As the blogosphere proclaims Governor Romney the winner of the first debate, I believe that he actually lost stature and huge points with women -- and the already considerable gender gap will widen even more. Romney's masculine skills were on full display, but his feminine skills were sorely lacking.
The pundits loudly credit Romney for his combative style, his aggressive, in-your-face energy and his hyper-attack mode. They applaud these debate tactics as if this was not a presidential debate, but a bloody prizefight. In fact, the September issue of The Atlantic magazine ran a cover story, "Slugfest: Obama vs. Romney." On the cover, Romney and Obama jab in prizefighter gear: Slugging it out, sweat flying, Romney lands a knockout punch to President Obama's jaw. Is this what our uncivil union has come to -- a prizefight?
This prizefight metaphor was also much in display in the pre-debate coverage. As I switched between MSNBC, CNN and FOX, the debate was framed as two candidates stepping into the Big Ring for a political brawl. And when it was over, the pundits, mostly white males, proclaimed Romney's "big win." But there is always a her-story behind the his-story. And this was evident in the feminine response.
The women I spoke with who watched the debate were dismayed by Romney's rude interruptions, his high-handed dismissal of the venerable PBS moderator, Jim Lehrer, his turning away from the audience -- who should be his primary focus -- to fix his feisty attention all on President Obama. While Obama calmly addressed the audience and moderator and the world audience, Romney was riveted on Obama as if he were the only person in the room. This is the way a predator focuses on prey. It's not the behavior of someone seeking to serve and heal a country divided. This was a sports event, not an exchange of ideas affecting us all deeply.
Romney's fervent goal of seizing the presidency was evident in his body language, his snobbish smirks, his false sympathy for those of us "crushed" in the middle class -- those 47 percent he so contemptuously dismissed when he was among his rich cronies. Romney's combative dogfight stance may impress men or those who have held power so long they assume it belongs to them. But women, or anyone who has been in an underclass or faced racism, read this behavior as arrogant and overly aggressive -- the language and habit of dominance.
We've had bosses, fathers, boyfriends and co-workers like Romney who invade our space, try to dominate every discussion and see every encounter as a chance to "win," rather than dialogue. It's the old patriarchal model that women have endured for way too long. And we can end its reign. How many women would choose to go to a prizefight over a community meeting to solve real, difficult issues that affect our lives? How many women prefer a president who is considerate, calm and thoughtful as opposed to an aggressor who is intent on seizing the prize-- whether that's a person or a country?
Romney's pugilism may play well to pundits' ringside. But many women are weary of angry, entitled white men controlling our bodies and our workplaces. The prizefight is not our focus. Our future is. We can choose to continue supporting a president who was raised by a strong, thoughtful mother. She taught him to listen, to dialogue, to be gracious and always consider the people he serves. Romney is perfect as a corporate raider and billionaire. For that he needs to be fighting for a prize, to be relentless, pushy, compassionless and feverishly ambitious to get to the top. To qualify for a job as the leader of this country, he must learn to listen, to share his wealth, to practice diplomacy and most of all to be steady and calm when making world-altering decisions. Pugnacious pugilist? Yes. But Presidential? No.
We already have a president who has distinguished himself by using both his masculine strengths -- respected Commander-in-chief, firm foreign policy, steadily dismantling of Al Qaeda and finally killing bin Laden -- and his feminine skills -- diplomacy, cooperation, seeking equal footing and health care for all, especially our children.
As we look toward the next debates we can ask for more than a prizefight. We need respectful debates of ideas. Remember, the definitions of "debate" according to dictionary.com includes:
3. deliberation, consideration
4. archaic. Strife; contention
In the first debate, we've chosen to applaud the patriarchal, old-style, "archaic strife and contention." That prizefight is over. Now can we please focus on the "deliberation and consideration?" Because our country doesn't need a prizefighter. We need a president. And we all win with a civil discourse, a civil union.
Brenda Peterson is the author of 17 books, including Duck and Cover, a New York Times "Notable Book of the Year" and I Want to Be Left Behind, which was named as a "Top Ten Best Non-Fiction Book of the Year" by The Christian Science Monitor. Her journalism has appeared in The New York Times, Utne Reader, and Oprah Magazine. Her new book is The Drowning World. For more: www.BrendaPetersonBooks.com
RELATED: WOMEN REACT TO THE FIRST PRESIDENTIAL DEBATE
Follow Brenda Peterson on Twitter: www.twitter.com/BrendaSPeterson
Among general voters polled, it's tighter, 51 Obama and 47 Romney. Can we please get some poll numbers state-by-state that show us women voters and their trends? This gender gap is such a huge story and I'm still astonished it is not being well covered. It is a huge story.
85% of anti choice activists are men.
If all women refused abortions in all circumstances, there would BE no anti choice movement as it would be unnecessary to remove a choice from women that they ever exercised.
Anyone have more information on this gender election issue or can you point me in that direction? Thanks so much for all of you who have been reading and posting and commenting.
As I see it, the problem is two-fold. First is our history of assigning qualities and roles associated with the "masculine" drive only to males and their opposites only to females, while denying both sexes opportunities to develop their fuller inheritance. Repressing either drive hurts everyone.
Second, over the last 5,000 years we've been so obsessed over the drive for self-preservation and made so much progress as a result, that males and females alike have been conditioned to see its qualities as somehow "superior" to those associated with the drive for species-preservation. This blinds us to the connection between our psychological one-sidedness and the terrible problems it has caused.
Our inner divisiveness is the true reason for the frightening and dangerous outer-world symptoms plagueing us today. Blaming, fighting and resisting otherness (whether disowned qualities, people, ideals, beliefs or nations) will never solve our problems. Ms Peterson's conclusion that "we all win with a civil discourse, a civil union" is psychologically and spiritually sound. Each of us can contribute to the healing of our nation by committing to healing the divides in ourselves.
Jean Raffa, Author
Healing the Sacred Divide
President Obama is a senior Professor of Law and knows how to prosecute a case. To respond to Governor Romney, he would have had to interrupt Romney's lies, bullying and aggressive behaviour, which would have insulted our intelligence to discern what Gov. Romney was saying and protraying; and would have created a distraction for most of us. The President of the United States of America presented himself like a proper statesman. I expect you will see more of that persona in future debates.
Romney has a disturbing knack for in-your-face offense, which is truly offensive: his British Olympics gaffe, his smiling threat to fire PBS’s gentleman-reporter Jim Lehrer. It was a naked power play. It telegraphed, “I’m in control here, Mr Lehrer." It was ugly, not strong; rude, not diplomatic, grasping not a mature statesman.
I’m still astonished at how many people believe this kind of insensitive behavior represents our country. We are a better, more mature, and certainly more gracious America than this. The huge response to my commentary signals that the women (and many men) in this country are looking for a 21st century leader who can navigate us with far-sighted and diplomatic manners in a volatile world—not someone like Romney who believes that fighting and dominating and “winning” are all that matters. We do not need an escalator; we need a negotiator.
What a fabulous description of Romney's campaign, as well. Naked and blind ambition without substance or depth is what we saw on display in Romney's debate. Why reward that with our nation's highest office?
the way Romnulanman did at the debate, i would probably disown him.
Thanks for this lovely comment!
N Korea only exists because the Chinese want to keep a buffer between themselves and US troops stationed in S Korea. Most N Koreans are subsistence farmers. If the N Koreans ever became a credible threat to anyone militarily, the Chinese are in a position to crush them and the N Koreans know it.
The best way to fight jihadists is with low intensity JSOC troops and drones, not with $200 million planes. It's a relatively cheap war in comparison.
it is illogical to continue spending such massive amounts on defense (and Romney proposes spending more) while investing so little in America. Taking $100 Billion from the $1.2 Trillion national security budget, we could cover an entire year's worth of student loans. Wouldn't that be a better investment in our country's future than dropping smart bombs on rocks in Afghanistan at $250,000 a piece?