Alright
already! So everybody agrees that a whole bunch of women
are going to show up in droves to vote in this election.
So
what?
I
wonder—have either Bush or Kerry actually met any women?
I ask
this because if they had they would realize that
absolutely nothing they say will make any difference…not
in the last days of an election campaign.
How
many times have men said "I just don’t understand
women? They change their minds every five seconds."
P.S.
And we only want to
talk about our feelings at two o’clock in the
morning and only when you have five a.m. flight to
catch.
As Fred
Flintstone
said "Why can’t they invent something else for us
to marry than WOMEN?"
Politicians usually end up listening to professional
feminists like Gloria Steinem.
According to Cox News’ Janet Musgrave in the article I
cited above:
"It wasn't until well into the presidential debates that Kerry began
reaching out to women. Finally, to the satisfaction of
women's groups, Kerry firmly established himself as
pro-choice and pledged to do something about the wage
gap that has women earning about 72 cents for every $1 a
man makes."
Steinem's
take on this, reported by Musgrave.
"‘[Kerry’s]
at the mercy of consultants who are
worried about the
white male vote…So he talks about
hunting and
military leadership. In this process, the majority
of women's issues are neglected.’"
Steinem, of course, wants candidates to be at the mercy
of consultants who are worried about the female, or
more accurately feminist, vote.
But
Musgrave also reports that Terri Fine, a
political science professor at the University of
Central Florida, "cautioned against lumping women
together and treating them as one giant, like-thinking
group."
As a
consultant (and a woman), I say to politicians: ditch
Gloria Steinem. Listen to Terry Fine if you hope to
capture a woman’s vote.
Autobiographical evidence: Once-upon-a-time, I was a
Democrat. (Shhh…don’t tell). I became a Republican after
I received my first "real" paycheck and
wanted to hunt down
FICA and SSI and ask them why they took so much of
my money.
(Side
note: Still no sign of them—or my
money, sigh.)
As a
woman (Republican with a penchant for libertarianism) I
am very pro-choice, but I think
late-term abortion is murder.
I
oppose the death penalty, but applauded Bush for his
handling of the
Karla Faye Tucker execution in Texas.
I
opposed the Iraq war but grinned like a
Cheshire cat when we
captured Saddam Hussein.
I could
attend a
John Kerry rally and applaud many of his ideas and
beliefs, but I could do the same with
President Bush.
How
would either politician capture my vote by tactical
issues alone?
The
answer is they can’t.
Why?
Because women don’t make enough sense as a species
to give anyone the hope of figuring out what they want.
For
example: men aren’t allowed to use the adjective "fine"
when they describe our appearance. (As in "How do I
look?"—"fine.")
Why
not? Fine is a perfectly fine word. But unless
men want to sleep alone, they better think of a more
descriptive word. (And good luck with that, by
the way.)
Another
example: You know how a guy, on Tuesday, is authorized
to go to a Dodger’s game on Friday with his friends but
the morning of the game he suddenly "doesn’t spend
enough time at home?"
Yeah,
he never makes it to the game.
Why? I
don’t know. I don’t make
the rules, I just follow them.
Don’t
look for reasoning with us. We have
our own logic (more or less) and it is an
ever-changing technique influenced greatly by our mood.
I have
a girlfriend who was enraged by her husband’s purchase
of a flat screen television without her consent. Their
argument culminated in her announcing "Fine, let’s
just get a divorce!" Two days later when she
received the divorce papers, she was in my living room
crying "Why did he file for divorce?"
Logic
would point out that she told him that she wanted a
divorce…and he believed her. However, had he been
fluent in women-speak, he would have known that by
demanding divorce she meant "Grovel with
jewelry until the flat-screen television becomes an
acceptable purchase!"
Bottom
line: Women are
crazy. I’m serious.
Practical, pragmatic and prudent, for most women, are
just words that start with "P."
In
fact, here’s a secret: This is what most women think
about their sex.
We just
haven’t told men.
Now, it
seems this election will in large part be decided by
women voters… alas!
The
candidates have searched frantically for that
single-issue magic tactic:
abortion,
education, the "glass
ceiling," the war.
But,
considering today’s world, this is what I as a woman
heard during the campaign: Blah, blah, blah and one
giant strategic blunder.
The
strategic blunder:
Homeland Security .
Not the
"Homeland Security" policy that launches a 500
billion dollar war in Iraq that in no way
secures our homeland or locates any terrorists.
Women
want a more tangible Homeland Security—that reassures us
our
children will be safe, and in one piece, when we
pick them up from
school.
In
short, the Homeland Security that has yet to happen.
Eric Lustbader, quoted in my epigraph
above, is right:
Women want stability.
Shutting America’s borders until we can reform our
immigration policy to include
effective security measures is the simplest,
non-violent approach to terrorism.
Considering that the nineteen men responsible for the
attacks on September 11th did not invade us
but were
legally in the United States, suggests it might be
the most effective approach as well. (Just a guess.)
If I were
Karl Rove or
Karen Hughes, the President would have given a State
of the Union address, devoid of any patronizing scare
tactics, in which he simply said:
"On September 11th
we were attacked by enemies from within. This gross
oversight of our immigration policy occurred on my watch
and I take full responsibility for this breach of
homeland security.
"To stop terrorists
from again slipping through the cracks along our
borders, we must
close the borders altogether until we can design a
safer method for legal immigration.
"This will
inconvenience the many aliens who cross into the United
States via our borders, but, more importantly, it will
protect our citizens, those whom I proudly serve, from
further attacks."
Would it have made a difference? Absolutely.
I’m thinking maybe…no war?
No erroneous
CIA report that rendered America the world’s
laughing stock.
No loss of more than a thousand American lives.
As far as the women’s vote, there wouldn’t be any
guess-work at this late stage in the game.
It would be squarely in the pocket of the man who kept
them safe.
Bryanna Bevens [email
her] is a political consultant and former chief of staff
for a member of the California State Assembly.
