[Vision2020] Brenda Peterson: "Why Romney Lost the Debate with Women: It's Not a Prizefight"

[Ted Moffett]

While many proclaim Romney won the presidential debate, I did not think so,
based on making fact based logical arguments as a criterion for winning.
Many of Romney's so called facts were false, which to my mind totally
discredits the arguments resulting.  Obama also stretched the truth on some
issues, as the second source here indicates: "Romney’s Successful Debate
Plan: Lying":
http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2012/10/romneys-successful-debate-plan-lying.html
"Obama vs. Romney Presidential Debate Fact-Check: Who Lied?"
http://current.com/community/93919215_obama-vs-romney-presidential-debate-fact-check-who-lied.htm

I thought this analysis pasted in below regarding why Romney's combative
debate posture might have negatively impacted female voters put into words
why I did not think Romney won, though I would not exactly say Obama won
either.  There was no winner.  Everyone loses with a so called debate of
this limited intellectual depth and integrity, with the debaters talking
past each other to score points with the public.  As the article proclaims
"This was a sports event, not an exchange of ideas affecting us all
deeply."  Note how many of those in the media, all men, proclaiming Romney
won, described the event as though it was a fight.  Give me a break!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/brenda-peterson/mitt-romney_b_1940508.html
Why Romney Lost the Debate with Women: It's Not a Prizefight Posted:
10/04/2012 5:25 pm

Brenda Peterson

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."<http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2012/09/slugfest/309063/>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<http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/debate?s=t>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 <http://www.brendapetersonbooks.com/>
------------------------------------------
Vision2020 Post: Ted Moffett
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20121005/45d2fcb2/attachment.html>