Tuesday, October 07, 2008 - Posts
-
sponsorship
During the vice-presidential debate, I had to keep tearing my gaze away from the CNN ticker with the reactions of undecided voters, which was tracking men separately from women. The sexual politics of politics—how could it not be riveting? Except that, after about five minutes, it wasn't. All it led me to was the basic and obvious observation that women seemed to be higher on the + scale than men, over and over again. They also seemed to dislike hearing the Republican line on the Iraq war more.
Tonight the male/female split tracker was back. And again, women seemed more positive, more excited, more supportive of Barack Obama. And they seemed to twist the dial harder toward disapproval when the topic was the Bush administration's record. Men, meanwhile, seemed to stick closer to the middle of the dial. Because they were more cautious? Less excitable? More bored? Less interested?
Who knows. And maybe I missed some moments in which women thrilled to John McCain, or men did, because I confess that I myself was close to flatlining. But I've decided that I think this men/women ticker is merely reductionist. There's no context, no way of understanding what the differences mean. The separate lines are presented as if they have significance without any way of discerning what that significance could be. Men are from campaign Mars, and Women are from electoral Venus, with no insight about what it's like on either planet.
-
sponsorship
Here's a matter that knows no party or region or class: flowers, which I must remember to teach my son are not always such a thoughtful gift. One of my dearest friends celebrated a big, big birthday last week. And what did her husband do to mark the milestone? "He went to the Kroger's for flowers,'' she said, rocked by the care and consideration that went into his offering. So to the three men reading this, don't let this be you. Flowers for no reason? Such a sure thing that if she doesn't like them, you should worry. But flowers under pressure say you are so clueless or checked-out that you might as well sign the note, "I'm either passive-aggressive, or have absolutely no imagination.'' The bigger the occasion, the better that "World's Best Mom'' mug would have gone over in comparison;as my friend said of her fool for romance, "He is beyond hope.'' (And Liza, since you wrote the book on Barack's better half, do we know what he wound up getting Michelle for their anniversary? Please do not tell me it was mums ...)
-
sponsorship
You know, Rachael is also saying something important here, something we forget at our own peril: Looking down on Mr. and Mrs. Middle America isn't smart, and it IS what smarty-pants liberals in Washington (and beyond!) sometimes do. (And why is that? Would we rather show off than win?) Case in point: Richard Cohen, in a column in today's Washington Post, sneering that those who praised Sarah Palin's debate performance must have "inferred that her performance would go over well in homes with aboveground swimming pools.'' (For some reason, this makes me want to pass the Boone's Farm and push him into the cement pond; ugh.) 'Nother one: Tim Robbins on the Daily Show last night, praying to God for a smart president this time around. With the economy heading for Argentina, such slights may not matter as much as they otherwise would. But they're still hateful—and until the votes are counted, downright dumb.
Join the Fray: our reader discussion forum
What did you think of this article?