but it goes well beyond abortion and even access to imperative preventive care for women. Every single Republican senator voted against the most recent incarnation of equal pay legislation. But really, that's beyond the scope of the point I was trying to make -- it's not about my particular brand of politics. I was trying to engage in a broader dialogue about political strategy, which I find fascinating.
How did Senators Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins vote? These are Republican women senators from the state of Maine. If they vote no for this equal pay legislation, why did they do so, as women?
Rate this post positively Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-22-2012, 04:09 PM
 
Location: Tower Grove East, St. Louis, MO
12,063 posts, read 29,108,915 times
Reputation: 3775
Quote:
Originally Posted by mike0421 View Post
How did Senators Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins vote? These are Republican women senators from the state of Maine. If they vote no for this equal pay legislation, why did they do so, as women?
I'm not qualified to speak to the reasons why someone makes the choices they do -- certainly not simply because we all happen to be women.

But it stands to reason that people vote with their most persuasive argument. In their cases? Probably business/monetary interests. Afterall, congress is one of the few places where men and women alike are guranteed equal pay, so neither woman is exactly being affected by this in her daily life.
Rate this post positively Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-22-2012, 04:24 PM
 
Location: 32°19'03.7"N 106°43'55.9"W
8,291 posts, read 18,232,330 times
Reputation: 7781
Quote:
Originally Posted by aragx6 View Post
I'm not qualified to speak to the reasons why someone makes the choices they do -- certainly not simply because we all happen to be women.

But it stands to reason that people vote with their most persuasive argument. In their cases? Probably business/monetary interests. Afterall, congress is one of the few places where men and women alike are guranteed equal pay, so neither woman is exactly being affected by this in her daily life.
Perhaps these two senators voted because they both saw there might be unintended consequences by passage of such a bill, such as onerous compliances that would be saddled upon by small businesses. Women have actually comprised more than half of small business start-ups over the past 15 years. Think about it: an example could be a woman-owned Thai restaurant in the Delmar Loop. By passage of Ledbetter, she could face the loss of a male chef who was given a better offer of employment by a competing restaurant. This owner would be unable to tender a counteroffer to her employee if the act was in place, because any females employed by this owner could sue using this legislation as cause. In other words, the trial lawyers that would take fliers on these cases would ultimately prevail, irrespective of frivolity of the legal standing the plaintiff might have.

I think this is a case in which some on the "R" side of the aisle use the rational mind, perhaps, in the eyes of many, to a fault, when calculating the entirety of such legislation. Of course, it's easier to grasp the up front visceral, emotional basis for the legislation. After all, who WOULDN'T be in favor of women earning as much as men, if they were more qualified to do the work? If I employed Aragx6 and she was doing the best for my company she could, and I want to retain her, am I busting my butt as a business owner to make sure she is compensated, if she is making my company money? You'd better believe I would!
Rate this post positively Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-22-2012, 06:55 PM
 
Location: SW Missouri
694 posts, read 1,196,470 times
Reputation: 935
Quote:
Originally Posted by mike0421 View Post
With all the stir here in the case of this social issue triggered by Akin having terminal brain constipation, it is my contention, that still, ultimately, this misstep sways very few votes.Most people who favor income redistribution from earners to those in need will favor McCaskill. Those who desire lower taxes will go for Akin. That is how most elections are decided, have been decided, and will be in the foreseeable future.
I agree with your comment that the Democratic Party takes from the middle class and gives it to the poor. You call it income redistribution, and history proves it.

Historical facts also clearly shows that the Republican Party takes from the middle class and gives it to the rich.

So pick your poison.

Both parties have a long history of having their fingers in the pockets of the middle class.
Rate this post positively Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-22-2012, 08:34 PM
 
1,830 posts, read 3,412,930 times
Reputation: 533
If the US founders wanted a theocracy, they would have specified it. They separated church from state to ensure govt be run by reason rather than this dominionist....

Akin’s congressional legacy small, but his support among Christian groups is big - The Washington Post
Rate this post positively Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-22-2012, 09:15 PM
 
1,830 posts, read 3,412,930 times
Reputation: 533
My one glimpse of hope for MO is a reminder that we voted for a dead guy (Carnahan) just to oust John A.shcroft.

What is it with MO attracting extremists from the outside. Ashhcroft is from Chicago, Akin is from NYC.
Rate this post positively Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-22-2012, 10:04 PM
 
Location: Independence, MO
543 posts, read 2,135,303 times
Reputation: 390
Never have voted Republican and never will. Akin is an ignorant fool and has made Missourians look like backwoods hicks. I sure as heck don't want an idiot like him representing my state in DC.
Rate this post positively Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-23-2012, 09:03 AM
 
1,830 posts, read 3,412,930 times
Reputation: 533
Rusmussen Poll: McCaskill +10

RealClearPolitics - Election 2012 Senate Polls
Rate this post positively Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


 
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Settings
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2020 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Missouri
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2021, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top