July 15, 2014

"Men do tend to talk about things on a much higher level."

"Many of my male colleagues, when they go to the House floor, you know, they’ve got some pie chart or graph behind them and they’re talking about trillions of dollars and how, you know, the debt is awful and, you know, we all agree with that... we need our male colleagues to understand that if you can bring it down to a woman's level and what everything that she is balancing in her life — that’s the way to go."

103 comments:

Levi Starks said...

I didn't get it.
I think it must be above my level.

Ignorance is Bliss said...

They need to do more mansplaining.

EDH said...

Had she said men tend to talk about policy on a more "abstract" or "impersonal" level instead of a "higher" level, would all be forgiven?

That's the problem with trying to co-opt the Democrat's "women approach economics differently because they are the ones who manage the household on a practical, day-to-day basis" meme.

Rule #1: In your rhetoric, in explaining any gender differences, you may not even seemingly elevate men one iota; it must incorporate an implicit put down of men.

Krumhorn said...

I think she was saying 'don't offend the sensibilities of those listening from their fence-squatting perch of cruel neutrality'.

But that would have been above their level.

Wymin! Gotta love 'em, or turn gay.

-Krumhorn

Moose said...

Ann-can-you-understand-this?

Carol said...

This made it down to the state convention level. As reported by our county chair, it made absolutely no sense... Women are not single issue voters!1! Have a special Women's Outreach! That's the ticket. The whole thing was embarrassingly stupid.

It will all come down to the usual Women's Day BS, with special breakouts on health & beauty issues. Then they'll have us "covered" and can move on to serious stuff.

broomhandle said...

It may be tone-deaf but it's also perfectly valid. As Althouse has demonstrated numerous times.

I get that it won't win elections but I love the honesty of it, and the idea that honesty is stupid, explains exactly how we got in the mess we are in today.

Moose said...

...of course - this also sounds like a very convenient hard to confirm sound bite. Just sayin'...

Anonymous said...

Terrible Reading Comprehension Guy says:

By not commenting on this quote we all know exactly what Althouse is saying. Savvy, Professor, savvy.

Tom Gallagher said...

This would have been helpful to Ferdinand Marcos while explaining to his wife why 730 pairs of shoes were enough.

Eric the Fruit Bat said...

Say what you will about Rep. Ellmers, of all those in the U.S. Congress, she'd be my first choice to catheterize me.

Gahrie said...

A fairly innocuous comment, expressing a favorable thought about women (Republicans need to be more responsive to their issues) will be seized upon by the Left and the Media (but I repeat myself)to paint the Republicans as women haters. It is the same old tired tactic that was used against Romney. (Somehow his comment expressing his intention to hire women for his administration became an attack on women.) If no one had said anything that could be twisted in this way, the Left would have just lied anyway, like Reid and Pelosi do on a regular basis. (Did we ever get any evidence that someone really spit on those Congressmen?)

The saddest aspect of this? It works.

Repeal the 19th Amendment.

SomeoneHasToSayIt said...


If you've ever considering voting for someone because they have a dazzling smile, please stay home on Election Day.

The Crack Emcee said...

Rules For Making American Politics Better:

Speak english - plainly.

Tell the truth.

Stop playing "gotcha!"

Stop trying to get away with something,...

Dust Bunny Queen said...

They need to do more mansplaining.

Having been in "sales" in most of my life and for the last 20 years, before retirement, as a financial planner and investment counselor, I know that you have to be able to explain things in a way that people of ALL levels of sophistication and comprehension can "get it".

Some people are more logical and number oriented. Others are more visual or swayed by emotion. Analogies and imagery are often great tools to reach that latter group, which in my experience was women and liberals.

You can use numbers, statistics and charts with some people. The engineer types LOVE that kind of stuff. With other people you need to approach concepts from an entirely different angle. That doesn't mean bringing it 'down'. It is just that people comprehend and see things in different ways.

She is right in that the Republicans tend to try to stick to the facts....which I appreciate....however, they really DO need to try to 'sell' their concepts to those whose eyes will glaze over when given abstract facts and figures. They need to come up with some analogies that will grab the emotionally oriented. That isn't lying or distorting....just good salesmanship.

Nonapod said...

My man-brain may not have parsed this information stream correctly but I think she's saying that in order to get more women voters, Republicans have to become more patronizing?

AustinRoth said...

So, it is OK to dumb down the conversation when talking to/about women??

Sebastian said...

She/they forgot the Althouse rule that differences between men and women must be presented in a way that favors women.

khesanh0802 said...

Belaboring the obvious. I am really surprised that Ann bothered with this.

Krumhorn said...

Unfortunately....and I mean this with the greatest sincerity...elections cannot be won by making the conservative case to women such as those who participate in this blog. Not to exclude anyone, but the Freeman Hunt minting plant is woefully under-producing in comparison to the swarms of idiots who routinely can be expected to vote for the person who is promising to (i) extinguish their school debt, (ii) give them an Obamaphone, pay for their abortions or (iv) all of it.

In other words, pie charts and graphs and appeals to personal responsibility won't cut it. Populist fantasy, however, will.

And then we can get started on the beta males like Garage, Frederson and Robert Cook who have been bred in abundance with mommy issues.

- Krumhorn

jimbino said...

Simple syllogism:

1. Familiarity with charts and graphs is essential to understanding government finances and economic planning.

2. Familiarity with charts and graphs is gained exclusively in STEM and economics studies.

3. Women are woefully underrepresented in STEM and economics studies.

ERGO

4. Women are less able than men to understand government finance and economic planning.

Unfortunately, logic is another one of those important things covered primarily in STEM and economics studies.

Ann Althouse said...

It's not that stupid if you think of "higher" as: higher level of abstraction.

Either way, charts with statistics or photo of sad children, it's a matter of making an emotional connection.

Bruce Hayden said...

Some people are more logical and number oriented. Others are more visual or swayed by emotion. Analogies and imagery are often great tools to reach that latter group, which in my experience was women and liberals.

Don't think that there is much you can do with a lot of the liberals or progressives. They have adopted that philosophy either out of gross naivety, or, if they are politicians, mostly out of expediency and self-interest. Though, I do have some how for a lot of the Jews I know, drowning right now in the cognitive dissonance of supporting Obama, while his policies have thrown gasoline on the fires of the Middle East, and a lot of missiles to rein down on their beloved Israel.

She is right in that the Republicans tend to try to stick to the facts....which I appreciate....however, they really DO need to try to 'sell' their concepts to those whose eyes will glaze over when given abstract facts and figures. They need to come up with some analogies that will grab the emotionally oriented. That isn't lying or distorting....just good salesmanship.

I agree with DBQ there - and we should have people who are good at that. Unfortunately, I haven't seen all that much good emotional Republican advertising in recent years.

It is still not going to be easy. Some have suggested that women are more likely to respond to kitchen table type arguments. But, I think that is mostly when they have families, and a lot of those are already voting Republican. For them, you can talk taxes, and how that effects take home pay, rising prices, etc. But, I doubt that the Julias respond to that sort of appeal. They have been told by Obama that they don't need to get married to have a kid, and that Uncle Sam will take care of them instead. For the most part, they aren't worried about the deficit, rising prices, foreign danger, etc., but mostly just what Uncle Sugar will provide for them. Until they have the family to take care of, all they really worry about is themselves. And, they are the real target for the War on Women.

Ann Althouse said...

@jimbino

Oh, guys who get off on pie charts don't necessarily understand them anymore than gals who love kids understand kids.

It's an emotional connection.

machine said...

"...that the Republicans tend to try to stick to the facts..."

PFTTT!!!

that was a good one, thx.

AustinRoth said...

charts with statistics or photo of sad children, it's a matter of making an emotional connection.

What? Are you really trying to make the case that pie charts have an 'emotional connection' aspect, similar to seeing sad children?

I don't know whether to write this off to your being an academic, a woman, or both, but as for myself, I use pie charts to make numbers easier to digest, not to make people tear up.

I can honestly say in 30+ years in business, not once has someone come up after a presentation involving pie charts and said, 'That pie chart really, really touched my heart.'

Michael K said...

"Repeal the 19th Amendment."

Too late. Now that TV determines who wins elections and The View determines who wins on TV, it's over.

Paul said...

Huh?

Are they saying to dumb down the conversation so women can understand it?

How pitiful this Renee Ellmers says that.

So we need more touche-feelie and less stats and logic?

Ok, I can see the idea of trying to relate the arguments to what a person already knows but to say women think only of 'household budgets' is,well, condensing.

Michael K said...

"guys who get off on pie charts "

Do you know who invented pie charts ?

Florence Nightingale . Woman have lost intelligence since then.

MaxedOutMama said...

Many women also talk about things on a higher level. I suspect that the speaker is extrapolating her own mentality to women at large in a way that is not justifiable.

However, "women's" organizations that TREAT women at large as these pathetically limited creatures may in fact be training modern "liberated" women to be the fainting-couch-bound must-be-protected hothouse creatures that were once the fantasy of traditional societies.

The more things change ...

Matthew Sablan said...

*headdesk*

Though, I get what they're saying, if we removed the genderness from it.

Basically: I care.

Ignorance is Bliss said...

Either way, charts with statistics or photo of sad children, it's a matter of making an emotional connection.

While there is certainly some of that going on, it is not the only thing going on.

With a chart, someone is making a claim about the data. If I think the claim is relevant to the issue, I can ( and often do ) look up the data behind the chart to see if it is being portrayed honestly and accurately. ( It often isn't. ) This helps me become a better informed voter.

With sad children all you have is emotion.

Birches said...

I love how Dems can be patronizing to women by implying they are incapable of paying for their own birth control, but a Republican woman says "higher level" and all hell breaks loose.

Matthew Sablan said...

"This chart shows the percentage of GDP we pay in interest. Each $1 million is represented by a sad puppy."

St. George said...

Seventeen trillion, five hundred and ninety-eight billion, one hundred and ninety six million, eight hundred and eighty eight thousand, eight hundred and twenty eight dollars. And fifty eight cents.

$ 1 7 , 5 9 8 , 1 9 6 , 8 8 8 , 8 2 8 . 5 8

That's the national debt as of 11:37 a.m. EST today, according to the National Debt Clock.

Oh, wait...."The actual liabilities of the federal government—including Social Security, Medicare, and federal employees' future retirement benefits—already exceed $86.8 trillion, or 550% of GDP." This according to Chris Cox, former SEC chairman.

Have a nice day!!!!

Oso Negro said...

Yeah, well. If only we can make the emotional connection to the idea that not doing stupid shit out of tender-hearted sentimentality is good, then we will be getting somewhere. You know, for the kids.

St. George said...

Also, "Chris" Cox is a man and a Republican!

john said...

Ann Althouse said...Either way, charts with statistics or photo of sad children, it's a matter of making an emotional connection.

It is also possible for men to have an emotional connection to pie charts.

Ann Althouse said...

"With a chart, someone is making a claim about the data. If I think the claim is relevant to the issue, I can ( and often do ) look up the data behind the chart to see if it is being portrayed honestly and accurately. ( It often isn't. ) This helps me become a better informed voter."

If you do those extra things, it's a different matter, but my point is the chart with its numbers gives and is intended to give a feeling of confidence that something is being demonstrated with facts.

If you won't see my point, I will have to beat it into your head with a... hockey stick.

Tank said...



Matthew Sablan said...

"This chart shows the percentage of GDP we pay in interest. Each $1 million is represented by a sad puppy."


Ah, the old puppy chart con.

phx said...

but a Republican woman says "higher level" and all hell breaks loose.

I have pie charts that show she actually said "bring it down to a woman's level." My touchie feelie feelings tell me that's a l-i-t-t-l-e patronizing, but maybe your manly GOP reasoning tells you it's an electoral winner.

Paul said...

"
Oh, guys who get off on pie charts don't necessarily understand them anymore than gals who love kids understand kids.

It's an emotional connection."

One of the stupidest things I've seen here. And there's a lot of competition for that honor.

Only a foolish woman would imagine a man would have an emotional connection to a pie chart.

Paul said...

"If you do those extra things, it's a different matter, but my point is the chart with its numbers gives and is intended to give a feeling of confidence that something is being demonstrated with facts."

A feeling of confidence! See right there is the female brain's inability to comprehend a man's thought process. We don't process this a as a FEELING of confidence. We process it as quick way to register and analyze data. There is no feeling involved, unless the data represents a concern or threat but that is a separate issue.

SomeoneHasToSayIt said...


Pie charts should automatically make an emotional connect with women.

I mean, come on - it's pie!

Now, get in the kitchen and make us men some.

Nonapod said...

but my point is the chart with its numbers gives and is intended to give a feeling of confidence that something is being demonstrated with facts.

True. Understanding the facts of a problem is the first step to coming up with a solution to it (assuming that's your goal). Some of the emotionality involved is the feeling of satisfaction that comes with that understanding.

MathMom said...

That is the advice given by Michelle Obama to Barack Obama before a debate with Hillary. "Barack," she interjected, "Feel -- don't think!"

I ask, how has "not thinking" been working out for the country? One of the Maine Sisters (don't want to Bing for it at the moment) was thrilled that she was able to cut something like $2 billion from the debt, which is in the trillions. The inability to fathom how tiny $2 billion is against that mountain of debt is what comes from "feeling".

jr565 said...

So women are just dumb?

jr565 said...

The problem with this is you either do your pitch with the facts or the emotion. The facts would ostensibly be shown by the graphs and charts. While the emotions are appeals like "war on women". Is she saying men should make it less about facts and more about emotion?

Unknown said...

"numbers gives and is intended to give a feeling of confidence that something is being demonstrated with facts."

Graphs and charts are simply a way to condense numbers into a visual form to see order, division (and/or relative rank), and trends. A chart with numbers is not intended to and does not give a feeling of confidence (unless you are Ross Peroit or Glenn Beck), it just gives facts. The facts may be incorrect or correct, may be important or not important to a specific thesis. The facts are not feelings. The interpretation of the numbers, another matter entirely. Substituting a chart for a coherent statement about a problem or issue is a good way to lose an audience. Substituting facts for an argument is a good way to lose an argument. It's like an incomplete syllogism: A=C, therefore A=B.

The GOP used to be pretty good at marshaling facts into a rationale for action. They're still pretty good about collecting and displaying facts, just lost the connection to the action half. The Democratic party used to be good at extrapolating facts into consequences that have emotional appeal, they've somehow learned that they can get away with leaving off the facts part. Maybe not just leaving of the facts; my particular hobby horse, if you get to make the meaning of words whatever you want then truth can be whatever you claim it to be. If you're there first, it's like getting to name a new continent -- you own the definition. Homosexual, gay. Abortion, choice. Abortion, health. Gay marriage, human right. Illegal immigrant, undocumented worker. Minimum wage, living wage. Some radio station used to run Kennedy's soliloquy from the Bork hearing and it was for me a pretty perfect example of what the Dems were becoming/have become. Skip the facts, come to the conclusion.

The place a syllogism usually breaks down is the premise, the facts; if the equality/truth is relative, then you get to "prove" pretty much whatever you want.

"Robert Bork's America is a land in which women would be forced into back-alley abortions, blacks would sit at segregated lunch counters, rogue police could break down citizens' doors in midnight raids, schoolchildren could not be taught about evolution, writers and artists could be censored at the whim of the Government, and the doors of the Federal courts would be shut on the fingers of millions of citizens."

None of it was literally true, but it didn't matter.

jacksonjay said...

Hockey stick! Ha! I see what you did there. Denier!

Sebastian said...

One premise of this thread is wrong: the supposed gender gap is (also) a marriage gap. Republicans have been communicating with married white women pretty well.

Communication is overrated. People vote their interests and values. Singles want more from government, so they vote for Democrats who will give it to them.

The trick for Republicans is to persuade more singles that they (and the country) can get more from less: more growth, freedom, education, security, from less government, bureaucracy, redistribution, regulation, and debt.

Tall order. Some communication skills required after all.


HoodlumDoodlum said...

Wait, so the speaker is in part saying Repubs shouldn't mansplain, and tht position is tagged as stupid by someone who's against mansplaining? I..I don't understand.

My memory's not great but I think Prof. A. has in the past argued that men need to work harder at arguing in the way that will best appeal to woemn. The speaker here seems to be saying something similar. But she's from the stupid party. So, yeah.

Henry said...

A pie chart?

Ms. Oblivious is impressed with pie charts?

Good god. We're doomed.

jacksonjay said...


Woman have lost intelligence since then.

It must be all this lady parts talk. Hell, I think I'm getting vagina envy.
Or is it vulva envy?
I'm so confused.

Henry said...

Not too long ago one of our project managers was presenting a competitive analysis to the rest of the team.

He paused on one slide showing a competitor's web site. "Good product. They need to lose the pie chart."

Pie charts are the essence of dumbed down. It's almost impossible make numbers dumber than a pie chart.

traditionalguy said...

Talking down to women was a traditional male privilege.

Being the man meant never having to admit to a woman that you are wrong and she is right...if women would just see the world from the the heights from which we see it, then they could be right...well maybe just "lucky this time."

This is the derived sub-rule from,"The boss man is always right," and it's famous co-rule#2.

Larry J said...

If you do those extra things, it's a different matter, but my point is the chart with its numbers gives and is intended to give a feeling of confidence that something is being demonstrated with facts.

If you won't see my point, I will have to beat it into your head with a... hockey stick.


Numbers don't lie but liars can figure. There are countless ways to lie using numbers and charts.

Heather said...

I'm of two minds about this. First the Republicans trust us with facts and expect us to make rational decisions based off of said facts. I hate the idea that my sex needs to have their primate brain massaged in order make a choice.

The second is I want to win elections. I pay 1000 dollars more in medical bills a month because our insurance was cut to avoid ACA taxes. At the same time my incomes taxes went up as well.

If it takes going the emotional road to show how bad these ideas are just do it. Show how our taxes help mostly government employees leaving the poor just enough with a side of bitterness and the kind of hope that only comes from a lottery ticket. I say bring out the kids who lost their doctors. Bring out the families who are struggling because regulation are killing their industries. Bring out the teens and 20 somethings who can't find jobs that are being fill by illegal-immigrants working below minimum wage. Show how the fat cat movie stars live while sheltering their income from taxes.

Don't talk about doing it, just do it.

Alex said...

Don't worry your purdy little head. Just get back in the kitchen and make us some sammiches woman!

Henry said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Henry said...

@Michael K. Technically, Nightingale's Rose is not a pie chart. It's a polar area diagram.

It's an innovative and historically important example of data visualization, but somewhat confusing from a design perspective. What Nightingale actually did was plot a histogram on a radial axis. There's some debate whether the area or radial length of each wedge is proportional to the data.

In an analysis I did with a colleague, we argued that the data maps to radial length (https://web.archive.org/web/20080213023619/http://dd.dynamicdiagrams.com/ - and scroll down). Social Historian Hugh Small argues that the data maps to area (http://www.florence-nightingale-avenging-angel.co.uk/?p=462).

tim in vermont said...

" you may not even seemingly elevate men one iota; it must incorporate an implicit put down of men."

I think the word you are looking for is "smidgen."

Michael said...

The Republicans do not understand the Kardashians or The Real Housewives and Democrats do. The Dems have observed, rightly, that the American public is stupid as shit and that the female branch is easily tricked and/or entertained. The Republicans do not put their ideas on tattoos and the Democrats do.

When a civilization collapses it does so rather quickly at the end. And we are very near the end of the good run we have had as a nation and as a culture.

tim in vermont said...

"Either way, charts with statistics or photo of sad children, it's a matter of making an emotional connection."

It would be pretty easy to make an emotional connection by bringing up the horrific consequences of unbridled deficit spending and hyperinflation. Just look at Venezuela now, employing Cuban snipers to kill protesters who are angry because their families are hungry.

The problem is that it takes math to get from reckless spending (just making everybody happy) to hyperinflation (everybody ends up miserable), and a smidgen of historical knowledge to confirm the calculations.

It will be an interesting experiment to see how our nation fares guided by "emotional connections" and leader's good looks. My bet, eventual economic devastation and a strong man savior who figures a good old fashioned war will solve everything. And we will get there all with the best of intentions.

furious_a said...

Making a connection -- Rep Ellmers is correct.

The Republican sweep of 1994 was made possible not by the failure of Hillary!care or renting out the Lincoln bedroom or "Red" Bones commodities brokering but by the ordinary kind of chiseling and fraud (Barbara Boxer's check-kiting and Dan Rostenkowski's stamp swindling) that resonated with not-politicaliy-engaged folks.

One has to engage the not-engaged on issues that they care about, not in issues that one wants them to care about. It's alot harder to get people to care c(their eyes will glaze over) than it is to change their minds.

tim in vermont said...

"but maybe your manly GOP reasoning tells you it's an electoral winner."

No. We freely admit that trusting women with facts and abstract logic is a losing strategy.

So how have all the other democracies throughout history that decided the major policy issues based on feelings, pants creases, and dazzling smiles of the leaders turned out?

Europe may have a point in going "post-democratic," but mainly they got their because they know their left wing ideas are electoral poison.

David said...

This chick needs a safe district. Very very safe,

n.n said...

While there are gender-related biases, collective caricatures obfuscate the often nuanced differences. As for level of abstraction, most people, male and female, are detail rather than concept oriented. This may be a bias of nature, but it may also be a bias of nurture (e.g. encouragement) or circumstance (e.g. priorities).

Robert Cook said...

"Show how our taxes help mostly government employees...."

How do our taxes help "mostly government employees?"

"Bring out the families who are struggling because regulation are killing their industries."

Hardly. If anything, regulations--meant to insure companies provide their workers with safe and healthy work environments and that they do not poison the environment, as well as to protect consumers from shoddy or dangerous products, unfair pricing schemes, fraud,etc.--are too-little or too-lightly enforced. Jobs are disappearing because they are being automated out of existence or sent overseas, where benefits are low or nonexistent and wages are a fraction of what is considered a living wage here. Jobs are being cut here not to save companies from financial distress, for the most part, but to make successful, rich companies even MORE rich!

"Bring out the teens and 20 somethings who can't find jobs that are being fill by illegal-immigrants working below minimum wage."

Oh? Are teens and 20-somethings looking to be migrant farm workers, day laborers or nannies? Rather, well-paying jobs are disappearing, (see above), so poor paying jobs are being filled by Americans who can't find anything better. Fast food restaurants and big box stores such as Wal-Mart are not employing illegal immigrants.

"Show how the fat cat movie stars live while sheltering their income from taxes."

More to the point, show how the fat cat bankers, financiers, corporate CEOs and CFOs and other high-level executives live while sheltering their income from taxes, as well as while they are killing jobs here, begging for government handouts to "save them" (their companies) from insolvency while continuing to give themselves multi-million dollar annual bonuses, (on top of their multi-million dollar salaries), etc.

Bob Ellison said...

What if women are smarter than men?

That would be a question worth considering and studying.

Revenant said...

It is amusing to me that when people talk about "the gender gap" in party voting, they never mean "the Democratic Party needs to do more to attract male votes".

But the idea that a group of a few hundred people can have a low-level discussion of the needs of 320 million people? That's comedy gold. There isn't enough time in a Congressional term to even learn the names of the people a Congressman "represents" -- let alone learn what their needs are.

Original Mike said...

"If you won't see my point, I will have to beat it into your head with a... fraudulent hockey stick."

Amended your post.

n.n said...

I think the more influential character difference, which explains their strong Democrat preference, especially among single women, is dissociation of risk.

Original Mike said...

Well, it is a fact that women put us in this mess.

PB Reader said...

Don't you just love it when someone admits they are dumb but don't realize it?

Dust Bunny Queen said...

The problem with this is you either do your pitch with the facts or the emotion.

Not true. It isn't an either or proposition. You can do both at the same time, or you can make two separate presentations. One to appeal to the math/fact/logical oriented person and another to appeal to the emotional/feeling/visual person.

I did it all the time, when presenting portfolio concepts and making recommendations to couples. You present the facts and get one person (usually the male but not always) on board with the hard numbers, then you pivot and explain the benefits in a less "just the facts ma'am" manner and give emotional pictures of the benefits or of the bad things that could happen if my recommendations weren't followed.

You have to judge your clients and be ready to pivot on a dime when you see you are losing one or the other of the parties. You also need to see who the decision maker is in reality. Often it is NOT the facts and figures 'guy' and you must play to both sides without alienating the other.

It is just salesmanship 101. The Republicans need to get a lesson.

Anonymous said...

Who knew machines could be so timid?

traditionalguy said...

On Fox news Megyn Kelly show last night she interviewed a Republican politician guest who is the definition of male stupidity.

He blew the last Missouri Senate race by arguing a catch-22 higher truth that rape should not be an abortion law exception because women who are honestly raped are too stressed out to conceive a child from rapist sperm, thus implying that it is only pregnant liars who were not raped that use the exception.

Kelly gave the idiot three chances to admit he was wrong to ever have seen an old wives tale trumped the medical issues.

She was brought up up a new study that stress made it harder for a woman to become pregnant. But instead of admitting he was only semi correct and overstated the womens dangers from rapist sperm, Todd Akins went into a long spiel that people just could not see he never said what he said, although he was and still is right.

Men must be stupid to become one way Kamikase Pilots to save the Emperor of their own always being right.

paul a'barge said...

Letting women vote was a horrendous mistake.

Titus said...

Pie Charts are actually really fucking old school.

Now it is all about "data visualizations"

Face it, that woman representative from redneckville is a dumb bitch.

Republican women are always the dumbest....and have that big hair made up preacher's wife look....and from the taker south natch.

richard mcenroe said...

Yeah, that Nineteenth Amendment was pretty much a mistake, as any viewing of daytime TV today should prove...

sdharms said...

Holy Crap! she really said that? If the women are not smart enough to understand then maybe they shouldnt vote.

garage mahal said...

"Letting women vote was a horrendous mistake"

Why oh why do women hate the GOP? What could it be? They must be fucking stupid or something!

Unknown said...

".@SenWarren: Remember the government shutdown? That was started by a GOP effort to let employers deny workers access to birth control."

I missed one of the newer Dem Defs -- health care, birth control

n.n said...

I wonder if a man or woman is more likely to exploit euphemisms to rationalize their choice.

n.n said...

Actually, "higher level", greater abstraction, may be a bad thing. Abortion was normalized through a progressive abstraction of human life. It was exploited to dehumanize individuals and promote a disconnect between human life and its evolution as a clump of cells, fetus, etc.

Perhaps the character difference is not principally gender related, but between different interests which may exhibit a gender or ideological bias. It's not as if there aren't also many pro-choice males.

Original Mike said...

".@SenWarren: Remember the government shutdown? That was started by a GOP effort to let employers deny workers access to birth control."

God, politics has become depressing.

rcommal said...

I wonder about the difference in perception if words such as visceral or passionate were to be used.

chillblaine said...

They're not just 'unfunded liabilities.' They represent a promise we have made to our children. And it is bigger than the economy of the whole world.

It's not just a deficit of eighteen trillion dollars. Its money that we have already borrowed and will have to pay back someday. And if we don't grow faster than three percent, the interest alone will consume our children's aspirations.

And it's not a fetus. It is an unborn human being, which is endowed with civil rights.

rcommal said...

FWIW, I think that "data-driven" is often a misnomer.

rcommal said...

An eternal question: What counts as an emotion? More, what counts as emotional?

What attributes, what concepts, what abstractions [and not]?

I wonder.

EMD said...

Marketing: What Republicans aren't good at.

I've often thought of creating a marketing/advertising consultancy aimed specifically at Republican politicians. I think I could make some serious money.

libertariansafetyguy said...

In change leadership, we talk a lot about the concept that while people are psychological, they tend to be psycho before they are logical. That means people who accept a change or new idea tend to learn a truth that helps them feel something differently before the learn a fact that helps them think about something differently. And this means being to answer two questions - what's in this for me? And do I actually have the ability to change. Politicians ask us to change all the time. But rarely do they deal with the emotional resistance to change - they want to barrel right through it - hence, Obamacare. Does that make sense?

rcommal said...

If you do those extra things, it's a different matter, but my point is the chart with its numbers gives and is intended to give a feeling of confidence that something is being demonstrated with facts.

The point is...exactly on point.

That said, I'm more interested in those who do the extra things. There are few who do that, and this has been ever so (even as so many so who have not done so continue to self-righteously, ignorantly attack those who have bothered to make the effort).

Sayin' so, I do.

Goju said...

There are lies, damn lies and then there are statistics.

Todd said...

Robert Cook said...
"Show how our taxes help mostly government employees...."

How do our taxes help "mostly government employees?"

"Bring out the families who are struggling because regulation are killing their industries."

Hardly. If anything, regulations--meant to insure companies provide their workers with safe and healthy work environments and that they do not poison the environment, as well as to protect consumers from shoddy or dangerous products, unfair pricing schemes, fraud,etc.--are too-little or too-lightly enforced. Jobs are disappearing because they are being automated out of existence or sent overseas, where benefits are low or nonexistent and wages are a fraction of what is considered a living wage here. Jobs are being cut here not to save companies from financial distress, for the most part, but to make successful, rich companies even MORE rich!

"Bring out the teens and 20 somethings who can't find jobs that are being fill by illegal-immigrants working below minimum wage."

Oh? Are teens and 20-somethings looking to be migrant farm workers, day laborers or nannies? Rather, well-paying jobs are disappearing, (see above), so poor paying jobs are being filled by Americans who can't find anything better. Fast food restaurants and big box stores such as Wal-Mart are not employing illegal immigrants.

"Show how the fat cat movie stars live while sheltering their income from taxes."

More to the point, show how the fat cat bankers, financiers, corporate CEOs and CFOs and other high-level executives live while sheltering their income from taxes, as well as while they are killing jobs here, begging for government handouts to "save them" (their companies) from insolvency while continuing to give themselves multi-million dollar annual bonuses, (on top of their multi-million dollar salaries), etc.
7/15/14, 1:17 PM


Robert, that is a whole lot of funny right there! Regulations don't kill jobs? Regulations cost money and that money has to come from somewhere. Mo regulation is free. When costs go up in order to comply with regulations that means that either prices have to go up or wages down and/or less folks hired. Some regulations are necessary for the protection of consumers but we are a long, long way from that minimal level of regulation.

Tired of "fat cats" hording all of the money while little kittens starve? Stop voting Dem and stop voting Repub. Vote Tea Party. Smaller government, more focused on its core responsibilities per the Constitution will cost less and waste less and allow more people to keep more of their money to spend it like they want, not how the government things it should be spent.

Robert Cook said...

Todd,

I don't vote Republican or Democrat (any longer), but I certainly won't vote Tea Party, which is just the lunatic fringe of the Republican Party, (and is financed by the same oligarchs who finance politicians in the two major parties).

Todd said...

Robert Cook said...
Todd,

I don't vote Republican or Democrat (any longer), but I certainly won't vote Tea Party, which is just the lunatic fringe of the Republican Party, (and is financed by the same oligarchs who finance politicians in the two major parties).
7/16/14, 8:17 AM


So if I might enquire, what do you vote? Green? Communist? Not at all? Or do you vote for "individuals" and they mostly just happen to be on the dem ticket?

EMD said...

Cook is still looking for his comrade "Eugene V. Debs" on the ballot. ; )

Original Mike said...

"I don't vote Republican or Democrat (any longer), but I certainly won't vote Tea Party, which is just the lunatic fringe of the Republican Party,"

What makes them lunatic?

Robert Cook said...

Todd,

I try to find acceptable third party candidates that I can with good conscience support. Usually these will be Green Party candidates, but I vote for the candidate and not for the party.

Todd said...

Original Mike said...
"I don't vote Republican or Democrat (any longer), but I certainly won't vote Tea Party, which is just the lunatic fringe of the Republican Party,"

What makes them lunatic?
7/16/14, 10:05 AM


Likely a whole bunch of stuff that is not true, like they are racist and that they spat on congressmen and hate "fags" and stuff.

When you talk to anyone that says they "hate" the Tea Party, it is usually for a whole bunch of stuff that they are not because it is hard to argue against a group that wants the government to ONLY do what it is required to do and nothing else. That wants a smaller, fiscally sane government. Because everyone is generally for that until they find out their pet hand-out is not part of what the government is supposed to do.

Original Mike said...

"Likely a whole bunch of stuff that is not true"

Yeah, that's what I wanted to find out.