Wednesday, April 29, 2015

Examining the Progressive Stack and Its Influence On Academia

In modern society today it would be politically incorrect to say America is exceptional, or that there is no such thing as a gender pay gap, or even my opinion that gay-marriage is an oxymoron. Someone somewhere will be offended and their offense to your ideas trumps your opinion. What you should notice the minute you or anyone you know displays a hint of these same ideas, is immediately you will be categorized within the framework of progressivism as lesser. Lesser in kindness, caring, intellectual and feeling. This framework of progressivism is founded upon the correlation of victim-hood and privilege within society. 

Using this correlation, a category is formulated by taking the details of a person, such as their sex, gender, race, and sexuality. Building upon historical, political, and anecdotal biases, people who use this way of thinking make rulings on whether or not your opinion matters within the context of what is being discussed. A great example of this is what is known as the progressive stack, performed by Occupy Wall Street protesters so that people deemed marginalized would have a chance to speak. The theory behind this stack is that those who are not marginalized (meaning those who are white, heterosexual, a young adult and male) are already encouraged by society to express themselves. Groups that have special consideration are those that include women, homosexuals, transsexuals, bi-sexual, non-whites, children, and elderly people.

So lets say I'm a young man who has something important to say regarding capitalism and its negative impact in my life. I would have to start from the bottom of the queue. If a marginalized person wants to speak I would have to be bumped down, while they get bumped up. Why would this happen? Two reasons come to mind.

Liberal groups are using progressive stacks to establish an equity of experience, in which all experiences are valued no matter the percentage of a specific category represented in society. Therefore if the group is made up of 60 percent white experiences and 40 percent non-white experiences within society, modern progressive liberalism would focus on trying to equal the percentages to either balance out both or encourage one over the other in a specific forum. This ensures an equity of experience circle, where one minute you are an oppressed group the next you are a group that is given privilege of speaking because you are actually an oppressed group that is usually never given a chance to speak, until of course this very moment.

The next theory is more cynical as it allows for people of marginalized status to speak not because there is a correlation between value of experience and marginalization but experience of a person is not valued, rather it is tolerated because they have to tolerate it. No one truly cares about person X's experience but they must let them speak because they are part of the marginalized group. So we must listen and respect a homosexual woman's opinion not because of the content of her opinion but because she is a woman and homosexual. She is different and we want to show that we respect her for being in these categories.

Feminist Alison Burtch tweet on 'progressive stack'

Both theories could be possible, although I have doubts with the second theory due to the fact that most groups emphasize the collecting and gathering of many peoples experiences for evidence. Thus if you were to give a pro-choice argument the value of a woman's experience or opinion is going to be viewed as having more value than a man. Now we could make the claim that the content of her experience is going to be ignored, but I find that her anecdotal evidence would be viewed as integral to the argument and thereby immense value. That value is determined by what she says, not only the fact that she said it. A conservative woman's opinion on abortion is not going to be viewed as valuable by those who want to promote a more progressive argument. The correlation between victim-hood and privilege brings about the belief that those who are more likely to have privilege are less likely to care as much as I do.

What does this mean for academia?  Most concepts that stem from progressivism, such as this progressive stack and diversity are learned and is not usually something people are accustomed to knowing or understanding in nature. Some say progressivism is something that is taught, not something that people readily know by way of natural (logical) thought. For example, some American children are taught to feel shame when celebrating Columbus day or Thanksgiving.
That being said it is incredibly telling when you realize that most of the Occupy Wall Street protesters were college educated. They believed the progressive stack was not only a means to support who they deem are oppressed, but rather it's a process under the banner of diversity.

Universities who want to promote diversity are likely to make judgements that are along the same lines as the progressive stack. They are using superficial categories to define what it means to be oppressed and privileged, in turn colleges make decisions that support those who they determine are oppressed, no matter the circumstance of the person they find has privilege. Beyond affirmative action, decisions like the progressive stack could imply that professors have a bias toward students who they feel are less privileged, these groups would get special consideration, topics will be aligned to this way of thinking, and hiring decisions of future professors who subscribe to progressivism could also be a result.

As someone aspiring a professorship this is troubling, not because I'm conservative, but because college is extremely lacking in the diversity of ideas, making students highly unlikely to engage in critical thinking causing them become unable to fully understand why they associate themselves with certain ideologies. This is exemplified when someone shares ideas that is viewed as not progressive they are simply labeled as racist, sexist, homophobic, Islamophobic, or any other adjective that is meant to belittle their statement. Students are not encouraged to critically analyze work they are taught to merely react to it by way of an emotional or anecdotal response. If I were to say that I disagree with the concept of gay-marriage, regardless of my reasons why I would be labeled homophobic. Now if you were to ask the student why, they can't answer that question. These students have formed a correlation which has been entrenched deeply into their way of thinking that there is this dichotomy of those with privilege and those without, and it leads to oppressing those who they feel oppress others. This correlation between victim-hood and privilege reinforces the belief that those who are more likely to have privilege are less likely to care as much as I do. The issue we find most offensive is that colleges don't challenge that assumption or oppression, rather promote what they consider to be "safe spaces" for the purposes of diversity and acceptance of those who they feel are oppressed by society in general. My next post will be devoted to the dissecting concept of "safe-spaces" and why they are detrimental to the purpose of education and intellectual diversity.

Friday, April 24, 2015

Using The Big Five to Discover the All-Natural Feminism (2/2)

Feminism, like all political ideologies, is a natural result of inherent biological traits. Due to this, I formulated a hypothesis using the Big Five psychological traits. The Big Five are used by political scientists as political indicators, so that they can determine the connection between personality and political attitudes and choices. Of course without any data specifically on specifically feminist attitudes, I hypothesize the modern typical all-natural "feminist" is one who is open to experience,  not conscientious, moderate extraversion, agreeable, and lacks emotional stability.

Looking at prominent feminists such as Diane Von Furstenberg, Hillary Clinton, Ellen Page, Lena Dunham, and Emma Watson, helps to tie together common personality traits that could be associated with this particular political ideology. Further examples include Lena Dunham saying, "Do you believe that women should be paid the same for doing the same jobs? Do you believe that women should be allowed to leave the house? Do you think that women and men both deserve equal rights? Great, then you’re a feminist." Or an even more popular example of feminist activism, when Emma Watson promoted her #HeForShe campaign in association with the UN. It makes an attempt to get more men into the modern feminist movement.

These examples along with lesser known YouTube feminist personalities like Laci Green, Claudia Boleyn, and Rebecca Watson leave me to conclude firstly that a typical feminist likes to be open to an experience. These women search out information that either promotes or questions their own beliefs, whether they internalize the any information that challenges their views is another matter entirely, but these women focus their efforts online. They use social media such as twitter and tumblr to promote their own views and search for the views of others through mainly the Internet. These women or should I say feminists are not conscientious, they are relativists in the sense that what they value is always in flux. One day they are for a woman's right to engage in sexual activity, the next they are fighting against ads that promote a woman's sexuality. Most protests seemed fueled by anger and a disgust with tradition, or as they put it, social activities or luxuries fabricated by men such as women not being legally allowed to go topless, or men spreading their legs on public transportation.

As for extraversion, I would find that those who participate in the major speaking roles of protests, or group activities (online or otherwise) are extroverted. Those who are introverted don't usually partake in group activities for extended periods of time (due to the fact that social interaction causes them to become tired). To put it bluntly I don't find extroversion to be a deciding factor in any political ideology.

On to agreeableness, which I believe this is extremely high within modern feminist ideology. Feminists, along with most ideologies that claim to be "radical" want to also be agreeable. Watch the Emma Watson #HeForShe campaign, which in my opinion was a decree that "us feminists want to be more agreeable to everyone, including men." Go to any "woman" focused news category and you will find writers enthralled with the idea that people like them, writing pieces like, "The Weight of a Woman," "Why We Need Terrible Female Engineers," or "Five Reasons to Think Twice Before Calling a Woman Crazy." Every article clings to the idea of "we care about you, so much we won't even acknowledge your flaws. We want you to like us." Most blogs and articles focused on women and women's issues use terms that reflect the inherent need to show "caring," "cooperativeness," and "kindness." Those high in agreeableness don't like conflict, which is one of the terms feminists dislike. Ever ask a feminist what would happen if there were more female world leaders? Most respond by saying less conflict and violence, and this is viewed as a positive thing.

As for emotional stability, I don't believe I can make a definitive statement regarding the emotional state of feminists, especially when there is little to no strong research on neuroticism and its role in political behavior. However it is very difficult to ignore public instances of protest that in many ways display a level of unhealthy narcissism that is not being dealt with, probably because of the "agreeableness" factor. You don't want to tell anyone in your group that they are being crazy, when in fact they are being crazy. Examples of this narcissism include the protest against equity feminist Christina Hoff Sommers, when feminists protested and pulled the fire alarm at a MRA event, or when Mat Taylor was brought to tears when he had to apologize to feminist complaints about his shirt. It is surprising that feminism does not have that great of a PR network to handle these sort of embarrassing examples, however modern feminism is an ideology not a movement, and when it is a movement it is a specific movement with specific people that no one is responsible for.

To conclude, the goal of this exercise is two fold, to promote the fact that there is a correlation between personality and political affiliation and ideology, and to selfishly explain to those who are anti-feminist that the confusion and sometimes "hatred" of feminists is unnecessary. I can't tell you how many times I have seen a YouTube video creator ask the question, "Why would s/he make that statement? Why would anyone want to be a feminist?" It's not that a person wants to be a feminist, it's that they fit the personality criteria which directly results in them accepting that ideology, and this not only goes for feminism, but all the -isms that most people cling to.

It's incredibly odd that a group (usually men's rights, or recently atheists) who promote looking into the scientific differences between men and women as the foundation of certain points (such as why men and women play different sports) decide to overlook the science that would indicate that a person's inherent, genetic, all-natural personality effects what political decisions they make. Some women and men are going to be born feminists and this is not a bad thing. Those against feminism make bold claims like "they want men to hate women," but leave it at that, never going into why they believe this to be the case from a psychological or scientific perspective. I think people, especially those who are strongly against feminism should begin to recognize and respond to the personalities that encompass this ideology, and in doing so understand their own political attitudes.

Thursday, April 23, 2015

Using The Big Five to Discover the All-Natural Feminism (1/2)

Previously, I made it known why I'm not a feminist, due to three factors, the most important one being that most feminists believe that the original Constitution is a sexist document, and I don't.  However, I wouldn't go so far as to call myself an anti-feminist, nor do I want to oppose the creation of the feminist movement in general. My reason is due to my hypothesis regarding feminist ideology. Feminism like most political identities is a natural result of a person's own inherent personality and genetic behavioral traits, and because of this it is difficult for anyone to make the assertion that this movement should just "end" or "be destroyed." You can't really ask for a natural political identity to be destroyed. It's like asking a genie for more wishes; it seems like the smart thing to do, however there are rules.

The first rule is that in order to understand political movements, such as feminism, it is imperative to understand the behaviors that encompass this political thought. Professor of political science and author of the book Personality and the Foundations of Political Behavior, Jeffery J. Mondak defined personality "as biologically influenced and an enduring psychological structure that shapes behavior." He and other psychologist emphasize the fact that these behaviors are influenced by our genetics and in turn our personality has a direct correlation on what political ideology we align with. These personality traits influence behavior and these traits are susceptible to empirical study and observation. This is the foundation of political psychology which is based on the theory that political scientists can study individuals by observing behavior in many natural settings. Usually this research leads to the construction of massive political taxonomies, which leads us to what Mondak adopted as the "Big Five" framework. The Big Five are as follows; openness to experience, conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness, and emotional stability. As a general guide for the purposes of this post, we will use the Big Five Framework to garner some idea of the natural political attitudes that encompass feminism.

Although the definition of openness to experiences has been debated, it usually includes terms such as "creative behavior, decreased loyalty to the organization, successful adjustment to international work assignments." People high in openness tend to crave experiences that will be cognitively engaging, resulting in their willingness to seek out all kinds of information whether it is incidental information or otherwise. A person who is open to experiences is predicted to be more likely to favor traditional ideological liberalism. Those who are conservative prefer "slow, cautious action, and maintains an affinity for the status quo." This link between liberalism and openness to experience have been shown by Alford and Hibbing (2007) and using their data (along with many others around the world) scientists have found there to be a positive correlation between those who are liberal and those who are open to experience, with the Democratic Party.

Conscientiousness describes the basic disposition of dependability. People who are conscientious value organization, reliability, hard work, industriousness, tradition, personal responsibility, virtue and perseverance. According to research by Jensen-Campbell and Malcolm (2007) this trait leads to "positive experiences, high quality friendships, and decreased anger, along with marital stability." People who are high in conscientiousness were more likely to vote for Bush over Kerry during the 2004 presidential elections (Barbaranelli 2007). Research also concluded that they modestly participate in civic engagement, they are less likely to be part of a non-partisan group, and find that political participation is a "extracurricular activity" rather than a duty.

Extraversion is associated with terms like "outgoing, bold, energetic and, talkative," which as we all know it does not matter which political side you are on, you will always find an extrovert. However this trait is used to determine the likelihood of general political participation and workplace organizational involvement.

Agreeableness is determined by a persons ability to be "warm, kind, sympathetic, trusting, compliant, and cooperative." This trait is difficult to ascertain due to people's natural want of social desirability, however research (Barbaranelli 2007) has found there to be a link between the effect of agreeableness on a person's support for John Kerry in the 2004 U.S. presidential election. Interestingly Mondak concludes that agreeableness shapes how individuals respond to conflict, "competition and conflict are integral features of politics... distaste many Americans exhibit toward competitive democratic processes may be exacerbated by agreeableness."

Lastly, Mondak defines emotional stability as representative of "high levels of neuroticism" and unlike the other traits, describes correlations between political attitudes and possibly personality disorders. Sadly only few have studied this relationship, however Barbaranelli found modest effects of emotional stability on those who are ideologically conservative during the 2004 U.S. presidential election.

Until there are more studies using these (and perhaps even more) biological traits, we can't be certain of the correlations between agreeableness and feminism, or conscientiousness and feminism. But we can hypothesize that the typical all-natural "feminist" is one who is open to experience,  not conscientious, moderate extraversion, agreeable, and lacks emotional stability.

My next post will be dedicated to how I formulated this hypothesis, and why I think most anti-feminists or those who disagree with feminism should focus on studying the natural behavioral roots of feminism and/or feminists, rather than what most have been doing. Which has become equivalent to ranting at a brick wall then wondering when the brick wall will stop being a brick wall and talk to them. I'm just part of the few who believe we need to understand how the brick wall was made before people decide to tear it down.

Wednesday, April 22, 2015

The New "Sins" of My Generation

Do remember the age of religious indulgences? Unless you're more than 500 years old, I would doubt it, but then again I don't want to be chided by relativists who say I can't judge anything. It was during this time that the Catholic Church was busy giving people pieces of paper that would temporarily dissolve you of sin, for a fee of course. As for the modern age, religious organizations have been ridiculed and rightly so. From selling "miracle water" to tacky "praise workout videos," Christianity is getting chastised, and most religious thinking is on its way out. Modern progressive society obviously has no need for sin. Or does it? Are there groups that, like religious archaic institutions, craft their own idea of what it means to sin? What are the new sins of my generation?

To be perfectly honest they are too numerable to count. These include political and philosophical sins like conservatism, capitalism, American exceptionalism, constitutionalism, rugged individualism, libertarianism, federalism, nationalism, and rationalism. Along with groups that support men's rights, equity feminism, and ironically even religious groups specifically those promoting concepts of sin, are found to be sinful in the new age of progressive relativism. These groups only sin seems to be the sin of speaking their mind and they all must pay the price.

What is the price? If the sin was minor, an anonymous twitter account or blogger will make note of your actions and likely whine or complain about how they care and of course you don't. If the sin was major, like Christina Hoff Sommers (author of "Who Stole Feminism?") giving a college lecture about your theories regarding equity feminism, you will get bad press and protested. Maybe a paddling? (Probably not but I can dream.)

As for the people who determine what is or is not a sin, it usually boils down to two factors. (1) Have you or have you ever been associated with anyone that does not care (see group listed above), (2) do you care as much as we do? By care progressive groups imply tolerance, while acting completely intolerant to those who they find have the most sins. How do I make this claim? Easily, I use a keyboard, silly.

A clear example of this can be found on our college campuses, where progressives would rather have superficial diversity rather than diversity of ideas. In a New Haven Register column, Jay Bergman (professor of history at CCSU) emphasizes that, "college faculties across America are overwhelmingly liberal, and their political contributions show this vividly. In 2012 96 percent of donations from Ivy League faculty went to President Obama, the remaining 4 percent to Governor Romney." In turn we find many students unable to critically analyze their own political (and social) behaviors and beliefs, and they are only being educated by those who merely reinforce liberal political theories and behaviors.

Still don't believe me? Walk into the nearest college political science classroom and ask, "What do you mean by diversity? Or how about why is America a great country?" Wait, please don't do that because I would be an accomplice to your political sin of asking too many questions that should never be answered.

Right now you are probably asking yourself, how do I resolve myself of the sins of not caring enough about women's issues, affirmative action, or global warming (climate change)? Well sinner, you either stay a sinner, or you bow down to the mighty progressive alter that is created by those who care. You start to care as much as they do. Which in most cases does not take a lot of effort. You could join an group that tweets nothing but pictures of Disney princesses gender bending to show that you care about women's portrayal in the media. How about buying a "black lives matter" shirt? You won't have to even bother going into a black neighborhood to show you care. Or how about participating in the 2015 Earth Day Concert where people cared enough to make sure most garbage cans overflowed with non-biodegradable plastics and trash?

In the modern age the indulgences of religion never truly died. It was taken by progressives, who in many cases only care to discredit those who they find disagreeable, problematic, or offensive. In a way, I wish my political sins were religious. Its easier to pray for forgiveness than get preyed upon by those who care.

Tuesday, April 21, 2015

Why I am Not a Feminist? Because I am a Constitutionalist

It should come as no surprise that most people would describe feminism as "the radical notion that women are human beings," or perhaps even reference buzzwords like "equality," "sex," "race," "class," along with the ubiquitous displays of "vagina power." What should be surprising is that many women do not consider themselves feminists at all. Only 20 percent of Americans, (23 percent of women, and 16 percent of men) consider themselves feminists, according to a HuffPost/YouGovpoll. Not to mention the tiny bubbling 8 percent of those polled were anti-feminists; usually women who hold up signs starting with the phrase "I don't need feminism because..." followed by more buzzwords like "victim hood," "man-hating," or some trivial anecdotal note about how their boyfriend treats them respectfully.
HuffPost/YouGovpoll n=1000 ± 3.5%

Most people consider themselves to be neither feminist nor anti-feminists; I just so happen to be in that category. I am not opposed to women forming groups to tackle what they believe are important issues directly related to their gender. I'm usually opposed to their reasoning, their historical foundation, and their attempt to redefine language to suit a specific narrative. I mean say that the term "girl" is oppressive to women in general seems a bit of a stretch, but I guess that is just one way to end the Patriarchy.

As for why I'm not a feminist, I would cite American political scientist specializing in the Constitution, Robert A. Goldwin's essay "Why Blacks, Women & Jews are Not Mentioned in the Constitution" for influencing my decision. During the late 1980s there were some citizens who denounced celebrating the Constitution of the United States, because in their eyes the original Constitution was shameful, or in modern terms, problematic. Goldwin then goes on to explain how and/or why the original Constitution is not problematic, even when it lacked the 13th and 19th Amendment.

In contrast, feminism makes the claim that women were specifically left out of the Constitution, and that the 19th Amendment was necessary in giving women the right to vote. In order to be a feminist you must believe that the original Constitution was a sexist document, and that is something I refuse to do. Goldwin would agree because "women have always been included in all of the constitutional protection provided to all persons, fully and equally, without any basis in the text for discrimination on the basis of sex." Women were included for the purposes of representation due to the phrases found in Article I, section 2, clause 3, "the whole number of free persons" and were taxed along with Native Americans as "all other persons."

Many Feminists will be unconvinced stating that by not mentioning women in the Constitution specifically gives more privileges to men. That is completely ridiculous. If the original Constitution was sexist then it would specifically and frequently use male pronouns. It does not and more importantly it uses non-sexist language such as "citizens," "members," "electors," "officers," "representatives," "inhabitants," and "persons." Yes, I know that pronouns such as "he" "his" and "himself" are also in the original text, but these pronouns are rightly viewed as generic or neutral. Therefore, according to Goldwin, "there is not a single noun or adjective that denotes sex."

Still feminists would make the claim that laws were written for men, by men, about men, however this is also untrue. As an example Goldwin mentions Article IV, section 2, clause 2, in which "a person charged with a crime who flees from justice is found in another state shall be delivered up on demand of the governor of the State from which he fled..." No reasonable person would believe that the he mentioned in the clause means that only men and not women are going to be considered fugitives. The Fifth Amendment states that "no person... shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself." I guess this would mean that women like former IRS official Lois Lerner could have not plead the 5th when called to testify about IRS supposedly targeting conservative groups, but she did, and no language was changed in the Constitution in direct response to this act.
As for the foundations of feminism themselves, which are based in the suffrage movement and the ratification of the 19th Amendment, I find that this was not as necessary as feminists would like us to believe. Women have voted on an "equal basis with men for the first time anywhere in the U.S. in 1869 in the Wyoming Territory." By 1914 ten more states were added to this list. Therefore we can conclude that the suffragettes were fighting the Federal government to firmly secure the vote for women, when all these groups really needed to do was petition the states, because according to the original Constitution women already had the right to vote. The problem was that certain states did not recognize this right. 

On that note, why did the suffragettes want to vote in the first place? What were they claiming that they could provide the nation by their vote? Suffragettes believed that women, being that they are different, would bring their experience as mothers, care-givers, female workers, to the voting booth. So the founding feminists believed that women have "reproductive power" that makes them have an inherently different but vital voice. Some would say this kind of thinking is sexist, but that would be problematic, so I'll just move on.

If you are still unconvinced that the 19th Amendment was unnecessary (or at least not as necessary as what feminists would propose) then answer this, after the ratification of the 19th Amendment was any text in the original Constitution changed or amended? It does not, and was not intended to amend anything, and as Goldwin says, "the barriers to voting by women had always been in the state constitutions or laws."

I can't be a feminist, because that would mean that I would have to believe (1) the original Constitution is a sexist document, (2) the foundations of feminism and the 19th Amendment were necessary, and moreover I would have to ignore (3) that feminism established the dangerous precedent that the Federal government should step when the going gets tough. When I need free birth control and tampons, or more abortion clinics, or funding for women crisis centers, I just need to protest the Federal government and they are obligated to help me. Feminism; the radical idea that in-group bias is the perfect means for equality and fairness.

Monday, April 20, 2015

Are You Ready for a Female President? Depends on In-Group Bias

Are you ready for a female president? I highly doubt you would say no, not because you find it to be the popular answer, but because you are psychologically prone to use in-group bias, especially if you are a woman. Unless of course you are Ayn Rand, who famously said she would never vote for a woman president, but you are not, and in the modern political landscape a statement like that would be viewed as intolerant, sexist, and perhaps even immoral (for what that is worth).

As for the numbers, according to U.S. News out of 800 people polled "75 percent think the country will elect one in 2016," and "49 percent of voters say they would be more engaged in the 2016 election if a woman throws her hat into the ring." 92 percent of people polled in a CBS News poll said they would vote for a woman for president if she was qualified. This fact alone could determine who has the most to gain when pursuing the presidential election, specifically Hillary Clinton.

What is most telling, and what is not being explained, is why do we believe that a woman decidedly entering the presidential arena would actually effect anything? "Anything" for the purposes of this discussion is going to be defined as "issues that effect women." To be fair, I don't believe that there is ever an issue political or moral that effects merely women, but as for most women, they do. Usually they believe that if a woman were to be in political office, this elected official would best represent them. How does anyone in any way know this? President Obama promised many things, such as closing Guantanamo Bay, expand child and dependent care credit, and sign the employee Free Choice Act; promises he broke. What makes us so sure that if Hillary Clinton were to be a crusader for the modern women and women's issues, that she would also make promises she cannot keep? Well, because the Hillary campaign told me so.

I am not here to assume that this is not the case with the Hillary Clinton campaign; I know this is the case for the Hillary Clinton campaign. It works to the campaign's favor that people (especially young people) focus on diversity and the fact that she is a woman, or should I say a champion for women, by women, and about women. Don't believe me? Check out this video:

As much as I would love to dissect the Hillary campaign on policy, it would be more prudent to ask why is it that women (specifically) believe that a woman would best represent them? The answer lies within the biological framework of in-group bias, or the concept of favoring one's in-group members and shunning those who are considered in the out-group. Women are biologically and psychologically more prone to like women than men.  It's the "women are wonderful" effect, and political representation is a clear example of that. A fairly interesting example is a Gallup poll during the 2012 Presidential election, entitled "Women in Swing States Have Gender Specific Priorities." Women were asked, "What do you consider the most important issue for women this election?" and 39% of women stated "abortion." Yes, that is correct, abortion. Not jobs, not the economy, not education, not even equal rights/pay/opportunity. What does this mean?

It means that when you ask a woman to answer a question as a woman they answer the only way they know how, through stereotypes of other women. Notice it is not what they consider to be the most important issue this election (that would have actually been helpful,) but instead decided to ask "as a woman what are other women thinking about issues." As a result we are left with a "women's issue." Although this poll did not indicate what issue the person polled truly important, it is a poll that helps those who want to define women voters by way of merely "women's issues." Which, let's face it, are the most important issues to women (at least if I were to take the Democratic Party's word for it).

The sad part is that women don't make it difficult at all and embrace the idea of "a woman can do no wrong," and if you question that bumper sticker mentality you will end up in the out-group. An out-group that will be ignored, trivialized, and ridiculed by the Hillary Campaign and their allies, and for good reason. I mean, think about it, we need a woman, because... diversity? Forgive me if I don't believe that gender and race are important factors in my personal decision of political representation. I guess I will have do my best to think as a woman from now on.