And, apparently, "women voters" are considered a swing vote in the election.
Look. I'm female and pay attention to politics. I fully acknowledge that there are some big issues being discussed in Washington right now that can heavily influence a woman's life; equal pay, contraception, abortion, women's rights in the workplace, etc., etc.
However, regardless of how one feels about such topics, what I strongly disagree with is the idea that women voters are somehow separate from other voters and can be swayed by how a candidate presents his or her (though with two male candidates, mostly his) position.
Allow me to elaborate. As I said before, there are issues being addressed by politicians and Congress in general that are important ones. I could go into a long spiel about the committees on abortion and contraception that had no female members, but I'm not going to because that's not my point.
My point is, women voters are so often referred to as though they're not usually an active part of the discussion. I certainly do agree that there should be more women in Congress and other positions of power and they should earn the same as men (and generally be able to make their own life decisions) but boy howdy am I annoyed by all the "Women voters are going to make or break this candidate's campaign!"
Whenever I hear someone saying that I'd like to say this: Women have been voting for decades. In recent years there have been more women voting than men in presidential elections, so it's not like there's some sudden, enormous, untapped resource that 2012 is going to exploit. Sure, if candidates make stupid, sexist and/or misogynistic comments it's going to detract from their campaigns, but I would hope such comments would affect male voters as well.
Which brings me to my second point. A lot of pundits have been talking about Mitt Romney's aggression not appealing; Joe Biden's (Barack Obama's Vice President and running mate during the election) attitude being unattractive; and overall weighing of the candidate's appearances. Especially with regard to how women perceive them. Not how the candidates' talking over each other and the moderator is disruptive and a bit rude in all circumstances, but how women are going to take it.
Perception is important. But it affects all people, and as a female I don't care if one candidate is more aggressive than the other if the candidates are discussing something of substance. I care even less when it comes to electing the president (or other person of importance) of the country, because that person needs to prove they can govern, not be charming and suave.
I cling to some desperate hope that women and men will vote with their brains and base their opinions on what campaign policies are on November 6. It's tiring to hear dozens of people saying "Women didn't like that!" or "That doesn't appeal to women!" when talking about the campaigns because really, women are people with intelligence and logic, too. I daresay a significant number of them pay more attention to the topics discussed and the candidates' positions over some alpha male display, despite the fact so many people declare that they don't.
And so ends my rant. I hope you, dear reader, don't mind me diving into some politics on this blog, but I care about politics and I needed to get this off my chest.
What about you? Do you agree or disagree with the points I made?
If you've watched the US presidential debates (and vice presidential debate) what did you think of them? If you live in the USA, will you be voting this November?
If you don't live in the USA, do the pundits and politicians say the same things about "women voters"? Are there any political catchphrases circulating in your country's news that really annoy you?
-----The Golden Eagle