Op-Ed: Obama vs. Romney decides the issue — Women are smarter than men

I'm using "*sigh*" as the subject line of a lot of my comments lately, aren't I? Well when confronted in the media with crass bigotry against your gender that is vaunted not just by so many members of the opposite sex but also by your own, it's hard not to just want to retreat into a world of Doritos and retro TV. I suspect that's why America does indeed have a crisis with so many boys and young men doing exactly what Timothy Leary suggested the kids in the '60s do: Tune out and turn on. Only in this case, many boys are skipping the turn on part and heading into "drop out" instead. After all, after years of being told they're stupid and "naturally hard to deal with," it has its impact. I tell you, I am so glad not to be a male child in America today, especially in the feminized public school system. But that's a different matter.

No, I need to get back on track here. This comment was meant to be about the election and so I am back to it. There seems to be a gloat-fest happening here coming mostly from self-appointed speakers-for-womankind (just like Maureen Dowd) talking about how this election represents Victory Over the Evil White Patriarchy, etc., etc. Well first of all, I don't really know what the hell they're talking about. Arguably if there are evil white patriarchs running loose in the world, I probably would have found out about it, running as I do in MRA circles. But no, never gotten an invite to a meeting of the Evil White Patriarchy (White Men Only Allowed In Case You Couldn't Figger That Out By Yer Lonesome). Well, maybe I am just not up there enough to make the cut, I dunno. But still, have yet to even hear about the meetings.

Anyway, the gloat-festers are doing the proverbial Dana Carvey-esque Church Lady Superiority Dance over the outcome of the recent US General Election. They seem to view the results as having been a categorical referendum on all manner of things, most importantly, abortion rights and a simple no-confidence vote against "white male leadership domination". They also see it as a categorical victory for feminism, showing that it dominates (they don't mind using that word in this case, do they?) at the polls, that this is how it's gonna be forever, and get used to it boys, because we're in charge now!

Goodness me. And all this time, I thought elections were just about trying to figure out who of the available choices would be the best person for the job (alas, in practice here in the US, we pretty much have to pick from two choices, both in the pockets of large corporations-- but IMO, you only actually have a real choice when there are at least three options, but that's just me). But it's amazing what people can read into things. Projection is a truly powerful psychological force, and anyone can fall victim to it. What makes it so hard to identify is that the victim is also the victimizer. You make your own mess. You are the projector, and you live with the consequences of your subsequent decisions (usually bad ones) based on the projection you were governed by. I think if he had thought of it first, Carl Jung may have come up with "What a tangled web we weave," but unlike Sir Walter Scott, he would have left it at that.

The gloat-fest should have some reality injected into it before the champagne and pink ribbons become so numerous we can hardly stand up. Before I continue, though, I want to make it clear that I do NOT see the GOP as the Party of Anti-Feminism the way the feminist establishment does; there are more than a few feminists in the GOP. But what is true is that the Democrat party leadership does see them as the Party of Anti-Feminism. This is because the GOP has adopted an anti-abortion plank in their platform (see here). Bad politics? Yes. Likely to be popular generally in the US? No. Maybe 50 years ago, but not now. Is a pro-life position though *inherently* anti-feminist? You'll get a big old "No" from Feminists for Life on that one. But that is not what the Demo. party thinks. They equate secure abortion rights with feminism. Fine, whatever. Personally, I am fine with it as long as men have the same post-conceptive reproductive rights that women have. Still waiting though for the GOP to adopt that plank. I will wait til the cows come home of course before the Dems. do.

Reality for the Mistresses Of Feminist Glee Post-2012-General-Election:

1. The US House did not change hands to the Democrats, despite the fact that they threw the kitchen sink at the effort. Pelosi was herself truly "shell-shocked" by the outcome.

2. In open seats, both parties gained the same number of seats: 11. In incumbent seats, the Dems lost 10 and the GOP lost 14. Not much difference.

3. The Senate remained in the Dems' control, but as with the last session, marginally. Dems: 53; GOP: 45; Independents: 2

4. Female members of the House comprise 16.8% thereof, and 17% of the Senate. Those numbers are unchanged from 2010. (Again, matters not to me-- it's about the best candidate for the job, or it ought to be. But feminists care about this sort of thing.) There are still some unconfirmed races at the moment and the number may change, but not by a lot.

(For 1-4 above, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_of_Representatives_elections,_2012 and http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Elections/Senate/2012/1107/Election-2012-results-Women-to-reach-landmark-20-percent-of-senators)

5. Among the states, 71 women held exec. offices in 2010: 50 Dems, 20 GOPers, and 1 Independent. The number in 2012 increased by 4. Now, it's 38 Dems, 36 GOPers, and 1 Independent. This means the Dems have lost substantially their statewide representation of executive offices held by women, not gained.
(http://www.cawp.rutgers.edu/fast_facts/index.php)

6. OK, now for the biggest delusion-shattering fact, and this is a doozey: the popular vote between Obama and Romney was a difference of less than 3%. Obama received 62,255,298 votes to Romney's 58,890,300. (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2012#Results) In addition, the "gender gap" was nothing like it had been played up to be. It was indeed the biggest in history-- but that isn't saying much. If indeed the Dem. party had categorical appeal to female voters and if so many if not all female voters were moved supremely by the one issue of abortion, and indeed by other feminist issues (or delusional issues) such as "the wage gap" (or myth thereof), you'd expect to see a far greater "gender gap"-- but there wasn't one. For Obama, it was 56% of women voting for him, meaning 44% did not vote for him, but instead, Romney (or a few voting third-party). To declare (or believe) that because 56% of an electoral base voted for "your candidate" that this therefore means you are categorically supported by said base is indeed self-deluding. In addition, to then demonize the other base, asserting that they did not vote for "your candidate" and thus you have a resounding, categorical victory over them is also self-deluding given the fact that 45% of men are believed to have voted for Obama. Tell me, were they all minority men? I'll bet they weren't. I'll bet a lot were (*gasp*!) WHITE MALES!

(See http://www.usatoday.com/story/theoval/2012/11/09/obama-romney-gallup-gender-gap/1695565/ and http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-analysis-20121108,0,7644829.story)

While undoubtedly white men did not support Obama nearly in the droves they did in 2008 [Well, hard to support a candidate you think doesn't care about your employment status because you happen to be 1) white and 2) male, and you think this with fairly good reason based on the things he has said and not said], he still did get 1/3 of the white male vote. That's a lot of votes. If 71% of the electorate is white, and half of those are male, then let's just imagine (though it may not be true) that white men and white women both appeared in the same %ages to the polls. Some numbers from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Us_population#Vital_statistics:

1. No. of whites in the US: 223,553,265
2. No. of white males in the US (derived as 50% of no. of whites figure): 111,776,632

Now let's just say that of 111,776,632 EWMs (that's "Evil White Males"-- "What other kind is there?" the feminist glee-festers ask), 89,421,306 are eligible to vote due to their being of age and otherwise legally entitled to vote. Now we can't know for sure how many actually registered much less turned up on voting day since those stats don't get collected by polling places. But even if we lop off 20% of that number, we get 71,537,044. Now let's say as reported, 1/3 voted for Obama. That's 23,607,224 votes.

Roughly 121,145,598 votes were cast total for the both pres'l candidates. 23,607,224, then would have been cast by EWMs for Obama. That's 19.5% of Obama's winning vote cast by EWMs (maybe "EWM"s are not "E" if they vote Democrat; then maybe they're just "WMs"...). That is not an insignificant number. In fact given that Obama won by

Yet, the feminist glee-festers talk/write as if: 1) EWMs categorically vote GOP and 2) Females of all kinds categorically vote Demo. and that 3) Because of 1 and 2, the Demo. candidate won and as long as the M:F ratio of turnout for voters stays like this, it's Dems forever! Yippee!

I'd like to point out something important to them, and it's this: politics is a lot like a sporting season, or more accurately, like the life-history of a sporting team. If you're not winning by ever-increasing margins, your safety from beginning to lose matches is in danger. In 2008, Obama beat McCain by a popular margin spread of 7.27% (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2008). And arguably McCain was far milder ideologically as an adversary both in terms of "women's issues" as well as many other things that bore sharp contrast between Obama and Romney this time around. And yet, Obama won the popular vote this time by less than 3%.

If the glee-festers were actually right about what this election's results represent, the popular vote should have been a tidal wave, pro-Obama. He should have cleared a 20%+ popular margin, easily. Between sewing up nearly all the women's votes and nearly every non-white vote, it should have been this: 50% (ie, women) + 13.8% (male, non-white) + 2% (LGBT white males as %age of US pop'n) = 65.8%. So right there, he's won by over a 15% margin. Now add the EWMs (implicitly, they are straight, of course) who vote for Obama (that should make the Feminist Hooey Machine start to seize up...) and you ought to be able to make it to 70% total popular vote, NOOO PROBLEMMM-OOOO!!!!

But that isn't what happened, is it?

Not only did the margins in the two houses of Congress pretty much stay the same, so did the gender ratios thereof. There was a slight shift in favor of females representing the electorate, but very small. Yet, this is served up as proof that the EWMs have been defeated! When really, it's just proof that a) a particular party had loyal voter-followers and the female candidate happened to be running in that neck of the woods and/or b) the electorate just felt the women in question would serve their interests better. But try telling that to a person who views the world exclusively through a lens of race and gender (and also in some cases, of sexual orientation).

Also, the margin of comfort for the election of a Dem. has fallen quite dramatically for the Dem. party. From > 7% to

So I conclude with the following: Gloat all you want. Have fun. Everyone has the right to enjoy their victories, real or imagined. But speaking less as an EWM, partisan downpressorman who quite obviously seeks the on-going oppression of nature, women, children, and probably minorities, too, as well as anyone who isn't straight, I would like instead to draw the attention of the glee-festers to a few inconvenient truths that are unlikely to leave us alone as a nation anytime soon:

1) We are engaged in constant warfare in the Middle East if for no other reason than we either fight our enemies there or we'll have to fight them here. Stop engaging them on their turf and they'll start engaging us on ours. That's how it works. When will it end? We don't know.

2) We have allies in the Middle East who are facing existential threats greater than they have ever in the past. And I am not just talking about Israel, either. We have to keep on our toes at all times regarding this item and #1, and there doesn't seem to be an end-game for our involvement or how much we'll need to spend on it.

3) Speaking of spending, we now owe more to our creditors than we produce in a single year as a nation. Our national debt exceeds our GDP. If the US didn't control the world's so-called "reserve currency", we'd be like Greece by now. But don't anyone think we can keep going like this forever.

4) Speaking of the national debt, we are a few weeks away from automatic tax hikes and spending cuts (see here) kicking in unless our now-very-lame-duck Congress can pull it out and fix the problem by 1/1/2013. If they can't, what next? A new Congress next year with more freshman freshperson Congressoids than we've ever seen before. This is not the time for amateur hour, but there we'll be-- hip-deep in it.

5) A good number of the Affordable Health Care Act's tax provisions are also going to kick in in 2013. (This is on top of anything that might happen due to #4 above). Employers are already planning to let people go next year or already have started doing so due to the new tax burden that will be on them. In addition, they will be much-less likely to allow people to go from working x P/T hours to x+y P/T hours now that they will have to pay extra for having a P/T employee working more than x hours but not receiving health insurance. Also, people who now for whatever reason do not want or cannot afford to buy it will have to or else pay a fine (err, sorry, that's a tax - the SC said so, so gee, that's gotta be what it is, right?). People with 2 P/T jobs will now have to somehow get 3 at a time when just plain finding a damn job is not only hard but getting harder. The new tax burdens of next year won't make it any easier, either.

I actually like the idea of creating a kind of universal health care safety net for everyone. I just don't necessarily like how it's getting done. I mean, why tax medical device manufacturers when they aren't doing anything to cause disease but instead are making devices to help people deal with diseases? Why are we not instead taxing companies that make products bad for people's health? If they are already getting taxed, why aren't we taxing them more? Answer: deep pockets. Again, you can vote Dem. or GOP, but money doesn't talk, it screams. Nothing beats K Street lobbyist swag and donations to re-election campaigns funded by "super-PACS" that of course are funded by large corporations, some of which may in fact be manufacturing products that are bad for people. Dem. or GOP, it matters not. Everyone loves money. And so it goes.

6) And finally, nothing has in essence changed in DC. The same cast of characters is there. Obama is still president, which may not have been quite so bad if some actual, real power dynamics in the House or Senate had changed. But they didn't. We voted ourselves back into status quo at a time when status quo was the last thing we needed. The definition of insanity: Doing what you always have done but expecting different results. Collectively then, I'd say, that at least for the 2012 election, the voting public of the USA has just acted-- well, insane.

So I hope our gloat-festers enjoy themselves while they can. It's going to get not-so-enjoyable again real soon and promises to stay that way for at least the next 4 years.

The women's vote and support for Obama proves they don't know anything about financial responsibility or have any experience or responsibility of running a business, they like free stuff, and they vote for what is best for them, not what is best for the country....and the feminist women love abortion.

Then the Republicans made several blunders, you know about "legitimate rape" and conception from rape being "God's will". The religious beliefs and affiliations hurts them. I wish they could do away with that.

However, I wish people would see that abortion is more than a religious view, some atheists like myself are against abortion. It promotes irresponsible behavior of women which eventually tears down society. Abortion may have some positive effects in certain situations, as would infanticide, but that's not the way abortion on demand is being used in the United States. Take a look at what abortion on demand has done to Russia. It has completely undermined the family unit. They cannot even make healthy babies when they want to. Look at the artificial reproduction industry. I can bet the majority of women seeking to conceive their first child in later life (age 35+) have had abortions if they dated regularly in their teens and twenties. Very few have legitimate "fertility problems". They are just too old to conceive naturally. Abortion has all kinds of secondary effects.

I will tolerate the legality and access to abortion, but I certainly don't want to promote or fund it. I don't think the anti-abortion stance hurts the Republicans as all data I have seen indicates American are about 50/50 on the issue for both genders.

...but this is just my biased opinion, I am no political expert.