Bridging cultural gaps is hard. I am incredibly excited that the first actual meeting with my start up was three women and myself.!
Sent from my iPhone > On Oct 6, 2014, at 10:24, BILROJ via Centroids: The Center of the Radical > Centrist Community <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Why Is Republican Outreach to Women So Awful? > > By Bill Scher - October 6, 2014 > > > > www.realclearpolitics.com > > > The flurry of Republican ads targeting women confirm they know the gender gap > is for real. But as the numbers indicate, the ads haven’t narrowed it; they > often try too hard, miss the point and make the problem worse. > One way they do so is by feeding ham-fisted lines to bad actors. Take the ad > “Talk,” produced by Karl Rove’s Crossroads GPS to help Colorado Republican > Cory Gardner wrest a Senate seat from incumbent Mark Udall. The ad is > supposed to depict four women friends casually chatting about the election, > and implicitly rejecting Udall’s accusations that Gardner wants to ban some > forms of birth control. But the conservation is clunky from the start. > > “I want a real conversation about the issues that matter,” says the first > woman, thereby declaring that the four “friends” shall commence just such a > conversation. > > “Unfortunately after 15 years in Washington, political scare tactics are all > Mark Udall has left,” says the second, sounding more like a politician than a > real person. > > “We aren’t single-issue voters,” says the third, sounding more like a > political consultant than an ordinary voter. > > Or check out “Dating Profile,” made by Americans for Shared Prosperity, > another male-run Republican outside group. The not-quite-clever premise is a > single woman telling how she “fell in love” with an unspecified man’s “online > profile” but now says the “relationship is in trouble” because of his failed > promises. “He’s great at promises,” she huffs. > > This ad tries to bluntly change the subject from reproductive freedom: “He > thinks the only thing I care about is free birth control, but he won’t even > let me keep my own doctor.” Then -- surprise! -- it turns out Barack Obama > was online suitor. > > Both of these ads also miss a larger point. They brusquely dismiss the > concerns many women have about losing their reproductive freedom, and then > decree what issues women should otherwise prioritize. > > This strategic logic quickly runs into a brick wall: The GOP wouldn’t be > having a problem with these voters if they didn’t already think issues > surrounding access to abortion and birth control were important. Republicans > are violating the “customer is always right” maxim. You can’t tell a woman > that her values are wrong if you want her vote. To reach these voters, > candidates need to either address the substance of those concerns, or at > least find a way to disagree without being dismissive of them. > > Finally, the ads make the problem worse by depicting women as two-dimensional > caricatures. When watching “Dating Profile,” you can almost see the men > behind the curtain concluding that the only way to get single women to talk > politics is to first talk about dating. > > The latest transgression comes from the College Republican National > Committee, which just cut nearly identical ads for six GOP gubernatorial > candidates spoofing the bridal shop reality TV show “Say Yes to the Dress.” > In “Say Yes to the Candidate,” a young bride-to-be named Brittany peruses a > line of wedding dresses as she says, “Budget is a big deal for me now that > I’ve just graduated from college.” In the Florida version, she gushes, “The > ‘Rick Scott’ is perfect” because he’s a “trusted brand … with new ideas that > don’t break your budget.” > > While Brittany avoids any condescending mentions of birth control in her > pitch for fiscal prudence, the entire bridal shop setting makes one’s head > search rapidly for a desk to bang against. Slate’s Amanda Marcotte, in a > piece titled “Today in GOP Outreach to Women: You Broads Like Wedding > Dresses, Right?,” wondered aloud “if the people being hired to do outreach to > women on behalf of Republican candidates aren't all a bunch of Democratic > moles.” > > How can Republicans stop being so clumsy and awkward when reaching out to > women? Ironically, their best chance might be to turn back the clock – to > 1956, when the first Republican TV ads targeting women voters aired. > > President Dwight D. Eisenhower won his first election in 1952 with the help > of a gender gap: 58 percent of women supported him vs. 53 percent of men, in > part because of opposition to the Korean War. In 1956, Eisenhower played to > his base and maintained the gap, promoting equal pay in his State of the > Union address and nomination acceptance speech. And he aired a four-minute ad > explicitly courting women voters. > > Through modern eyes, the ad has some of the patronizing elements that mar > today’s Republican outreach: the stereotyping (though in this case the > presumption that women are by and large “the homemakers” accurately reflected > the times) and the lecturing on what issues women should care about. This > wasn’t a problem for Eisenhower because of the standards of the era and > because he wasn’t operating from a defensive posture, having already earned > the mantle of the women’s candidate. > > Where the 58-year old ad is strikingly different from today’s botched efforts > is in letting women voters talk for themselves. Nine women take up half of > the ad’s time, stating their support for the president in what appears to be > their own words. Some testimonials are substantive; many are superficial (“he > has a smile that can prove only one thing, and that is honesty”). But all > come across authentic and not scripted. > > (Additionally, Eisenhower had at least four short ads with first-person women > testimonials, including one African-American woman and one “college girl,” > all supporting the president’s foreign policy.) > > Today’s Republicans should take a cue from Eisenhower. Simply go on the > street with a camera, ask women if they’re voting Republican and, if so, why? > Just maybe, the party will get some good answers, and learn something about > what women voters actually want. > > > > -- > -- > Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community > <[email protected]> > Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism > Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org > > --- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- -- Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community <[email protected]> Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
