A curious little strategy to increase the campaign funds of the two major political parties….
I recently received two letters, one from the Democratic National Campaign Committee and the other from the Republican National Campaign Committee. Both letters were seeking a contribution from me toward their Campaign War Chests. The Democratic Campaign Committee letter was designed as a negotiable check for a small amount (not insultingly small — just less than $50.00). It was indeed negotiable, and I cashed it, although they were seeking a donation of equal or greater amount and the return of the check, instead. (I will send them a contribution in September. They deserve it.)
The check from the Republican National Campaign Committee, however, was for a slightly greater amount, but it had on its face a fine print caveat — the check was not negotiable, but was for demonstration purpose — a “visual tool” — a suggested contribution of $40.00. Worthless…!! (And presumptive on their part.)
Very obviously, both these political organizations recognize the value of women (in some way or another)— and neither of them is beyond making a strategic play to get donations from women to further their political ends. However, where they differ is in their assumptions about how they should approach a woman to request a political contribution, based on their underlying assumptions of what a woman’s value is — what her level of political and commercial awareness or sophistication is, and how receptive (or gullible) she might be, as a result.
Nineteenth century misogynistic men (who thought of their women as objects and tools for their entertainment, and their social achievements), were accustomed to using their women as trophy wives. They thought nothing of asking (or demanding) that their wives take care of all the household chores, cook the meals, keep the kids quiet and out of their way as they went about wheeling and dealing with the commercial world of other men — money management, and achieving social victories that raised their status among the men they dealt with, and increased their wealth. Their wives (and their mistresses) were expected to do what they were told, keep the kids out of their home office, and keep their mouths shut. (As an aside, women were not expected to have lovers or “misters” (ahmm… as opposed to mistresses). That clearly was not allowed! (Thus the rising number of divorces, because women felt they were being cheated of their fair share of fun, and they were!)
Their women were NOT expected to enter politics — in fact there was quite a sizeable social backlash when their women got thoroughly tired of being treated as maids and “women of pleasure” with the added nuance of a gold band on their finger to help them feel better about their lot in life (which was no “Lot” at all, but rather quite a miniscule “lot”).
Single women who might be considering a future as a “pampered” wife to a successful or politically powerful conservative man these days still needs to be aware that this attitude by some men is no less disrespectful and diminutive of a woman’s worth now than it was back in the 1900s. As demonstrated by the assumptions that the Republican and the Democratic Party’s Campaign Chairs made in asking for donations. However, in the Democratic Party Chairman’s defense, I must repeat that they did, at least offer up a genuine negotiable payment in exchange for a donation of equal or greater value — thus not insulting my intelligence as a woman.
However! I must declare that any woman who gives up her independence and her self-respect to a Republican man (most of them are conservatives, are they not) or a powerful man with commercial ties who is seeking advancement among his peers (and thus looking for a trophy wife to accompany him and enhance his powerful commercial or political image) is stepping into a life that will not be psychologically rewarding to her, and may well stifle her own achievements, and she will ultimately succumb to her status as an object in his world, or end up in a divorce, or possibly end up an abused victim (possibly a dead one, at that).
There is a reason that there are so many stories in the news media about women who have gone missing, or are found dead, possibly mutilated, or beaten within an inch of their lives. Some men are atavistic — meaning that, while they are born in This Century, they were raised with the values and the attitudes of the Last Century by fathers, or grandfathers, or they were influenced by friends and associates who still feel that women are “trophies” — objects of beauty and charm, (the lucky ones) but nevertheless still objects — TOOLS, actually!
This is not a new story in the life experiences of women. We’ve been “trophy wives” for centuries. Only in this century has there been a social movement by women to throw off the shackles of pampered pets and social slaves. We women need to remember this and deal with it accordingly. In the same way that our men are socially acclimated to their roles as the leaders of our society, and the Heads of our households, and thus “programmed” with the understanding — the blueprint — that they are “in charge”, in “control” of not only their own lives, but the life of whatever woman agrees to “hook up” with them. That is why men so often control the finances in their marriage, and make the decisions about what house to buy, where to live, what vacation location they take their wives/families to, etc.
That curious little letter I received from the Republican National Committee with a (bogus) check for $40 in it, and a plea for a donation of $40 (or more) to fund their war chest to save Donald Trump from what will probably become his fate (as our ex-president next year), where the check was marked as a promotional piece on its front (in fine print) was a real revelation for me.
Why was it a revelation? Because it was the second such letter I received, after the generous letter from the Democratic National Committee letter, which contained a Real Check — one which I cashed (notwithstanding that they were hoping I would send it back with a matching donation). At the very minimum, the DNCC did not insult my intelligence by sending me a cheesy fake check, along with a letter where — and this “takes the cake” — the Republican National Campaign Committee had told me that the Democratic Party was making tons of money from campaign contributions, and so they had to “catch up” (basically).
Now why would Democrats be pouring money into our Democratic Campaign, do you think? (Assuming the DNCC is “making tons of money from campaign contributions.)
Could it be that (1) we are totally fed up with Donald Trump, for obvious reasons, or (2) that we are feeling more generous toward our political party, or (3) we received a respectful request for financial assistance to help win the war against Authoritarian Control of our Nation and our peoples by a president who is not the kind of man we want to see running our country, or…
4) A Republican campaign letter that was both insulting and incredibly presumptive to expect that women who receive their letter wouldn’t “get it” — would not understand that we’ve been insulted, and then expect us to fork over our contributions like blind sheep?
I suspect the Republican National Campaign Committee did not send their dunning letters to the men in their political stable! That is the difference between the Republican Party’s opinion of the “use of women” and the Democratic Party’s recognition of the “value of women”.