Unhappy first birthday, Obamacare
The disapproving polls haven’t budged. Familiarity has not made the heart grow fonder. Some people hate the bill because it’s not liberal enough (mostly women, it turns out), but they are far outnumbered by those who hate it for the opposite reason. Although I’m a woman, I’m with that latter group, and I also hate the bill because of the way it was passed, and the fact that it won’t even accomplish what it purports to.
I think the poor economic times were and are in fact a blessing in their being present when this thing was shoved down our throats by democrats. Had it been voted in during a good economy i have little doubt it would have received much better polling and moved a lot farther in a year. Bad economies just make people hyper sensitive to expensive crap we can’t afford.
Interesting. Why do you suppose women tend to support it?
Occam’s Beard: I think that in general women are more liberal. But the statistic here is that women were more likely to dislike it because it’s not liberal enough.
This isn’t making me like the 19th amendment any more.
And what SteveH said. It may be lucky timing that it was passed at the same time that nearly anybody with a functioning brain is starting to realize that the welfare/nanny state is mathematically unsustainable.
From depending on a man to depending on the state: what’s the dif? You can’t henpeck the state. (Of course you can. It’s called unionizing.)
That’s a joke, by the way.
But women’s civilizing and nurturing role belongs first in the family. They civilize the boys who then build bridges and space ships.
How many women are turning out as scientists and engineers? We’ve lost a generation of those because the boys were neglected and the girls, given their free choice, got degrees in sociology and psychology. A few attempted study in productive disciplines but no more than would have without the progressive control. A few more wound up challenging the glass ceilings but for those few an equal amount forsook their Harvard business degrees for motherhood. Outright and completely.
Now, the freedom which the progressives demanded has been obtained under a conservative umbrella, a freedom which would have happened all along and without the price that was paid.
neo-neocon Says:
“I think that in general women are more liberal. But the statistic here is that women were more likely to dislike it because it’s not liberal enough.”
You might be correct that it is a matter of ideology, but I suspect it is something else. It is my experience that women in general crave safety, security, and consensus much more so than the average man. Big Mommy government offers to smooth things out and protect them from the ups and downs, the slings and arrows, and the often ugly uncertainties of life.
I think that in general women are more liberal.
It is my experience that women in general crave safety, security, and consensus much more so than the average man.
I think both of these are true, but there also seems to be some peculiar thing some women, at least, have regarding health in general, and health care in particular.
I cite as evidence the hysteria (no pun intended) regarding health scares, such as those involving, e.g., electrical transmission towers, cell phones, and assorted cancer clusters, each of which appears to find its major constituency on the distaff side. Is this another manifestation of the Lifetime Channel effect?
We always have to remember that when we categorize people we are speaking in general terms…. however, I think Occam is onto something here:
“… the hysteria (no pun intended) regarding health scares, such as those involving, e.g., electrical transmission towers, cell phones, and assorted cancer clusters, each of which appears to find its major constituency on the distaff side. Is this another manifestation of the Lifetime Channel effect?’
It does seem that women are more willing victims of this sort of hysteria.
I seem to remember hearing Ann Coulter once say (or maybe she wrote it) that she would give up her right to vote as a woman if it meant all the liberal women had to give up theirs – lol
I remember having a conversation back in the 90’s with a female E-4 veteran of the first Gulf War. She relayed how some guy over in the middle east tried to buy either her or one of the other females in their unit from a male soldier. This was the kind of girl who was an electronic tec on Bradley Fighting Vehicles. At that technician job we worked at together there was a period where we wore civilian clothes at work, instead of the military BDUs. I remember her wearing a shirt that had something along the lines of “girls rule” or “…anything men can do girls can do better” something of that nature. When i asked her how she would have felt about being owned in the before mentioned scenario, she responded, ” as long as he was rich”. Yes- trade freedom for financial security or maybe a chance at luxury-(till she grew too old to be a hottie)which is kinda what we see with “liberal” voting patterns- make us all “safe” while allowing the government to grow bigger ….She later went off and became an officer.
I beleive it is Art that has pointed out how (many)women are designed to be able switch allegiences after having been captured in war–we call it the “stockholm syndrome” in modern times, but I suspect ancient peoples understood this. I think we see this with many modern western women in regards to Islam now- and multiculturlism -how the west is just supposed to commit suicide from within and if the evil white guys and their queen Sarah Palin resist they are racists.
Though the women commenting and hosting this blog I would think are above such surrender.
jon baker, wow, that part from Art is insightful as all hell.
It used to be a practical matter: a woman, for the most part, was not in control of her destiny; she had to be able to turn on a dime, put aside any personal desires for the sake of her children (or, if she didn’t have any yet, for the sake of children yet unborn that she couldn’t have if she didn’t go along). As with so many other things about modern Western life, we’re in this peculiar time and place wherein women can, if they wish, be in 100% control of their lives, don’t have to go along with anyone, can have and support children with a man’s contribution’s being limited to a gamete… but we’re not really evolved for that.
So, many of us, I suppose, respond to the proto-woman within by maintaining our hyper-sensitivity to our surroundings and to perceived risk to ourselves and our children, and (as witness “feminists'” support of Clinton) still go for the man we perceive to have the most potency. We don’t necessarily bring reason to bear on these judgments – we didn’t need it a whole lot when the risks were obvious and physical. Still, yikes. Doesn’t speak well of us…
But biology isn’t all of destiny, and it’s possible to feel the tug to do things one way yet do them the way that actually makes sense. Even if this time and place turn out to be just an eyeblink, while we’re here, we should take advantage of the fact that we have the faculty of reason, however useless it’s been to us for most of human history!
(I’m not saying our brains have been useless, just that there’s innate in all humans a capacity for reason, logic, and a longer view than the span of our children’s lives, that we women haven’t had much need of until now.)
I’m with you Neo.
I hate the bill in principle, but I dislike it equally for the way it was written and passed. And, of course, our reliable MSM — even Fox as wel — did not really report on that facet of the whole debacle (which is what I regard it to be). That Constitional law and procss in Congress and the White House should be so twisted and abused is a disgrace in my humble opinion.
I do think, however, the low regard for this bill is partially an expression of this, but far less than the contents of the bill itself. I think the abuse of power is as important, and the November election may partly have been a rebuke to Congress and the President among other things, but unfortunately, voters tend to have short memories, and I doubt Obama will be held accountable for his continuous abuse of power. (Includes many actions from the number of czars who report directly to him; his proclamattions re: what crimes will or will not be prosecuted; etc. There is even controversy over his involving us in Libya without going to Congress first (and that’s if he ever does decide to do so)
Unless the Republicans and the Tea Party come up with a nominee for 2012 that has the courage to remind voters of this, I surmise they will fear it will be interpreted as a personal attack and that can easily be manipulated by political operatives and the MSM as dirty politicking (sp.?). Also, the economy will definitely become the foremost issue, as might Obama’s hypocrisy about involving us in more war – especially with gameplan and endgame in question. I expect the withdrawal of troops just in time for election season to be one of Obama’s definitive strategies.
Lastly, the great irony re: the passage of Obamacare, is the Union-led and Democratic response to Governor Walker’s and the Wisconsin
Congress’s passage of the recent bill limiting collective bargaining. They have waged an enormous publicity campaign about the bill being “rammed down the throats” of the people which, with the help of the MSM became a national issue. And likewise, the calls for impeachment or recall of the Governor and the Republican-led Congress — never mind the strategy of the Democrats in fleeing the state! The publicity pronounced them the “brave ones.”