-Caveat Lector- .............................................................. >From the New Paradigms Project [Not Necessarily Endorsed] Note: We store 100's of related "New Paradigms Posts" at: http://www.msen.com/~lloyd/oldprojects/recentmail.html From: "Lloyd Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Woman are, on balance, Socialists Date: Thursday, February 22, 2001 6:58 PM From: Robert L. Gleiser To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, February 19, 2001 8:27 PM Subject: [Upstream] Women are, on balance, Socialists And the conservative solution is to "reduce the excess insecurity being foisted onto women by the culture and politics of the left." In other words, give the socialists more, so they won't need to vote for socialists. Problem 1: women have never been materially better off than they are now. Yet the "gender gap" is increasing. So how will "reducing excess insecurity" reduce the gender gap? A: It won't. While human needs are finite, human wants are not. Problem 2: a large amount of the "insecurity" that has been "foisted" onto women has actually been the result of choices these women have made. Depending upon a man for material comfort requires compromises and a reduction in freedom. Depending upon the state requires neither. There is no evidence that these "insecure" women are prepared to participate in a Renaissance of the nuclear family that will bring down divorce, cohabitation and illegitimacy rates. And thus the conservatives come up with small fixes for big problems, while continuing to document the decline of their own cultural influence. Rob -------------------------------- http://frontpagemag.com/archives/feminism/silver02-19-01.htm -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Advertise your banner here The Gender Gap Explained Robbing Peter & Paul to Pay Mary! By Samuel Silver FrontPageMagazine.com | February 19, 2001 IF YOU THINK THE GENDER GAP in electoral politics is a recent phenomenon, think again. It began in 1870 and has continued to grow. In recent presidential elections from 1980 to 1996, the difference in voting patterns between men and women has been 14-17 percentage points with the exception of 1992, which had only an atypical 5% gap. In the recent 2000 Presidential election, George W. Bush narrowed the gap to 11%. Perhaps he understood the gender gap better than most. Make Comments View Comments Printable Article Email Article Why is there a gender gap, and what implications does it have for our society? The gender gap is deeper and more complex than the few womens’ issues commonly discussed in the media. At its root, it may be more basic than gun safety, abortion, or tobacco. A recent study reported in the highly respected and peer-reviewed Journal of Political Economy [1] helps us understand and quantify the gender gap. The paper, “Did Womens’ Suffrage Change the Size and Scope of Government?” was written by John Lott, Jr.of Yale University and Lawrence Kenny of the University of Florida. (Yes, this is the same John Lott that wrote More Guns, Less Crime.) The purpose of the study was to examine the growth of government as a result of giving women the right to vote. Many people assume that the major growth of government began with FDR and the New Deal in the 1930s. In fact the growth began in the 1920s. WWI ended in 1918, and the 1920s were the first time in American history that per capita government spending did not return to prewar levels after a war. The other thing that happened concurrently was the passage of the 19th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution granting women the right to vote in all states. Twenty-nine states had already granted suffrage prior to 1920 beginning in 1869. The study concludes: Giving women the right to vote significantly changed American politics from the very beginning. Despite claims to the contrary, the gender gap is not something that has arisen since the 1970s. Suffrage coincided with immediate increases in state government expenditures and revenue, and these effects continued growing as more women took advantage of the franchise. Similar changes occurred at the federal level as female suffrage led to more liberal voting records for the states’ U.S. House and Senate delegations. This study demonstrates that instead of the normal transfer payment program where the government robs Peter to pay Paul, enough women have voted for the government to rob Peter & Paul to pay Mary. Of course, all women do not prefer bigger government. In the current Presidential election, 54% of women voted for Al Gore and 43% voted for George W. Bush. [2] This generates an 11% gender gap, but it also means 3% of women voted for the more conservative candidate. Therefore, for this analysis, we are only interested in the group that votes differently at the margin. Lott & Kenny hypothesize and conclude that a major reason women tend to vote for larger and more liberal government is women’s inherently higher aversion to risk. The gender gap in part arises from women’s fears that they are being left to raise their children on their own. If this result is true, the continued breakdown of the family and the higher divorce rates imply growing political conflicts between the sexes. This fear is well known by the liberal/left wing of American politics. Susan Estrich, former campaign manager for Michael Dukakis’s Presidential campaign, states in her new book, Sex & Power: Bush is ahead among married women.Gore is strongest among those women who live alone and support their children. The promise of a safety net counts for more with those who don’t have a male version of one. In my opinion, one of the calamities of the 20th Century has been the successful attack on the traditional two-parent family. The abolition of the family was a specific goal of The Communist Manifesto. Engels wanted to end the dependence of the wife upon the husband and of the children upon the parents! Marx and Engels failed unequivocally in Russia, but have continued to succeed in America through their current followers (conscious or subconscious) in academia, the media, and politics. Unfortunately, they have exploited women, among other groups, in their divide and conquer strategy to achieve their goals. Traditionally women had a vast support system for their children, from husbands, to immediate family, to extended family, to church or synagogue, to community-based charitable organizations. The political and cultural left has worked to undermine these support mechanisms, replacing them with their “village,” otherwise known as centralized government, which by necessity they must control. They have: * belittled and ridiculed religion and traditional values. * eliminated the shame and stigma of violating traditional Judeo-Christian values that were the bedrock of western civilization. * devalued marriage and minimized the harmful effects of divorce. * lowered the barriers to divorce through “no fault” legislation. * debased our language and art. * glorified the birth of children out of wedlock, especially those without male fathers in their lives. * destroyed many black families with their paternalistic welfare programs. * replaced objective values and judgments with subjective, relativistic mush. * replaced right and wrong with anything goes. * replaced moral and rational thinking with amoral legalistic rules. * tried to eliminate boyhood and manhood through feminization of our institutions. * claimed to be champions of tolerance, but have created a culture of intolerance by demonizing anyone who has ideas with which they differ. * not been satisfied with toleration of the 1-3% of Americans that practice homosexuality, but instead demand full acceptance of the homosexual lifestyle and political agenda. * replaced individual responsibility with no responsibility. As a result, the left further increased women’s perceived need for centralized government to fill the voids they have created. Another recent study adds even more ammunition to the case that the left is explicitly exploiting women. Have you ever wondered why the propaganda of the left wing and their supporters in the media seems so effective in shaping some women’s voting preference? Well, it appears that women, on average, know fewer facts about political issues than men. A new finding which is even more disturbing is that while women in the past were aware when they did not know the correct answer to a political question, they now think they do know the correct answer, when in fact they don’t. This is the conclusion of a study about the 2000 primary campaign by the Annenberg Public Policy Center at the University of Pennsylvania. The study was titled, “The Primary Campaign: What Did The Candidates Say, What Did The Public Learn, And Did It Matter?” Similar surveys of factual political knowledge were carried out in 1996 and 2000 by the researchers. During both campaigns men were more likely to answer questions about political issues correctly, but women and men reacted differently when they did not know the correct answer. In 1996 if women did not know the correct answers, they were more likely to say, “I don’t know.” In 2000, women were still more likely to answer more questions incorrectly, but were less likely to say, “I don’t know.” It is difficult to have a meaningful discussion with someone who doesn’t know that they don’t know what they think they know. Radical feminists have no problem with this scenario, as they do not believe in objective reality, logic, or rationality, which they label “phallocentric.” [3] In presenting the study, Knight Ridder Newspapers reported that researcher Kathleen Hall Jamieson explained one possible explanation is that women and men discuss politics differently. "Men talk with one another at work about politics," she said. "Women don't have that same socialization. It's a function of how women talk about politics." Women tended to get more answers wrong than men, Jamieson said, regardless of age, race, income, education, marital status or party identification. One theme common to either gender, she said, is that the more people relied on local television news for information, the less informed they were. "Local news watching makes you dumber," Jamieson said. This implies that women are more susceptible to propaganda, misinformation, the big lie, and political advertising/sound-bites -- technical skills at which the left and Democratic Party excel. It has always been perplexing trying to understand why voters could believe some of the economic nonsense and outright lies put forward by the left, but if all they are exposed to is the television news sound bite with no rebuttal, it makes more sense. The local and/or network news will usually play favorable sound bites from Democrats, with no negative comments; while Republican sound bites are almost always surrounded by some type of negative comment or suggestion. For example, in the first Bush-Gore debate, most network news reports and commentators stated that Al Gore “won the debate on points,” but failed to mention that at least six of his points were either lies, exaggerations, or misleading statements. This was later discussed on news analysis shows, talk radio, and in newspapers, but not on most local television news broadcasts. Therefore, if a person’s only source of news were that local television news with its national feed from the networks, one would have the impression that Al Gore was the clear winner. Another example from the election aftermath in Florida was the television networks’ intense focus on the minority dissent opinions of the “conservative” U.S. Supreme Court, with hardly a mention of the minority opinions from the Florida Supreme Court, which was rarely, if ever, described as “liberal.” Why were there no prominent discussions of the fact that three out of the seven liberal Democratic judges on the Florida Supreme Court agreed with the “highly partisan” and “conservative” members of the U.S. Supreme Court? Even Florida Chief Justice Charles Wells said in his dissent opinion that the majority ruling violates the law and will cause an "unnecessary" constitutional crisis. But if we realize that many people, and unfortunately many voters, only saw the TV sound bites, it is easy to understand how the media can impart their message that there was something “unholy” about the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling. As a side note, this is another reason why government control of campaign financing would be a disaster for the country. Not only would it give a huge advantage to the incumbents of either party, but it would also make the use of propaganda through television news broadcasts even more controlling, as the party out of favor with the television media would not be able to effectively take their message directly to the people. For believers in freedom, individual rights, and limited constitutional government, it is critical for our society to reduce the excess insecurity being foisted onto women by the culture and politics of the left. We must rebuild the traditional family values of our Judeo-Christian culture and heritage. It is also critical that we strengthen our non-coercive forms of aiding the weaker members of society, with emphasis on the free market and charitable community-based programs as the most moral and efficient alternatives to government control over our lives. If we do not stop this onslaught against the traditional family, the gender gap will continue to grow and unfortunately lead us further down the path to “democratic” socialism/fascism. December 14, 2000 _____ [1] Journal of Political Economy, 1999, vol. 107, no. 6,pt.1. This study can be downloaded on the Internet at: http://papers.ssrn.com/paper.taf?abstract_id=3D160530 2] The balance of women voted for Ralph Nader, who interestingly received a higher percentage of votes from men. [3] Christina Hoff Sommers, Who Stole Feminism? (New York: Touchstone, 1994), p. 65 [4] To download this study in its entirety, go to http://www.appcpenn.org/32700report.pdf on the Internet. Forwarded for info and discussion from the New Paradigms Discussion List, not necessarily endorsed by: *********************************** Lloyd Miller, Research Director for A-albionic Research a ruling class/conspiracy research resource for the entire political-ideological spectrum. **FREE RARE BOOK SEARCH: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ** Explore Our Archive: <http://a-albionic.com/a-albionic.html> <A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/">www.ctrl.org</A> DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER ========== CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic screeds are unwelcomed. Substance—not soap-boxing—please! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'—with its many half-truths, mis- directions and outright frauds—is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. ======================================================================== Archives Available at: http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html <A HREF="http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html">Archives of [EMAIL PROTECTED]</A> http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ <A HREF="http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/">ctrl</A> ======================================================================== To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
