Dear Ms Roys,
Thank you for the letter you sent to my household last week outlining the major issues relevant to your congressional run, your stances on them, and your qualifications as you see them. I’m always a fan of receiving information-oriented campaign materials, and approve of your decision to employ this tactic. Unfortunately, the way you went about it and the actual content of the letter were so offensive that I will not be able to support you.
My biggest problem, frankly, is that the letter was addressed to me and my tenant-roommate, Sylvie, but not Nick even though he’s my co-owner. In asking around it seems that you did, in fact, uniformly target women for this letter, excluding male roommates, homeowners, tenants etc. There are several implications that could be read into this decision by your campaign, the least offensive of which is that you think women need to feel like they’re being targeted as a specific demographic in order to support you.
Unfortunately, it seems to me that he likelier explanations, that you think men as a group will not find your appeals to defend against attacks on women’s rights worth reading, that you think I’d choose to own property and live with a misogynist, or that pointing at a threat to my uterus will make me more likely to blindly fork over money to your campaign, are devastatingly problematic for my perception of you as a worthy candidate.
In addition, while I applaud your attempt to shift the rhetorical discussion by proposing a requirement for men to undergo a “cardiac stress test and rectal exam before receiving a prescription for Viagra,” I should hope you recognize that this is in fact horrifically bad policy. Proposing the legislation to make a rhetorical point to the opposition is one thing, but using it in your campaign materials as if it’s a good idea inclines me to suspect you don’t see it as a merely rhetorical device. In short, I should not be your audience when talking about this legislation, the opposition should be.
Finally, I’m rather disturbed by the fact that this letter appears to ignore the fact that you are currently running in a primary against Mark Pocan and does nothing to address why you’re the better candidate in congress than him. Do you expect me to assume you’ll have the nomination and if so, on what grounds? Or am I meant to assume that because you are female and he is male, he will not be as effective in protecting my rights as you are? If that’s the case, I urge you to reconsider your entire perception of gender politics as they appear to be base on fallacies which, if reversed, would be obvious.
Robo-calling my cell phone did not help endear you to me.
You clearly mean well and I applaud you for your intentions. Your actual execution, however, is unacceptable to me. I hope you learn and do better next time.