Skip to comments.(Vanity) Election Demographics and the Manosphere
Posted on 07/22/2012 6:38:33 PM PDT by grey_whiskers
One of the metrics which has been emphasized over the last couple of elections, and which is gaining interest in the current election, is the percentage of votes for a candidate coming from various gender demographics: what percentage of married couples vote vs. single women? What is the the likelihood of each group to vote GOP vs. Democrat? It is often felt that, even aside from the "mushy middle" or "moderate" voting bloc, elections can be determined by the affinity of men or of women for a candidate. For example, Bill Clinton's re-election was due to the so-called "arousal gap" whereby he received a large excess of the women's vote (16% lead) compared to the oh-so-sexy Bob Dole; on the other hand, in the 2000 election, according to PBS, Al Gore (Mr. Sex Poodle himself) managed to squander the advantage in the 2000 Presidential election, where he had a mere 11% lead among women over George Bush.
This attitude has been explained by pundits in a number of ways; one of the most common is to look at the breakdown of the female voting bloc according to whether the women are single or married. By this thinking, a woman's vote is tempered by a number of factors: conflicting desires of women for physical safety, (the GOP being the party of national defense, and "strong on terror"), the views on abortion and birth control (single women choosing to vote Dem to pay for these things, as Sandra Fluck reminds us), and economic security (single women, despite their claims that "I can have it ALL!"TM, vote Dem for larger social transfer payments and economic security).
It is this last point which calls for a little closer look. Everyone agrees that the Democrats have explicitly played the "government as provider card" for a long time; that it has in general worked; and that this has had significant societal impacts over time, as seen in declining marriage rates (think of the hook-up culture or the soaring illegitimacy rates), the rise in divorces (think no-fault divorce coupled with draconian measures for child support), and the destruction of the black family (as foretold by Democrat Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan).
The manosphere (that subculture of the internet comprised of pick-up-artists, men's rights advocates, and a subset of social conservatives) has rightly pointed out that while all of these factors have made long-term relationships and marriage much less attainable, and much more risky, for the majority of men. That is, with women being "empowered" they no longer feel the need to get married to men until they want to, since a traditional marriage is no longer needed to avoid social stigma, to help raise any children (assuming any are wanted in the first place), or to provide financial support. You GO, grrrl.
The flip side of this is twofold -- the societal fallout and the political fallout. Let us look at each of these in turn.
The social pathologies include sexual diseases, the societal fallout of fatherless children, the lack of a meaningful social identity for men. Besides this, traditional courtship intended to screen for marriage is replaced by the hookup culture where a very few powerful, or aggressive, or rich men -- called "alphas" in the manosphere -- are aggressively courted by the majority of attractive women, by all means possible, including sexual favors without an ongoing relationship; in the meantime, the "nice guys" who would ordinarily settle down and get married -- the so-called "betas" -- are left without much choice in mates, until the women's age and looks catch up with them, and the women are willing to settle down with a less "prestigious" man. This willingness to settle usually happens at the confluence of two other factors in the woman's life: her age and partying catches up to her, so she is no longer able to compete for the affections of the alpha men, *and* her biological clock starts ticking LOUDLY, so that the type of man who prefers the "one night stand" becomes less sought after than a man who "wants to settle down and have a family." But by this time, the likelihood of a successful marriage are greatly diminished. Because of the woman's wider, ahem, experience, she is biologically less likely to bond to a man after having shared intimacy with a steady parade of others before him; and psychologically, as well, the increased responsibilities and selflessness required in a marriage, are not likely to be appealing to someone accustomed to commitment-free flings where she always had her space. The man, on his part, will have conflicting feelings of jealousy for her past, as well as resentment that he is being married merely as a combination sperm donor and ATM, rather than for himself. Combining these factors with the state-mandated "thumb on the scale" of family law (no-fault divorce, child support and alimony skewed towards women, and the like), and it is no wonder that the proportion of single women in this country is increasing.
For the political fallout of these trends, it is worth noticing that single women more reliably vote Democrat than married women. It has been stated, that this is almost as if it were by design -- the government has taken the role of men in single women's lives. This much is obvious. But, by considering this fact in light of the societal effects described earlier, a more sinister feature emerges.
What *kind* of man do the single women turn to? The "alpha male" who says and does anything to get what he wants out of them, and then goes his way: to which the modern, emancipated female response is NOT to get mad at him, but to pursue him all the more, to reassure herself as to her own value; and in the meantime, to reserve her scorn for the "nice guys" who aren't using her in the first place. The cynical term for this vignette is the "pump and dump". But somehow, the women involved manage to rationalize away any responsibility on their own part for the process, or the outcome.
And why is this sinister? Simply this: the government itself, and in particular, Dem politicians, has become an "alpha male" who cynically uses women as a short term means to their electoral pleasure. "Believe me baby, I'll respect you after the election." (*)
And just as in today's modern relationship market, so it is in the world of politics. The womyn of empowerment continue to pursue Democrat politicians who are cynically using them, and rejecting with scorn those conservatives who *are* interested in them as people. Social conservative politicians have become the beta males in politics, as socially conservative males have become beta males in courtship.(+)
(*) Sometimes the two groups are combined in one: consider JFK or Uncle Ted, or look at Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky. Despite the inherently selfish nature of their relationship, the fact that he was married, and the "inequities of power" to use the feminist phrase spouted by Susan Hoechner while attacking Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, Clinton's share of the female vote actually INCREASED for his second
(+) Incidentally, even as the breakdown of sexual mores has led even many conservatives into immorality, the cynicism of Dem politicians has begun to rub off on the GOP: look at the attitude of the RINOs, the GOP-e (Mitt Romney, anyone) towards the conservative subset of the Republican party.
Here is a study by Prof Gimpel, Univeristy of Maryland, on the impact of immigration on electoral politics. As long as we continue to bring in 1.2 million legal immigrants a year, 87% of whom are minorities as classified by the USG, the demographics of this country will continue to rapidily change. We are no longer the same country we were when the 1965 Immigration Act was passed.
In counties of at least 50,000, where the immigrant share increased by at least two percentage points from 1980 to 2008, 62 percent saw a decline in the Republican percentage. In counties with at least a four percentage-point increase, 74 percent saw a decline in the GOP vote. In counties with at least a six percentage-point gain in the immigrant share, 83 percent saw a decline in the GOP vote share.
Professionals are now the most Democratic and fastest-growing occupational group in the United States, and they are a huge chunk of the burgeoning white college graduate population. They gave Obama an estimated 68 percent of their vote in 2008. By the middle of this decade, professionals will account for around one in five American workers.
Democrats also generally do better among women than men, and they do particularly well among growing female subgroups such as the unmarried and the college educated. Seventy percent of unmarried women voted for Obama, and an estimated 65 percent of college-educated women supported him. Unmarried women are now 47 percent, or almost half, of adult women, up from 38 percent in 1970, and college-educated women are an especially rapidly growing population. Their numbers have more than have tripled in recent decades, from just 8 percent of the 25-and-older female population in 1970 to 28 percent today.
Beware assuming trends will continue forever. The dem party survives by providing goodies. This ability ends eventually, as the California bankrupt cities demonstrate.
Unfortunately it is a self reenforcing cycle, eventually it will all collapse because sugar daddy big government will run out of other peoples money to support this kind of system. And we are already seeing that starting to happen in Europe with Greece and now Spain but it will be coming over here soon. That’s the problem with democracies, once people figure out that they can vote themselves “free money” they do, once that starts to happen you’re on the highway to oblivion as a free nation.
I personally put the blame on the changes that Victorian era men had in the nature of women. Up until that point men where well aware of the moral failings of women and were wise enough to keep them well away from the levers of power. All that changed in the Victorian era when for some odd reason women were put on a pedestal and all their fails were ignored. The result? Women go the vote and the rest is history (or herstory for the PC crowd).
LOL So when do you estimate that CA will become a bastion of Rep voters? Right now, CA is becoming more and more Dem. It won't be long until you can count the number of CA Reps in Congress on one hand. And CA is a lock for the Dems in the Presidential elections.
By 2050 the demography of the US will resemble that of CA.
That is why I left my birth home of Los Angeles (I have lived all over it, from Malibu to San Berdu as most Angelenos do)
But I was tired of being beaten down and vilified for actually working hard for a living.
Texas (N. Irving) is a warm (OK, a bit hot), welcoming, lovely place. I would recommend it to anyone. NO INCOME TAXES, folks. Even with the added electric bill for the A/C and property taxes, it is still MUCH cheaper than California. And it warmed the hell out of the cockles of my heart when I voted last month and saw/waited in a HUGE line of Republicans. The democrats were so few they were able to get in, pull the lever for their loser libs, then pop out. I was happy to wait.
I visited Austin, the liberal sore; in Texas expecting liberal treatment.
We saw a comedy revue called Esther's Follies.
We expected the worst.
What we got was liberal bashing, jokes at the expense of liberals for 90 minutes.
George Bush good.
Birth certificate is fake.
Gun control is bad.
I thought someone here wrote it.
I love Texas and I don't live there. Moved to Colorado from California.
Thank you so much for your wonderful essays!
Thanks grey_whiskers. As the Demwit party continues down its racist path, the Pubbie party will become more influential but less conservative. The power struggles in the Demwit party will be reflectiosn of the racial power struggles among the various racial identity political orgs as well as street-gang-based internal schisms.
By 2050, there will be no federal government because the federal government by then will have no money to pay for the army and police needed to keep the union together. Unless of course, life extension technology is invented which results in rendering pensions obsolete. But I suspect new ways to bankrupt the central state will be enacted in their place.
The breakup of the American Empire is inevitable. It’s the fate of all empires.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.