GOP Senate candidate: Women have to be talked to on an ‘emotional level’

www.rawstory.com...

A Republican candidate for Senate from Iowa says he’s had lessons communicating with women and has learned that they need to be talked to on an “emotional level.” Last week, staffers for House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) told Politico that Republican candidates were being tutored on how to speak to female voters in response to the so-called GOP “War on Women.”

Does this mean communication with women in a patronizing fashion? That's what it sounds like. Big mistake!!!
The GOP really needs to investigate it's Public Relations attitudes as to women and minorities. Both demographics are crucial to any party winning elections.

reply to post by olaru12


Unfortunately.
They will never have a clue.

olaru12
www.rawstory.com...


Does this mean communication with women in a patronizing fashion? That's what it sounds like.

No, it actually sounds like just what it says, in emotional fashion. A recent polling came out that confirms this fact.

olaru12
www.rawstory.com...

A Republican candidate for Senate from Iowa says he’s had lessons communicating with women and has learned that they need to be talked to on an “emotional level.” Last week, staffers for House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) told Politico that Republican candidates were being tutored on how to speak to female voters in response to the so-called GOP “War on Women.”

Does this mean communication with women in a patronizing fashion? That's what it sounds like. Big mistake!!!
The GOP really needs to investigate it's Public Relations attitudes as to women and minorities. Both demographics are crucial to any party winning elections.

For the ladies reading this, patronizing means talking down to...

(And thank you Jimmy Carr for that joke).

I don't know if I am more shocked from the knowledge that the GOP is 30-40 years behind in marketing techniques, or that people are upset about a standard technique that has been in use for over 30 years?

reply to post by olaru12


Doesnt seem that far off base to me.

reply to post by olaru12


That's just sexist and ignorant.

Way too many people, male and female, work on emotional levels.

He's only half right.

Just last night I had to listen to some "safety" activist go on about how a survey was wrong because it asked the question: "Are you in favor of more strict gun laws?"

See the low percentage of yeas the question got meant it was poorly worded.

The way he thought it should have been worded was: "Do you want safer towns and schools?"

Now if that isnt indicative of a emotionally focused irrational population I dont know what is.

So it is certainly sexist to say only women are emotionally motivated. A whole lot of men are too.

These people propose, write, vote on and pass laws that affect all of us everyday.

Hmmm....since I am female, and when I do vote, I vote for independent candidates and stay away from democrats or republicans like the Scarecrow stays away from fire, jerkwad politicians can "speak" to me in any fashion they deem fit. It will only make them look stupid.

For the record, men can be swayed just as easily at an emotional level. If this were not so, we wouldn't have gone into as many unwinnable wars and had so many men sign up for military service, motivated by fear and / or revenge.

I can see his point, women need at little more understanding of what you want to communicate to them. Once they get the jist of what your trying to say. It does get smoother, you see the women I know seems to want to know more about something or and Idea before they jump into anything. They think longer and harder about it.

reply to post by thisguyrighthere

These people propose, write, vote on and pass laws that affect all of us everyday.

Stop it. You are scaring me.

Well he is right. I have to ask my wife if it is alright to do something or she gets very emotionally pissed if it effects her negatively. I'm trained to ask. Fear of repercussion is an emotion.

I think that the congressional candidate is trying to get womens vote myself. Boy is he screwing up, I suppose if he has a wife he got bitched out for the stupid way he stated that. His mother would also bitch him out for being stupid. See, emotions are flying in his life, so I guess he hasn't figured how to deal with women yet. That is evident in his statement.

reply to post by olaru12

candidates were being tutored on how to speak to female voters in response to the so-called GOP “War on Women.”

Sounds like they were being taught how to lie , save face and be something other than their natural selves.

The GOP tries to shy away from their "war on women" with platitudes, condescension and patronizing.
Hellofa way to run a political party by pissing off over half of the electorate.

I listen to Rush daily and my GF's comment is always, "how can you listen to that misogynist POS"

So is the ersatz leader of the Republicans winning converts or losing them.




`www.thenation.com...#

So the message is no longer important.

It is how the message is conveyed.

M'kay.

Now one of you gals go on into the kitchen and make me a sammich!

reply to post by beezzer


Your wish is my command

Neysa
reply to post by beezzer

 

Your wish is my command

(laughing)

Ummm, not what I had in mind. . . . . . .

There is a lot of evidence woman have higher emotional intelligence on average than men, but the question is whether it's because of social conditioning or because of gender. There's evidence on either side. And of course both woman and men have equal intelligence in general tests. My intention with this post isn't to cause conflict, but to be strictly honest, as this is what I've seen over the years in my research.

Some more here:
www.independent.co.uk - The hardwired difference between male and female brains could explain why men are 'better at map reading'...
www.livescience.com - Men and Women Really Do Think Differently...

It's interesting that autism is so much more prevalent among males and it causes a vacuum in social awareness; things like identify emotion on a face. Research on woman who have autisms shows neuroanatomical 'masculinization'.

My own opinion is in the past it was beneficial to atrophy the emotional intelligence of males in favor of breeding them to be warriors and laborers. While woman tended to do less physical work and mother the children more, so they needed strong ability to identify social cues. HOwever, in our modern world these roles are a**-backwards. It's more important to have a broad array of capability today, since roles are shared more. The world today requires diverse abtitude and tolerance for change.

I think ti's good the GOP is discussing how to be more emotional around woman, since over time they may actually become more emotionally intelligent. This is a cheap shot at woman by bigots, but in the long run it will lead to good change.

It's important to never judge another man or a woman based on the research in the past on gender. For example, if the research suggests men tend to better at localized tasks like math, don't assume the woman you bump into during class is bad at math, since she may leave you in the dust on the exams and then your chance at a date is diminished as she'll be with hte man who didn't stereotype her.

(i refer to the research which shows men have 6.5 times more gray matter and since mathematics is heavily tied to gray matter regions, this suggests men might have a natural boost. But while it's true there're more men mathematicians than woman, research shows there's no significant difference between the sexes amongst accomplished mathematicians in gray matter in those brain regions necessary for the operations. There're differnet ways of interpreting it without more study.)

reply to post by Neysa


OMG Neysa, I wish I could give you a thousand stars. I was laughing so hard when I saw this.

As far as the OP goes, I think he probably needs to take a few more lessons in how to talk to women....

WhiteAlice


As far as the OP goes, I think he probably needs to take a few more lessons in how to talk to women....

I always thought that talking to women the same way I talk to men was appropriate. That means no patronizing and no phony emotional BS; Unlike the current GOP model which includes both.

What do you suggest as for lessons in how to talk to women?

olaru12

WhiteAlice


As far as the OP goes, I think he probably needs to take a few more lessons in how to talk to women....

I always thought that talking to women the same way I talk to men was appropriate. That means no patronizing and no phony emotional BS; Unlike the current GOP model which includes both.

What do you suggest as for lessons in how to talk to women?

Precisely what you said actually. Talking to either sex without patronizing or phony emotional bs. You should become their tutor, lol.