GOP Senate candidate: Women have to be talked to on an ‘emotional level’

Well we could look at this from an advertising perspective and the conclusion would be that the candidate isn't that far off.

For instance, according to this source, the emotional link isn't that far off. An ad agency claims that "Women are looking for an emotional, tactile experience when they shop..." The article continues to claim that women are surely different than men, and to get that message across, one must appeal to what is "right for their families".

That article ends on this note:
"When marketing to women, use loads of detail and emotional cues. For men, keep it simple, but show important design elements."

Furthering this claim, here is an interesting look at the effects of advertising in the realm of women vs. men.
Link:Do men and women view advertising differently?

Researchers from a 2011 study at the University of Minnesota found that, predictably, women were more attracted to nonsexual ads, while men viewed sexual ads in a more positive light. Some researchers believe that this can be attributed to men's and women's differing attitudes on sex and relationships. Men generally see sex as more casual or recreational, but women see it as related to their relationships

That notion alone speaks to the emotional attachment that women generally identify with.

While his message doesn't sit well, it isn't that far off; and I am not defending it at all.

Awww isn't that cute. The wittle baby Senate candidate thinks Women require "special" handling.

Well.. maybe if we talk real slow with lots of baby talk in there, he'll grasp the language well enough to understand how unbelievable offensive he is.

It's another crop of Todd Akins... God help us. I can't work with the Progressive/Liberal world view and I can't stomach the pure ignorance on public display by so many on the Right.

I'm a bunny without a party....

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


Interestingly, here is his quote to the question posed as "how members should talk to women..." That is from Boehner...

"Well I think you have to connect with women on an emotional level and with a wife of 25 years and an 18 year old daughter..."

What is the big deal here?!

Post Script:

After listening to the interview, the OP's stance and even source is off base. It doesn't imply what it said and it offers what I would guess (with my self included), to be how a vast majority of men speak with their wives; or the news presents a story; or how pants are advertised; or how issues regarding children in the political sphere are presented.

Also the article proclaims that the candidate says "has to"; when I have provided a transcript above in which he says "think you have to"....which clearly exhibits a personal connection to how he has dealt with his own wife and daughter.

IN THE END>>>>>>>PROPAGANDA FROM ONE SIDE

reply to post by ownbestenemy

I see your point entirely. I also see a series of several years and a few elections now where sexist or backward and outright ignorant statements from GOP candidates and office holders have served well to deliver them defeat. After a while, I think people start to make fair assumptions that patterns represent the whole.

You would think, given the fact it's been a very sensitive thing and career ender for a couple, they'd go out of their way to be extra sensitive on certain topics for what others may not take the same way.

reply to post by FissionSurplus


Good decision.

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


Indeed but no one complains when a politician appeals to the "manly" or "logical" side of an argument; when their clear target is a specific group. That is why I think 'articles' such as these, do not advance anything at all; save their own agenda.

The candidate clearly spoke to his personal relationship between he and his wife; where we are outsiders and what we believe (or assume), is irrelevant.

As it stands now, in the vast majority -- logic appeals to men and emotions appeal to women. This isn't to say that they cannot be interchanged or that it is an absolute assessment.

They should just lie & say "If you like it - you can keep it" and screw them on the back end after they get elected.

Like that other guy did...

The thing about American politics is that it's not about truth, reality or logic! Politics is about the "impression" the voters have about a candidate or party in general. Loose canons lose elections and it's not by accident that savy politicians have media professionals manicuring the image they portray for the public. Politics and the entertainment world overlap in many respects. Campaigns are scripted, rehearsed, and delivered to achieve maximum effect just like a movie. Location scouts look for great "sound bite" locations, there is a staff of hair and makeup people, wardrobe consultants, camera and sound departments as well as a writing staff. All working to make it look as natural as possible.
It was an honor and a pleasure to work on Gary Johnson's team.


That's why a dumbass remark made by a candidate can affect the elections of others in his/her party.
Sarah Palin with her folksy demeanor appealed to a narrow GOP base but made McCain look more stupid than he actually was and actually played a big part on their loss. Did the Republicans learn from that...Romney/Ryan....

reply to post by olaru12


LOL oh give me a break. Is the GOP serious with this stuff!?!?! I swear you can't make up the blunders this party makes on a daily basis! LOL