RSS

How women voters became the kingmakers

08 Nov

From Crikey.

Barack Obama won 55% of the female vote, meaning it was women who decided this year’s presidential election. Politicians who refuse to take women’s concerns and freedoms seriously are now on notice.

I suspect it may be dawning on a few white men as I write this that giving women the vote was a seriously bad idea.

Suddenly the constituency that used to rule the world — because they ruled America — are getting a sense of just what it feels like to be a minority group. And I don’t think they like it much.

According to numbers that are being crunched as I write, Barack Obama outpolled Mitt Romney in every group except older white men. Based on these admittedly preliminary figures, the President won 55% of the female vote, 93% of the African American vote and 71% of the Latino vote. He also outpolled Romney in every age group up to 45 and won the votes of most Americans who live in cities.

But if these early figures are correct, it is women who have really decided this election. That’s because they are 53% of the population, while blacks are 13%, Latinos 10% and Asians 3%. Even younger people only add up to 46% of the American population.

(read more – it’s good writing and worth a read)

“Barack Obama outpolled Mitt Romney in every group except older white men” and  “in every age group up to 45”.  If you read other related articles you’ll read that “America is not the America it used to be.  If there were only white voters, Romney would have won.” While older white men have every right to hold an opinion they are on notice that opinion is no longer the .

Yes, America has changed, and so has the LCA.  The writing is on the wall: “Politicians who refuse to take women’s concerns and freedoms seriously are now on notice.”  Ignore women at your peril.

Even the trick of old white men who bus retired clergy to vote against women’s ordination at LCA Pastors’ Conferences will not stop women’s voice being heard.

The ridiculous thing is that once women are ordained most people will come to value the wise, compassionate, pastoral care that women give.  If other churches’ experience is anything to go by, the stories of apology will begin like this, “I used to be against women’s ordination, but then …”

Leave us a comment.  Let us know what your thoughts are.

Advertisements
 
 

Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

8 responses to “How women voters became the kingmakers

  1. Wally

    November 9, 2012 at 5:14 pm

    I just wish you wouldn’t write like this. Make what you will of figures and draw what political outlook you like, but truth is still important. “Even the trick of old white men who bus retired clergy to vote against women’s ordination at LCA Pastors’ Conferences will not stop women’s voice being heard.” – that assertion is both disgusting and wrong! Why do you stoop to this low level? I have drawn attention to this gutter level before and yet it continues. Please, please! You should be utterly ashamed of yourselves writing in this fashion. There is nothing Christian about this at all. This is what by-passing Scripture is all about – and now you must surely know that President Mike Semmler was right in his statement to that effect.

     
    • Katie and Martin

      November 9, 2012 at 7:50 pm

      Are you unaware of it having happened?!! Ask Pr John Kleinig. Hey, Wally, you better check your facts before embarking on moralistic condemnation.

       
      • Wally

        November 10, 2012 at 2:52 am

        My “moralistic condemnation (??)” is in respect of the manner of your writing. If you wish to state that retired pastors came to the conference for vote on that question – and maybe just for the vote – that is fine, because it did happen. Of course, retired pastors came – as is there constitutional right. But the fact that Pastor X may have picked up retired Pastor Y does not give you the right to make such a slanderous statement as you have made. I am not aware of how it particularly happened, but then, I do not keep tabs of who brings who to a conference. If there were buses driven by old white men picking up retired clergy to take them to the conference, you may come a little closer towards such a description, but even if that were the case, the insinuation of your description remains as I have described it.

        Seriously, you need to get rid of the vitriole and snide undertones that so seriously infect your blogging, and worse so because you hide behind anonymity. It is not whistle blowing – it is attacking. How about speaking the truth in love?

         
        • Katie and Martin

          November 10, 2012 at 3:27 am

          Hmm. Which version to believe?
          1. “that assertion is both disgusting and wrong! … I have drawn attention to this gutter level before and yet it continues. Please, please! You should be utterly ashamed of yourselves writing in this fashion.”
          2. “Of course, retired pastors came – as is there constitutional right. But the fact that Pastor X may have picked up retired Pastor Y does not give you the right to make such a slanderous statement as you have made… If there were buses driven by old white men picking up retired clergy to take them to the conference, you may come a little closer towards such a description, but even if that were the case, the insinuation of your description remains as I have described it.”

          Okay, Wally, which should we believe? “That assertion is both disgusting and wrong”, or “Old white men were bused in to vote.” Perhaps they’re both true. Here’s the truth in love, Wally: It is less than ethical to bus in emeriti to vote on particular issues.

          Here’s more truth in love: the anti-WO clergy are recognised by College of Presidents as having behaved poorly in the debate. This letter didn’t do them much credit. https://katieandmartin.wordpress.com/?s=Kleinig Basically he was caught out and required to apologise.

          Wally, we’re open to conversation, not to the implication that you’re stance is more Christian than another.

           
          • Wally

            November 10, 2012 at 6:50 pm

            1) I made it clear: retired pastors DID attend, as is their right. Therefore, there is nothing unethical about such attendance.
            2) I haven’t found anywhere the words: “Old white men were bused in to vote” other than in your blogging. There is no reference to it by Dr Kleinig that I can find.
            3) More than happy to stand by my criticism – it is the manner of your description that is so disgusting and wrong, and indeed slanderous, because it implies intent that is not there.
            4) I don’t know the origin of the statement: “anti-WO clergy are recognised by College of Presidents as having behaved poorly in the debate”. All I know is that I remember an email post the debate in 2000 which was surely poor behaviour – written at the Synod, which in itself acknowledged that it was so bad that it could not be sent on the LCAi list, yet on that list it appeared! And, it wasn’t from “anti-WO clergy”.

             
          • Katie and Martin

            November 10, 2012 at 8:09 pm

            Just saying that some emeritus arrived simply for the women’s ordination vote and then left, which does seem less than ethical. ‘Disgusting and wrong’? I think so.

             
  2. Wally

    November 10, 2012 at 10:06 pm

    I am pleased that you have now moderated your language and stepped back from your insinuation that there were old white men driving buses around to pick up retired clergy, because that never happened.

     

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

 
%d bloggers like this: