If They Only Listened to Us: What Women Voters Want Politicians to Hear (Hardcover)

~ (Author)
Key Phrases: Barbara Ann, John Kerry, Mount Carmel (more...)

Editorial Reviews

From Publishers Weekly

Puzzled by why traditionally Democrat women switched camps and voted for George Bush in the 2004 election, Henneberger, a contributing editor at Newsweek, set out to identify divisive issues among women. Traveling around the country, she talked with a random sample of 234 ordinary women in 20 states—both blue and red. The result is a compelling and surprising look at what most sways women's votes. In 2006, 51% of voters were female; yet, with the exception of professionals trying to juggle motherhood and careers, average women are not asked their opinions on what they consider to be pivotal issues—abortion, religion and gay marriage, among others. While many profess to be Democrats at heart, numerous women switched sides during the presidential election because of just a single issue, even when they agreed with the Democrats on everything else. Even extremely anti-Bush Katrina victims say they won't hold Bush's ineffectiveness against his party, and they will vote for the candidate who supports their belief on the most critical matters. With political campaigning beginning earlier than ever and elections won by the narrowest of margins, politicians on both sides would do well to heed Henneberger's message that for the average woman, all issues are not created equal; candidates would do well to listen to the voices she recounts. (May)
Copyright © Reed Business Information, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

From Booklist

Journalist Henneberger traveled the nation to ask women what mattered to them and examined those heartfelt concerns against the political issues more often trotted out by candidates. What she found was that women's opinions did not match the neatly labeled conventional wisdoms of the gender gap or soccer moms. Henneberger visited childhood girlfriends, with her twin daughters in tow, in her hometown of Mount Carmel, Illinois; she talked to women who had survived Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans; black women in Milwaukee; Catholic women in Denver. She heard a broad range of opinions from a cross section of American women, but what she mostly heard was how glad these women were to have someone listen to them talk about the important concerns of the day, including the war, economics, sex, and religion. Putting journalism aside, Henneberger offers a close-up look at the opinions of 234 women in 12 states, keeping the statistics and political analysis for the footnotes. An absorbing collection. Vanessa Bush
Copyright © American Library Association. All rights reserved

See all Editorial Reviews

Product Details

• Hardcover: 240 pages
• Publisher: Simon & Schuster (May 1, 2007)
• Language: English
• ISBN-10: 0743278968
• ISBN-13: 978-0743278966
• Product Dimensions: 9.3 x 6.1 x 0.9 inches
• Shipping Weight: 13.6 ounces (View shipping rates and policies)
• Average Customer Review: 4.0 out of 5 stars  See all reviews (7 customer reviews)
• Amazon.com Sales Rank: #996,606 in Books (See Bestsellers in Books)

Customer Reviews

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

7 of 8 people found the following review helpful:

4.0 out of 5 stars Puzzling... very puzzling, June 24, 2007

By	Ace (East Coast) - See all my reviews

Amazon Verified Purchase

This book is not something you can breeze through. It is an absorbing (albeit, in a few places, due to sentence structure, a perplexing) "read".

I applaud Ms. Henneberger for her relentless pursuit of answers from one end of the nation to the other.

The feminists back in the early 1900's tried to convince others that giving women the vote would make this world a kinder, gentler place. Maybe it has. But judging from what I read in this book, some of the answers these 21st Century women gave to Ms Henneberger gave me the impression of a jigsaw puzzle with pieces that DID NOT fit. It appeared to me that those who professed themselves to be Democrats and Republicans were fragmented, and in some cases, vaccillating from one cause to another. Did I see much compassion or a genuine desire to help others reach out to others or help unify without disrespecting others' opinions? I don't think so.

Will any solidarity ever come from these opinions? Will anything ever get accomplished with these seemingly fragmented attitudes? I think one sentence (p 205) sums up much of what is expressed throughout this book - "...most of us know just about exactly as much as we want to know, and then act accordingly."

The impression I got was that many of the more affluent women were more interested in material things - money, jobs, status -- than in genuinely caring for what happens to others less fortunate, or to the environment. The woman who said (paraphrased in my words) that if the environment was supposed to suffer, maybe that was the way it had to be ..... was NOT someone I'd ever want to see running for ANY office - had she ever gone camping and had her way totally blocked by thousands of shards of glass from broken bottles next to her favorite mountain stream?? Did she ever enjoy the refreshing breezes, and birdsong from the forest across the way from her home and then see the devastation wrought by ONE bulldozer in only two days, turning that forest into a mudfield, and smell the refreshing breezes turning into polluted air??? However, her opinions are revisited at the end of the book, and.... .

When Ms. Henneberger interviews the (formerly) homeless women, women who endured the bare bones of existence and struggled to get to where they were now in a government-run program with its good and bad points -- these women speak volumes, realistically -- about their wants, needs and opinions borne from harsh experience. I listened more to what those women were saying, because they had risen from the ground up, maintaining their dignity in the face of medical-aid cuts and other challenges that the other, more affluent women intervied by Ms. Henneberger barely touched upon. Those same down-to-earth observations were also prevalent in the striking steelworkers and others who had lost their jobs in Monroe County, as well as the four enlisted women who had seen combat duty.

As for the more affluent women, their opinions appeared to be more linear, and less all-encompassing -- what kind of experience were some of these women speaking from - Daycare? Housework? Chauffering kids to and from school and practice? Corporate Cubicles?

What next? Now that this book has been published, read and discussed, will it eventually be shelved in with other dusty tomes? What changes will come of Ms. Henneberger's research? Will these women and their opinions be revisited a few years down the line (and if so, will there be a bit more attention given to the opinions of Gay women as well)??

Who will benefit from this book? What is being done to let other women AND men (and, of course, our elected officials) know what women voters really think? What is being done by those women who were interviewed, to help assuage some of the more glaring problems such as homelessness, injustice and poverty???

It was, nonetheless, refreshing to see that children are becoming more involved in political expression.

However, if this book presents -- from a structured sampling -- the consensus of varying opinions by women voters today -- then perhaps we need some Bella Abzug and/or Elizabeth Cady Stanton clones to add not only their spark to this rhetoric, but also constructive ACTION that speaks much louder than opinions.

7 of 10 people found the following review helpful:

3.0 out of 5 stars What Women Want?, July 9, 2007

By	C. Rudder "Political Scientist" (USA) - See all my reviews (REAL NAME)

In endorsing John Kerry over George W. Bush for President in 2004, The Economist slyly suggested the choice was between the incoherent and the incompetent. Elections in general tend to be a matter of "choosing between the disastrous and the unpalatable," John Kenneth Galbraith wrote President Kennedy in 1962.

To judge from Melinda Henneberger's book, If They Only Listened to Us: What Women Voters Want Politicians to Hear, this lesson is lost on many Americans who feel that their meager electoral fare is served up by unheeding politicians. Women, in particular, think their preferences are ignored by Democrats in particular, says Henneberger, a columnist for the Catholic opinion journal Commonweal and a regular contributor to the online magazine Slate. It is arresting to hear that politicians in the U.S. pay too little attention to public opinion, not to mention that the Democrats' problem is that the party does not attract enough women.

Based on the amount of space she gives to abortion politics, Henneberger especially wants the Democratic Party to be more responsive to women who oppose abortion. Twice she quotes interviewee Kelly Dore saying, "I'm with the Democrats on ninety percent of the issues. But if you're pro-life, they don't even want you." (pp. 10 and 137)

Moderate your position on abortion and maybe gay rights, Henneberger implies, and you Democrats will have regained a reliable majority of the American voting public. She ignores that such a policy shift might seem calamitous to many other women, not to mention men, who currently vote for Democrats. Henneberger cites the success of Pennsylvania's Senator Bob Casey, Jr., an anti-abortion Democrat as proof that Casey's position on abortion points the way to dominance over the Republicans.

The premise of Henneberger's book is weakened by the fact that women already vote disproportionately for Democrats compared with men, as the phrase "the gender gap" connotes. This finding is breezily acknowledged but largely ignored by Henneberger who believes that more women would vote for the Dems if they would "only listen."

Henneberger did listen. Using what survey researchers call a purposive sample, as opposed to a statistically random one, she called on friends, relatives, and friends of friends in selected U.S. cities and towns and listened to what these women, singly and in groups, had to say. To a degree, she seems to have found what she expected to find, concern that Democrats insist on abortion as a right. Still, because Henneberger is a perceptive journalist, her report on her travels around the country is worth a quick read, particularly for the pleasure of meeting some of the people with whom she talks.

Henneberger introduces the reader to a series of inspirational women, and one man John George of Blight Busters in Detroit, who are initiators and performers of good work. In New Orleans, the reader encounters Anne Milling of Women of the Storm and Becky Zaheri of Katrina Krew helping to rebuild New Orleans physically and spiritually. In Florence, Arizona, Victoria Lopez of the Immigrant and Refugee Rights Project untiringly provides legal services to undocumented immigrants in a federal detention facility of the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, formerly known as the Immigration and Naturalization Service.

Not only have these activists not given up on politics, they aren't waiting to be "listened to." The difference between an Anne Milling and the "us" in the title of the book is that Milling understands what it means to live in a free country. She knows the "free" does not refer to a costless passivity that waits for someone else to fix what's wrong and to ask for "our" approval. Better to see freedom as the nation's openness to political activism, initiative, and voluntarism. A Victoria Lopez sees a crying need and responds with her heart and soul. The "us" waits for someone to listen.

Generalizing from Henneberger's interviews to the wider universe of American women is problematic. It is surprising that such issues as the distorting role of money in politics, spying on American citizens by the National Security Agency, torture of suspected "enemy combatants," or the suspension of habeas corpus play little or no role in the narrative. ("Torture" is mentioned three times in the book, all in reference to abortion.) These missing links may be attributable to the sample, to Henneberger's selective listening, or to a general lack of concern by the respondents about matters that impinge on the health of American democracy.

Despite the limitations of the purposive sample, in-depth probing can reveal what a large survey instrument generally cannot: the way people form their opinions, how they think about politics, and how they respond to the choices they are offered. Unfortunately, the interviews are too often marred by gratuitous comments from the author like, "And when you have animal-rights-activist lesbians of color thinking [about voting for] John McCain, do I need to say how far the Democrats have to go?" (p. 75) Surely, a political writer as well-informed as Henneberger is aware that a substantial source of the gender gap stems from the much larger number of unmarried women, both lesbian and straight, who vote for Democrats rather than for Republicans.

Politicians in the Democratic Party could create a catalogue of the suggestions arising from these interviews in the hopes of improving election chances with these folks. Accordingly, "listening" Democrats should

* Be more tolerant of those opposing abortion
* Nominate better candidates
* Be more effective in responding to Republicans
* Be personable and likeable
* Be believable
* Not talk down to voters
* Not be condescending to their opponents
* Not talk too fast or be too facile
* Not make fun of the Republican candidate, especially George W. Bush
* Not nominate John Kerry (or Hillary Clinton, for that matter)

How much useful advice can the Democrats glean from such a mélange? Not much, though they ought to remember the part about not being condescending. If these suggestions induce Democratic candidates to take the risk of simply being themselves and showing that they are comfortable with themselves, so much the better. As to who the Democratic presidential candidate should be in 2008, Galbraith had it right: less unpalatable than the Republican. Same goes for the Republicans. Whichever party succeeds in this task will win, barring an independent Bloomberg candidacy or an overreaching Supreme Court that forgets who the electors are.

If you enjoy the ins and outs of political maneuvering to produce public policy, you might try a book I co-authored with A. Lee Fritschler:Smoking and Politics: Bureaucracy Centered Policymaking (6th Edition) (Real Politics in America Series).

2 of 3 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars The better question is WHY don't they listen?, November 8, 2007

By	PunditMom (The shadow of the nation's capital) - See all my reviews

Melinda Henneberger, a contributing writer at The Huffington Post, traveled around the country interviewing a variety of women to get their input on what's important to them politically.

For political junkie like me, it's a great and inspiring read. I often get frustrated, wondering where all the women voters are and why so many of us stay home at election time. Do we care what's going on in the political world? Or are we simply frustrated that the system just doesn't work for us?

The question I'd really like to have answered on this topic is, "Why?"

If "they" only listened to us, it would be great. But isn't the bigger question, "Why don't they listen to us?"

Those volunteers slaving to make things better in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina. Women activists who have turned away from their political parties because they feel that no one is listening. Wives and mothers who are tuned into politics, but are increasingly put off by the failure of the system to benefit those who need it the most.

I think the answer is simple -- we're not the ones opening our wallets to the candidates.

If abortion rights or providing relief for those hit by natural disasters were high on the priority list for Halliburton or the big pharmaceutical companies, you can bet there would be a lot more action on Capitol Hill than there is now on those issues.

So, should we open up our wallets for candidates or issues we believe in, regardless of whether we live in a red state or a blue state? Chip in a few dollars for those who share our vision, regardless of what party we're registered with?

I made a small donation to a Senate candidate this week who isn't even from my state because he shares a world view that makes my political heart skip a beat. It certainly wasn't enough to cause a blip on the fundraising radar, but I figure it's a start.
add to sk*rt