In general, I reject the idea that there are "men's issues" and "women's issues" -- as if some topics are off-limits to one gender or the other. Typically, modernly, it's men who are barred from topics that we can't possibly have an intelligent opinion on, but historically the discrimination has worked both ways. Actually, let me rephrase: I do believe there are certain areas of life that can best be handled by people of a certain gender, but since we're just talking about politics here and people of both genders get to vote, I don't think either gender should attempt to reserve certain domains as their own territory. Attempts at such labeling are generally intended to shut down debate by undermining the legitimacy of those with opposing views.
But let's look at some so-called "women's issues" and see how they may influence female voters.
"If President Bush or Senator Kerry wants to move more undecided women voters and bond more deeply with them, they have to start paying a little more attention to the issues that matter in these women's daily lives," said Meredith Wagner, executive vice president of public affairs at Lifetime Television.So there we have three things that are supposedly (according to this "expert") important to women, and by even naming these issues the expert entirely sidesteps the question of whether or not the government should be meddling in these areas at all.According to Wagner, the prevention of violence against women and the promotion of equal pay and women's health are the issues likely to impact the female vote in the presidential election.
First is "the prevention of violence against women", but is this a federal issue at all? Aren't the vast majority of violent crimes handled at the state level? Shouldn't states be concerned with preventing violence against everyone, not just women? The only real way I see for the federal government to get involved here is to more vigorously protect our Second Amendment rights, but I get the feeling that isn't what Meredith Wagner means.
Second is "the promotion of equal pay", which many would argue isn't a proper function of government at any level. Being a capitalist nation, why should the government get involved in what people are paid? As long as workers (male and female) are free to accept and reject jobs and negotiate for their wages, any action by the government will end up reducing liberty, not enhancing it.
Third is "women's health", which is generally a euphemism for abortion. Again, this may properly be an issue for the states, but if people want the federal government involved there's no guarantee that the majority (even the majority of women (except maybe old women)) would agree with those women who would use this euphemism. Those who tout "women's issues" probably wouldn't see the widespread banning of abortions-of-convenience as "women's health".
So really, what have we got? These "women's issues" look pretty irrelevant and insubstantial to me. Are these really the concepts that motivate female voters? I certainly hope not.
If anyone can think of some politlcal "men's issues" (irrelevant and insubstantial or not) I'd be very curious to see them.
Men's issues: let's start with lopsided family law that basically treats men as a source of sperm and money while at the same time denies them the legal right to have anything to do with raising their child.
Women's issues: How about all of the deadbeat dad's that caused the situation Wacky Hermit just whined about?
Women's issue (though actually, men's as well): fixing overtime laws so that people can take time off instead - or shifting hours worked from week to week. There are a lot of working moms that would like the flexibility. Time is money, it's said, and some would like to take the time.
However, it's not just a women's issue. My husband liked this time-off arrangement when he worked at American airlines (and right now, he's the stay-at-home parent). Thing is, I believe most of the restrictive laws are on the state level, but that's still politics. This fits in with your point #2. The overtime laws are actually hurting some employees who want more choice and flexibility.
Of course, the unions would never stand for this.
I think (or hope anyway) that "women's health" has more to do with subsidized birth control/condom distribution (as a device to lessen abortion/spread-of-STD's) than with abortion.
"Women's health" can also be making sure pregnant women get adequate prenatal care and support after babies are born. Infant mortality is high in certain populations, and it's not just because a bunch of older women are trying to have kids.
Men do have an interest in prenatal care, but let's face it -- when you're the one who's pregnant, you worry a little more about the medical care you need, especially if the father is going to have nothing to do with you now that you're pregnant.
I actually think equal pay is a valid issue.
The bottom line is that equal ability, skill, education, and experience between a man and a woman should translate into equal pay.
The freedom to accept and reject jobs.. as well as negotiate for wages doesn't mean anything. Yeah, I guess technically you have a choice between having a job and not having one... or yeah, I guess you have a choice between working for a wage that won't support you or your family.. and not working.
I'm not saying that the government has to get its claws deeply embedded into the issue, but something should be done.
Mark: "... something should be done." Ah, the root of tyranny and modern liberalism.
MW: Tyranny? Whatever.
The point is that it's a problem.. and something should be done about it. The solution doesn't have to come from government.
The point of identifying "women's issues" is classic tactical communism: Divide society into groups and make each group hate the others. In all the countries where communism succeeded, it was essential that the target society be fractured and confused. It doesn't matter who the groups are: workers vs capitalists, rich vs poor, young vs old, black vs white, or men vs women.
The point of the phrase "women's issues" is to imply that women have separate political goals from men, so women as a group should hate men as a group, and vice versa.
This succeeded for a while. I remember phrases like "battle of the sexes" or "war of the sexes" being very popular in the seventies and into the eighties. But they finally grew stale in the nineties. IIRC, during the Clinton campaign they tried to stoke this division with the phrase "angry white man." But it backfired with a sentiment beautifully expressed as, "That's no angry white man. That's my husband."
Despite all their efforts to break us apart, somehow the sexes came back together. Now most of the country laughs at the now-very-tired forumulation of women vs men, or women's issues.