In this Bloomberg article "Romney Should Ignore 'Gender Gap' Mythology", Ponnuru starts out by saying:
On the day after Rick Santorum dropped out of the race and removed all doubt Romney would be the nominee, the campaign issued five press releases within three hours on the theme that President Barack Obama’s economic record has failed American women: one featuring comments by Romney, four highlighting remarks by female Republican politicians supporting him.Well, it's nice to know that my vote doesn't count. Or that my concerns don't count. Or that my concerns aren't any different from a dude's. Or whatever the fuck Ponnuru is trying to say here.
It might be a good strategy, if the women’s vote existed.
Anyway, he goes on:
A recent USA Today/Gallup poll that found Romney losing support among women younger than 50 in swing states has especially alarmed them.So... there is no gender gap. The women's vote "doesn't exist" and yet, women aren't supporting Romney.
No, I don't get it, either.
Romney will win among large subgroups of women: those who are married, those who are white, those who go to church regularly. Gender isn’t the principal determinant of women’s votes any more than it is of men’s. From what I've seen, Republican candidates are losing support from centrist women, which is where the "gender gap" problem comes into play, dumbass. You know, centrist women-- those all important swing voters that the Republicans absolutely need to get out to the polls or else they're gonna lose. Those people who are turned off by the extreme right wing.
There aren't enough Quiverfull ladies to make up the gap, sorry.
Of course, Romney should use female campaign surrogates. (He should especially continue to highlight his wife, Ann, who is likely to wow both men and women.)So, what is it, Ponnuru? Are women important or should we be ignored? 'Cos you're really sending out some mixed messages here, buddy.
And, no. Ann Romney isn't going to "wow" anybody. She's a fucking Stepford wife.
For the grand finale:
Republicans deserve credit for resisting the idea -- the lazy instinct, really -- that what female voters care most about are stereotypically “women’s issues.” The party should take the further crucial step of seeing that women don’t have to be courted on the basis of their sex at all.Oh okay. I get it now. I was right in assuming that Republicans don't think that my concerns should be any different from a dude's.
Here's the problem: when Republican law makers are spending their time limiting my access to birth control, limiting my access to abortion, fighting against equal pay laws, I get angry. Like really fucking angry. These are issues that, quite frankly, don't immediately impact men*. But apparently these "stereotypical" women's issues don't matter, 'cos it's more important that we act like everyone is equal (read: women don't deserve to be "courted"), without actually doing anything to address the fact that women are still second class citizens (and our situation is getting worse).
Although, I think Ponnuru has come up for the perfect losing strategy for Republicans come November. More of this rhetoric may be exactly what the Dems need.
(Ramesh Ponnuru is a Bloomberg View columnist and a senior editor at National Review. The opinions expressed are his own.)That explains a lot. Fucking National Review.
*Although, in the long run, everyone is better off when women have access to family planning services and have careers of their choosing.