Why Would We Want a ShePAC?
Condi Rice is going to address the Republican Women's PAC, ShePAC. That there is a PAC devoted to raising money for female Republican candidates is not good news.
Why on earth would we want to support people on the basis of their gender any more than on the basis of their color? I thought that we as conservatives prioritized ideas and policies over external traits like color and gender. I thought we objected to discriminating groups like the Black Congressional Caucus. Do we now want a Women's Congressional Caucus? Do we want to support people like Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins just because they're women?
Is this who Condi is? If so, I am disappointed.
How can we stop this madness?
I would continue, but my computer has almost run out of question marks. Any answers?
- Comment (41)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (2)
Comments:
Apr '12
Re: Why Would We Want a ShePAC?
Diane Ellis, Ed.: I imagine it has a lot to do with marketing.
There are women out there who support conservative causes in the abstract, but will not financially contribute because they feel that others will. ShePAC can target this demographic of women
Agreed with women needing direct marketing. Otherwise, I have resisted them all of my career, but resistance is futile. During my MBA, the women wanted dinners and special awards, and I did not support it. Then in the business world, women's groups grew to have the largest networking events, and they sure know how to hand out the awards, which is a form of marketing of women. This year, the City of Toronto asked me to do a Women in Business event on Women's Day and I sold out and did it - sigh - for the marketing! When I say men are not allowed their groups or clubs the answer usually is, "They have their clubs, strip clubs." It is true that a LOT of business is done where there is the expected trip to the strip clubs. Canada is 70% mining and many of those guys expect an evening at "For Your Eyes Only".
Feb '12
Re: Why Would We Want a ShePAC?
Check out
http://politichicks.tv
This site sheds some light on the rationale of the women who founded it: basically to afford a home to genuinely conservative women who might otherwise side with the dems for lack of a more suitable home.
Nov '11
Re: Why Would We Want a ShePAC?
I need to think about this one.
On one hand, I do object to supporting a candidate on the basis of his or her sex.
On the other hand, men and women are different. I suppose there are things, even political things, that women might sometimes discuss more freely or more profitably or more pleasantly among themselves, apart from men. I respect that, because we men think the same about sometimes having conversation apart from women.
So I can't object to conservative women forming their own groups for women only. Men should be allowed to have their own social and political groups, too. I think it's normal and healthy for both men and women to have some associations, including political associations, that exclude the oppposite sex.
But to prefer a candidate on the basis of his or her sex is not right.
May '10
Re: Why Would We Want a ShePAC?
I think there is too much going on to get upset about this. I'll get back to this once a long list of about 100 other things are taken care of.
Aug '10
Re: Why Would We Want a ShePAC?
Maybe we should have a PAC to support the best conservative candidates, considering the poor quality of some of the recent female failures: Meg Whitman, Carly Fiorina, Sharron Angle, Christine O'Donnell.
Feb '12
Re: Why Would We Want a ShePAC?
I'm sure the people who started it had the best of intentions, but this is one of those things where you end up scratching your head and saying: "What were they thinking?" Any efforts to support people based on race or gender should not be supported.
Nov '10
Re: Why Would We Want a ShePAC?
Maggie Somavilla, I despise identity politics. Yet, back in April I found myself voting in the PA primary for my state rep based on gender. (I am xx)
A solid conservative woman who sent lots of mail ran against a solid conservative man (who came to the door in a cowboy hat. Love the shoe leather approach).
I HATE when people say they don’t know who they will vote for. Yet, there I stood in the voting booth undecided between two good Conservative candidates.
In the end, I voted for the woman. I decided it would be good to see another female face in the public Conservative body politic.
I felt strangely uncomfortable, yet considered my decision rational and logical. I felt bad about the cowboy man. I liked him as a candidate. Ultimately, I thought the party can benefit from more strong Conservative females.
Had the man been more qualified, or a stronger candidate, I would have voted for him.
I will tolerate Condi wrangling some girl power even though I recognize that it’s a high wire act.
I understand your unease with She PAC.
Sep '11
Re: Why Would We Want a ShePAC?
Mendel
Maggie Somavilla
Mendel
But raising money on the basis of the sex of the candidate plays into the hands of the "divide and conquer" or "liberal" view of politics, which is to say identify politics.
I agree that a PAC solely dedicated to supporting conservative women is an odious notion.
This does not appear to be a PAC in support of conservative women, but Republican women. This is an important distinction.
Sep '11
Re: Why Would We Want a ShePAC?
dreamlarge: Yet, there I stood in the voting booth undecided between two good Conservative candidates.
In the end, I voted for the woman. I decided it would be good to see another female face in the public Conservative body politic.
I have no quarrel with your using gender as a tie-breaker. I might do the same, and choose the minority or the woman if all else seemed equal, for the same reason. (And if we got to where our legislators were majority female, I would probably vote for the male in a tie.) But I think that situation is quite unusual.
Nov '11
Re: Why Would We Want a ShePAC?
Maggie Somavilla
Mendel
Maggie Somavilla
Mendel
But raising money on the basis of the sex of the candidate plays into the hands of the "divide and conquer" or "liberal" view of politics, which is to say identify politics.
I agree that a PAC solely dedicated to supporting conservative women is an odious notion.
This does not appear to be a PAC in support of conservativewomen, but Republicanwomen. This is an important distinction. · 11 minutes ago
Does that mean that they're supporting women in primaries just because they're women, or are they focusing on races where the Republican candidate is a woman? Their raison d'etre wasn't quite clear from the article.
May '10
Re: Why Would We Want a ShePAC?
"Turn it around"?
No- the key is to look at the real world- we free marketers analyze the market and the competition, and use the tactics that work.
In a world where those who are not of our own ideological stripe, we go after the balance-shifting independents. And if we do not counter EMILY's List under those circumstances, we are stoopid. Period.
Apr '12
Re: Why Would We Want a ShePAC?
If men and women are different and have different strengths (which I think they do, speaking very generally), and if male and female candidates can appeal differently to certain demographics (which is certainly true) then it might be beneficial at a particular time for a party to have more women in it. Does that not seem true?
I don't know whether the GOP needs more women right now, but it doesn't seem implausible. Women can "get away with" saying things men can't, and when there are more of them, it's harder to claim (which many people do believe) that the party is sexist. If more women would be beneficial, why should efforts not be made to recruit them?
Edited on June 6, 2012 at 4:30amMar '11
Re: Why Would We Want a ShePAC?
Under most circumstances I would join the chorus of anti-identity groups. However, given the treatment that conservative women are given in the main stream media, if this helps tip the scales to something resembling even treatment- than you go girls! If in time this PAC runs its course and dissolves , that is probably fine. If in the short term it provides and alternative to the condescending treatment given Mrs. Palin by Ms. Couric and Mr. Gibson, then great. I am not a big fan of Ms. Palin, but her treatment was beneath contempt.
Jun '12
Re: Why Would We Want a ShePAC?
Who could possibly complain about all that conservative hotness gathered in one place?
Oh, wait, I'm not allowed in?
Feb '11
Re: Why Would We Want a ShePAC?
Let's not get carried away by our slogans.
Fact is, women are different from men and in the aggregate bring different viewpoints and different talents. That diversity is a good thing and is to be encouraged, though not so much as to insist on artificial quotas etc.
This is different from race, once you get over the race=class fallacy. We do not need black or Latin or Asian people in the Senate, but we do need to see some Senators who have come up from poverty or who know the immigrant experience, regardless of race. (And of course Miguel Estrada could have brought some of that to the Supreme Court just as well as Sonia Sotomayor.)
On the other hand, I am suspicious of anything Condoleeza Rice supports.
Edited on June 6, 2012 at 9:22amAug '10
Re: Why Would We Want a ShePAC?
Yep.
In fact, I'd say that for conservatives, freedom of association trumps -- or ought to trump -- avoiding identity politics or the appearance of identity politics.
That men could not get away with a HePAC is unfair, yes. But how conservative is it to pretend that we can make life fair when we can't? How conservative is it to avoid freedom of association simply because life isn't fair?
Awesome name!
Sep '11
Re: Why Would We Want a ShePAC?
Midget Faded Rattlesnake
Yep.
In fact, I'd say that for conservatives, freedom of association trumps -- or ought to trump -- avoiding identity politics or the appearance of identity politics.
That men could not get away with a HePAC is unfair, yes. But how conservative is it to pretend that we can make life fair when we can't? How conservative is it to avoid freedom of association simply because life isn't fair?
Awesome name! · 33 minutes ago
Of course people should be free to associate as they wish. I guess I don´t think of a PAC as a social thing, just a fund-raising thing, and I wouldn´t want to contribute, or encourage others to contribute, to a PAC that supports all Republican women just because they are women.
Aug '10
Re: Why Would We Want a ShePAC?
Maggie Somavilla
Of course people should be free to associate as they wish. I guess I don´t think of a PAC as a social thing, just a fund-raising thing, and I wouldn´t want to contribute, or encourage others to contribute, to a PAC that supports all Republican women just because they are women.
Good point.
I should have trusted that your not wanting to support something is not the same thing as your wanting it to not exist.
After all, recognizing the difference between not supporting something and forbidding it is another important principle in conservative thought.
Perhaps I overreacted to your running out of question marks. :-)
Feb '11
Re: Why Would We Want a ShePAC?
Congratulations, your post made it to James Tarantos WSJ Best of the Web Today column under the heading "Questions Nobody Is Asking".
May '12
Re: Why Would We Want a ShePAC?
Mention by James Taranto
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303753904577450550752099134.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_MIDDLETopOpinion
Update: Sorry didn't see this was already posted.
Edited on June 7, 2012 at 5:43pm