Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Security Sex
Renew America ^ | Sept. 21, 2011 | Selwyn Duke

Posted on 09/27/2011 2:15:38 PM PDT by ReformationFan

We have all heard about the sex gap in voting patterns. This is the phenomenon whereby, in every election, women are far more likely to support liberal candidates than men are. For instance, in 1996, Bill Clinton captured 54 percent of the women's vote but only 43 percent of the men's. And in subsequent elections, the male-female gap has been as follows: in 2000, Al Gore, 42-54; in 2004, John Kerry, 41-51; and in 2008, Barack Obama, 49-56. In fact, even in the watershed election of 2010, during which we heard about the rise of the conservative woman, the fairer sex favored Democrats by 1 point, 49 to 48. The Republican victories were attributable to a sex gap (I don't use the word "gender") that was as wide as ever, ranging from 4 to 19 points.

So, clearly, women tend to gravitate toward statist candidates. And there are many reasons for this. One is that, being the more emotion-driven sex, women are more susceptible to liberals' emotional appeals. Another is that where men are big-picture-oriented, women are detail-oriented. This feminine quality is wonderful when handling young children, whose lives must be micro-managed; the problem is that it also leads to acceptance of a micro-managing government that, ultimately, will treat us all like children. And then you have not just a nanny state (a feminine descriptive, mind you), but what we are quickly descending into: The Harridan State.

Yet there is an even greater reason why women veer left, and it's the one I'll focus on today.

They are the Security Sex.

(Excerpt) Read more at renewamerica.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Philosophy; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: duke; elections; emotiondriven; females; femalesuffrage; femalevoting; girls; girlsvoting; micromanage; security; selwynduke; statism; theharridanstate; thesecuritysex

1 posted on 09/27/2011 2:15:46 PM PDT by ReformationFan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: ReformationFan
The reason women voted for Clinton was because they felt sorry for Hillary.
They figured if they could get the adulterous bastard elected president,Hillary could then divorce his sorry cheatin’ ass and keep The House.
2 posted on 09/27/2011 2:20:36 PM PDT by Happy Rain ("Yer it!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ReformationFan
One is that, being the more emotion-driven sex, women are more susceptible to liberals' emotional appeals.

Silly little darlings...

3 posted on 09/27/2011 2:20:59 PM PDT by Kenton (Barack Obama - Lowering American Expectations Since 2008)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ReformationFan

One conclusion that could be drawn from this: The majority of women are IDIOTS.


4 posted on 09/27/2011 2:22:20 PM PDT by Spktyr (Overwhelmingly superior firepower and the willingness to use it is the only proven peace solution.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ReformationFan
How Dramatically Did Women's Suffrage Change the Size and Scope of Government? by John Lott, Jr.
5 posted on 09/27/2011 2:24:31 PM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum (Palin is coming, and the Tea Party is coming with her.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ReformationFan

The women got the vote and the nation got Harding.


6 posted on 09/27/2011 2:25:43 PM PDT by Lonesome in Massachussets (Ceterum autem censeo, Obama delenda est.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ReformationFan

Actually, I read an article on this a number of years ago. It can be further granularized. If you remove married women from the list it is wildly liberal. Single women want the government to be their sugar daddy. It’s the welfare state writ large: The state is better than a man because it won’t waste the money on booze, it won’t gamble away the rent check, it won’t sleep around and, let’s face it, living with another adult that doesn’t acquiesce to your every whim is just, well, hard.


7 posted on 09/27/2011 2:30:38 PM PDT by cuban leaf (Were doomed! Details at eleven.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kenton

There’s also the appeal of the message that says “it’s not your fault”.


8 posted on 09/27/2011 2:32:41 PM PDT by MrB (The difference between a Humanist and a Satanist - the latter knows whom he's working for)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: ReformationFan

Not only is ‘The View’ a hit, it is considered a show analyzing current events.

The demographic overlap between the observation in the thread, and the audience of The View is no coincidence.


9 posted on 09/27/2011 2:36:11 PM PDT by RinaseaofDs (Does beheading qualify as 'breaking my back', in the Jeffersonian sense of the expression?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cuban leaf
living with another adult that doesn’t acquiesce to your every whim is just, well, hard.

Did you really just write that?

10 posted on 09/27/2011 2:39:09 PM PDT by frithguild (We admitted we were powerless over government - that out lives had become unmanageable)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: ReformationFan

Although in gross numbers this is true, what is important in elections is the SHIFT in voters. In 2004, the shift in women voters toward Bush is what gave him his second term (the male vote between the parties remaind virtually unchanged from 2000).

This “women are silly” message is not a good one for conservatives to persue. It will hurt them.

More women are Independents than men. Conservatives will probably never get a majority of women’s votes ... but they can steadily get MORE of them. This is what is important.

Alienating potential voters, no matter how few, is not a smart political move (look how the liberal meme of voters not being smart enough hurt them in 2010).

Plus, there are many solidly conservative women who are turned off by this message.

Keep these statistics in mind:
1. There are more women eligible to vote than there are men eligible to vote.
2. There are more women registered to vote than men.
3. Registered women voters actually vote in larger percentages than male registerd voters. (In 2004, 8.8 MILLION more women voted than men did).

So even small shifts in women’s votes can make a big difference in an election.

You don’t have to have all the women’s votes, you just have to have enough to win.


11 posted on 09/27/2011 2:52:46 PM PDT by Lorianne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ReformationFan

Bump


12 posted on 09/27/2011 2:52:46 PM PDT by Incorrigible (If I lead, follow me; If I pause, push me; If I retreat, kill me.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Spktyr

They’re treating this country like a club, where they will let in thsoe who let them party, or who are ‘fun,’ but they don’t want to be part of a team that requires that they set aside personal preferences for the sake of the success of the ocmpany. They treat the workforce and this country as a playground where the responsible look out for them rather than looking after themselves.

With some unpleasant professional experiences in the workplace as a teenager, I can personally tell you with all sincerity that often in the workforce, they are looking for security and want to turn the workplace into a country club, not a place where they work together ot make the company work. It’s all about them and who they like being there and if they don’t like you, they will work to make it so miserable until you are driven out, no matter the cost to the company.

For them it’s all about a check, a place to socialize, and a place where they can be catered to (along with their chronically unstable temperments) and pampered. Not about working, learning the right skills, and taking pride on doing a good job.


13 posted on 09/27/2011 3:06:43 PM PDT by Niuhuru (The Internet is the digital AIDS; adapting and successfully destroying the MSM host.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: ReformationFan

Although in gross numbers this is true, what is important in elections is the SHIFT in voters. In 2004, the shift in women voters toward Bush is what gave him his second term (the male vote between the parties remaind virtually unchanged from 2000).

This “women are silly” message is not a good one for conservatives to persue. It will hurt them.

More women are Independents than men. Conservatives will probably never get a majority of women’s votes ... but they can steadily get MORE of them. This is what is important.

Alienating potential voters, no matter how few, is not a smart political move (look how the liberal meme of voters not being smart enough hurt them in 2010).

Plus, there are many solidly conservative women who are turned off by this message.

Keep these statistics in mind:
1. There are more women eligible to vote than there are men eligible to vote.
2. There are more women registered to vote than men.
3. Registered women voters actually vote in larger percentages than male registerd voters. (In 2004, 8.8 MILLION more women voted than men did).

So even small shifts in women’s votes can make a big difference in an election.

You don’t have to have all the women’s votes, you just have to have enough to win.


14 posted on 09/27/2011 3:15:24 PM PDT by Lorianne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ReformationFan

This is the most sexist, vomit inducing, stereotypical drivel I have ever read. Whatever idiot male wrote this has no knowledge of women whatsoever, outside of an abnormal fantasy life. Most Tea Party members are women, myself included.


15 posted on 09/27/2011 3:26:47 PM PDT by sportutegrl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lorianne
"Alienating potential voters, no matter how few, is not a smart political move"

OK. Women are not all just silly emotional voters.

Unless, of course, they are supporters of Ron Paul. In which case they are pot-smoking, unpatriotic, pro-abort, pro-homo isolationists!

/sarc

16 posted on 09/27/2011 4:00:17 PM PDT by who_would_fardels_bear
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: sportutegrl
This is the most sexist, vomit inducing, stereotypical drivel I have ever read. Whatever idiot male wrote this has no knowledge of women whatsoever, outside of an abnormal fantasy life. Most Tea Party members are women, myself included.
That gets a 'like'!
17 posted on 09/27/2011 4:04:58 PM PDT by Mama Shawna
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: sportutegrl; Mama Shawna
This is the most sexist,...

No, not really, read the article first before jumping to this conclusion. The author specifically mentions married women with children as NOT fitting this category of women wanting a nanny state. He goes into the reasons why. Apparently you two are not like your divorced, single mom-never-married, sisters and really resent being in the same cohort as them, i.e. women. That is a GOOD thing!

18 posted on 09/27/2011 4:52:56 PM PDT by SandwicheGuy (*The butter acts as a lubricant and speeds up the CPU*)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: SandwicheGuy

This thread could easily turn into a women-bashing thread but that is not what it is about. The article explains it well, better than I perhaps. Women being used as a cat’s paw is the take-away.


19 posted on 09/27/2011 4:57:56 PM PDT by SandwicheGuy (*The butter acts as a lubricant and speeds up the CPU*)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: ReformationFan; BillyBoy; Diana in Wisconsin; Allegra; calcowgirl; fieldmarshaldj; GOPsterinMA; ...

Repeal the 19th!!!!

I’m kidding ladies don’t hurt me!!!


20 posted on 09/27/2011 5:08:43 PM PDT by Impy (Don't call me red.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: frithguild

Yes. Yes I did. 8-D


21 posted on 09/27/2011 5:17:09 PM PDT by cuban leaf (Were doomed! Details at eleven.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: sportutegrl

Facts are facts. Even in 2010, as the author points out, more women voted for Democrats than Republicans. I wish it were the opposite.


22 posted on 09/27/2011 5:36:40 PM PDT by Paladins Prayer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Impy; ReformationFan; BillyBoy; Diana in Wisconsin; Allegra; calcowgirl; fieldmarshaldj; ...

Neal Boortz talked about this one day. Single women, generally, vote for more Govt because they do not have a man to take care of them.


23 posted on 09/27/2011 6:11:42 PM PDT by Perdogg (Do I miss Bush? Hell, I miss Clinton.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Perdogg

I believe it. Yep, the more I think about it makes sense (unfortunately).


24 posted on 09/27/2011 6:19:05 PM PDT by GOPsterinMA (If not Perry, it's Romney. And if it's Romney, it's Obama.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: cuban leaf

“...living with another adult that doesn’t acquiesce to your every whim is just, well, hard.”

Yes, but like ordering a pizza, one phone call can take care of that “problem”.


25 posted on 09/27/2011 6:21:14 PM PDT by GOPsterinMA (If not Perry, it's Romney. And if it's Romney, it's Obama.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Impy

It’s all about sex appeal, it has been since Kennedy edged Nixon, and probably before.


26 posted on 09/27/2011 6:56:06 PM PDT by SunkenCiv (It's never a bad time to FReep this link -- https://secure.freerepublic.com/donate/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: SunkenCiv; Perdogg; GOPsterinMA; fieldmarshaldj

“Edwards is hot!” - Stupid rat voting female in Iowa Jan. 2004

Women voted for Nixon in 1960 though. Including “Mad Men”’s Betty Draper cause Kennedy reminded her of her cheating husband IIRC. ;p


27 posted on 09/27/2011 7:02:13 PM PDT by Impy (Don't call me red.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Impy

“His Rickness” will get a high % of women and gay votes.


28 posted on 09/27/2011 7:08:33 PM PDT by GOPsterinMA (If not Perry, it's Romney. And if it's Romney, it's Obama.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Impy

that’s why the election was close.

Kennedy beat Nixon

LBJ beat Goldwater

Nixon beat Humphrey

Carter beat Ford

Reagan (former movie idol) beat Carter

Reagan beat Mondale (the latter was a whiny little bitch, no sex appeal at all)

Bush beat Dukakis (the latter was short, and nearly as ugly as John Kerry)

Clinton beat Bush

Clinton beat Dole

Bush beat Gore (another narrow margin)

Bush beat Kerry (Kerry the ugliest candidate for President since LBJ)

Zero beat McCain (the latter a pudgy, prematurely aged, balding divorcee)


29 posted on 09/27/2011 7:34:15 PM PDT by SunkenCiv (It's never a bad time to FReep this link -- https://secure.freerepublic.com/donate/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: SunkenCiv; fieldmarshaldj; GOPsterinMA

LBJ was ugly as sin.

Did women think Carter was better looking than Ford? Carter had the classic dweeb look.

Clinton is pretty ugly AFAIC. But his gaze melted the panties off skanks. Dole and his viagra were no match. ;d


30 posted on 09/27/2011 9:34:41 PM PDT by Impy (Don't call me red.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Impy

:’)


31 posted on 09/27/2011 10:19:31 PM PDT by SunkenCiv (It's never a bad time to FReep this link -- https://secure.freerepublic.com/donate/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Lorianne

I’m sooooooooo glad I read your post before I went postal on some of the knuckle-draggers here, LOL!

It went a huge way to calming me down before I added to the stupidity that is this thread...

I really don’t care how ANYONE pegs me when it comes to my voting record. It speaks for itself with ONE misguided vote for Sen. Russ Feingold long ago - but he was the lesser of two evils in my state at the time and I didn’t want to ruin my PERFECT voting attendance record up until that point, LOL!

Well, Rusty’s gone now - thrown out with a flourish, so all is well in My Little World. :)


32 posted on 09/28/2011 9:09:48 AM PDT by Diana in Wisconsin (I don't have 'Hobbies.' I'm developing a robust Post-Apocalyptic skill set...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Perdogg; All

“Single women, generally, vote for more Govt because they do not have a man to take care of them.”

What about us single, taxpaying females who are sick and tired of supporting lay-about men and their b@stard offspring and abandoned Baby Mamas?

Huh? Huh?

(Just kidding...sort of...)


33 posted on 09/28/2011 9:16:32 AM PDT by Diana in Wisconsin (I don't have 'Hobbies.' I'm developing a robust Post-Apocalyptic skill set...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: SunkenCiv; Diana in Wisconsin; All
And that's why Donald Trump would never be President because women would never vote for a man who is married to a former Super Model nearly half his age. It is good to be rich.


34 posted on 09/28/2011 6:42:36 PM PDT by Perdogg (Do I miss Bush? Hell, I miss Clinton.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson