What is Wrong with Female Voters?

Cnn.com Exit Polls ^

[FF578]

What is wrong with Female Voters in the United States? If you take a look at elections since 1980, Female Voters vote increasingly liberal.

Let's take a look at the 2000 Election for example.

If you count Only the Male Vote. Bush would have won in a Landslide. Losing only the States of Illinois, New York, New Jersey, Massachuttes, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Hawaii, and the District of Columbia.

If you count only the Female Vote, Gore Would have won in a Landslide, with Bush only winning the States of : Montana, Idaho, Utah, Wyoming, Colorado, North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Kansas, Texas, Alaska, Louisiana, Alabama, Mississippi, Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Kentucky and Indiana.

Why is this? What makes the Female American Voter so liberal? This is important because Women vote in larger numbers (7 Million More) Than men.

[Don Myers]

I am just heading out the door. I work from 2:30 til 10:30 today, but just off the top of my head, you are saying there are different reasons for people to have affairs.

I agree there are various reasons for married people to have affairs. People can always come up with a reason, or an excuse. What I see is people who cannot keep their marriage vows. The results are the same regardless of the reason. The hurt and the damage are still there in the marriage after the affair(s). And that would seem to be the bottom line.

[summer]

Actually, I think GW won the female vote in FL. I know he won the senior vote, and I think the other big demographic he took was the female vote.

[constable tom]

Rather than respond to all your assumptions, may I suggest that instead of postulating so many assumptions, you focus on known facts, well established findings, and what you actually know from personal experience.

For instance, your assumption that 75% of conservatives don't support taxation to support the military is both unsupportable and just plain wrong. BTW, I served 9 years on active duty including the Gulf War. Also, while I don't support the militant gay rights lobby at all and I find it repulsive some felt it necessary (beneficial?) to "out" a gay passenger who probably participated in the heroic actions on Flight 93, my attitude is that the guy gave his life fighting terrorists and that eclipses whatever personal issues I might have with his chosen lifestyle. If they want to be "in my face" about their "rights" and demand same-sex marriage, I'm against them 100%, but this individual is a hero in my book.

I'm much more interested in people who enlighten me based on verifiable facts and information and not particularly interested in your assumptions. Others' mileage may vary.

[joathome]

Oh, please! What might be insignificant to you might be a woman who couldn't take a husband's porn addiction, anymore. Or how about my friend's problem? She's a golf widow. He's on the golf course every free moment he gets. She stays with him for the kids, but if she were a lesser woman, I wouldn't blame her for leaving.

Women deserve their share of the blame.....but you know......this guy would be clueless if his wife picked up and left. I'm sure he'd be one of the guys talking about women who leave for insignificant reasons. Unhappy. Irreconcilable differences. :(

[joathome]

"A cheater rarely reforms especially if they know they can get by with it. Often the cheater prefers to stay married because they haven't yet found what they're looking for, they'll keep looking until they find it."

I'm afraid that's just your opinion, and not fact. Statistically, there are a number of marriages that thrive once they have recovered from one spouse's unfaithfulness.

[Concentrate]

Whatever was the sexual revolution and emancipation of women, women will always seek protection. The government protector is their favored man. Just as men have become chicken and cannot fight terrorists with razor blades in an airplane, women have instinctively sided with marriage with government. 90% of America is on the left.

BUMP!

[Concentrate]

Agreed. Nothing says radical feminist more than wanting to keep one's own name. You would think that these women would want to be lesbian perverts, now wouldn't you?

They would certainly seem to be their role models. Why else would they kiss their butts?

[Sabertooth]

where have you heard about the gay thing?

It's some of the revisionist spin that's afoot. Mark Bingham, the 6'4" fromer Cal National Champ rugby player. Some of the press is trying to make hay over it "He was a hero, therefore gay is OK."

I'll say what I said to Hugh Hewitt on the air a day or two after the gay aspect broke publicly "He was an American hero, regardless of whether or not he was gay."

The fact that Mark Bingham was gay does not detract from his valor, nor does his valor excuse his homosexuality. The two have nothing to do with each other.

[TopQuark]

Maybe it is more that married women tend to be more conservative (by definition...they are married) and single women tend to be more liberal...also single women (never married) tend to be younger...and more liberal...as we all grow up and get our hormones under control, we have more sense...and become more conservative.

Everything you said was in place before 1980, too? Why did we not see this phenomenon then?

[RobbyS]

Distinguish black women from white women--blacks votes solidly for liberals. Distinguish single women from married women. And I guess distinguish married women with children from married women without children.

[TopQuark]

98% of them are complete morons. Before I get flamed, I should point out that 98% of men are complete morons, too...

This poses the question, why do morons prefer one party over another? And, why female morons, who are present according to you in equal numbers, vote differently than male morons.

[JD86]

Why did we not see this phenomenon then?

Valid question and I don't have a good answer. My best guess would be that women as a group were not very involved in politics prior to the '70's. After Roe v. Wade and the organization of NOW, the issues became more polarized and the liberals got organized first. They tend to vote in blocks more than conservatives do....that's my initial take on your question. I would be glad to hear more if you have a different opinion.

[TopQuark]

My best guess would be that women as a group were not very involved in politics prior to the '70's. After Roe v. Wade and the organization of NOW, the issues became more polarized and the liberals got organized first. They tend to vote in blocks more than conservatives do....Thanks for the reply. I think your observations do indeed account for much of this new voting behavior. But mere increased activity does not explain the preference for any one political party. If "issues became more polarized," why did female electorate not split 50-50 around the "poles?"

I am afraid, my view is somewhat pessimistic: the other has simply won the hearts and souls.

It seems to me that the common thread in the message of conservatives is personal reponsibility, followed by the issue-specific refinements. In gun control, for instance, the message is, Do not blame the piece of metal --- it is the criminal that bears the reponsibility for misusing the gun. In dealing with childbearing, do not abort an unwanted child --- accept the reponsibility of carrying it to term and, if it is still unwanted, give the baby up for adoption. In regard to welfare services, do not take support for granted but accept your personal responsibility over your own future and get education, job experince, etc. Similarly, when designing the safety net for the less fortunate in our society, do not rely on the government --- take care of them yourself, in your home and through churches and sinagogues.

Observe that acceptance of personal responsibility leads to more questions than answers, and this is the root of the lesser unity among conservatives. In contrast, an abrogation of personal responsibility can be made by all in the same way. There are other examples of that illustrate this asymmetry. Thus, there are many ways in which one perform work once a job offer is accepted, but only one to decline the offer. And honesty: there are many ways to lie but onty one to tell the truth.

I believe that, in opposition to conservatives, the rejection of personal responsibility is the unifying factor for the modern-day "liberals." It provides for an easy unification since rejection is simple. Once you reject personal responsbility, everything else follows: first damn the country ("make love not war" of the anti-Vietnam protests in 1960s); then damn the parents ("don't trust anyone over thirty"); next the family that you may form ("I don't have to mary; yes, I am 40 and have a girlfriend, but how do I know that I will not meet someone better?"); then damn the children ("It's better for the chidlren if we divorce than if we stay in a loveless marriage"). That's what we saw in the past 40 years: the decline of loyalty to the eternal social institutions --- in the order of decreasing scale: country, community, primary family, family of procreation, and chidren. Only one entity has benefited from this decline --- the self, so prominent in the "me (first)" generation.

These are rather general observations; where does this leave women voters? Recall that it is women who are traditionally endowed with preservation of values in society, whereas males experiment with innovation This appears to be so even in nature: it is the male wolf that goes to a new forrest in search for food, while the female preserves the existing den. Sexually, too, nature appears to endow males with the aggressive role, and it is females that act as gatekeepers and exert the "civilizing" influence on us.

If you accept, at least partly, the foregoing view, then what should happen in a society, such as ours in the 1960s, if it tells its females that they may decline the burdensome responsiblity for children and keeping in check the rather promiscuous tendencies of the males? Predictably, women will no longer be concerned with marriage (they are "equal" to men now, you see; they can have sex without childbearing --- what a great spiritual acheivement!). Liberated from childbearing, they will identify their self-worth with the carreer achievements, just as males did for ages before.

(There is a cost, of course; you cannot fool nature, after all. So, twenty or so years after all these achievements, we increasingly hear about the bilogical clock, etc.; the change, I believe, is slowly coming.)

This helps to offer an answer to the original question. How does one feel when a burden is removed from her shoulders? Happy and grateful. Who advocates the removal of the burden of personal reponsibility? The Democrates in the political arena and various liberal elites in other aspects of social life: on school boards, the academe, etc. Thus, women vote for those who grant then the currently welcome relief. Ditto for Black people, for whom the message of Jesse Jackson and Sharpton is appealing: the burden of personal reponsibility is replaced by the governmental handouts and corporate shakedown.

This premise, if you accept it, is common to both groups and explains why both vote as a block --- for Democrats, of course. Naturally, as the costs of abrogating personal responsibility become clear, more and more Blacks vote Republican and conservative Blacks become more visible: withness, for instance, Mr. Keyes --- a prominent moral voice. Also slowly, the female electorate is becoming more heterogenous as well.

(Incidentally, the foregoing also suggests that the demise of morals is not a result of the pro-abortion legislature; rather, the legislature and moral decline are two manifestations of a common underlying cause. Repelling these laws will not, by itself, bring back the destroyed social insitutions, as some people suggest).

Sorry for what ended up being a rather long post.

[JD86]

Thank you for a well reasoned response. I think your theory of personal responsibility accurately explains why people choose to support either the Democratic or the Republican parties. Generally speaking, those who support the Democratic agenda are looking for a hand-out ie government programs and an excuse. They not only don't want to be responsible for themselves but they want the government to pay for the cure. On the other hand, as you have so eloquently pointed out, the Republican party supports self-reliance and limited government. Although this is a generalization, it also explains why for thirty years, women as a group and blacks as a group voted for Democrats...they were just beginning to claim their "rights". Now, we are beginning to see the swing back. I don't think that it is a coincidence that the women of the 70's are now mothers and grandmothers...and seeing issues through new eyes. Neither do I think that it is a coincidence that blacks are becoming more conservative as the first generation of black millionaires is about to die. Politics are always local.

[homeschool mama]

What you said is true.

Bump!

btw...the 'kitties' on your bio...can you share the significance? tx. HM

[timestax]

bump

[Edmund Burke]

They should have never been given the vote. This was a big mistake. The founding fathers were right. They knew that women were not sensible enough to vote. When they gave women the vote in England, they set the minimum age for voting at 30. They understood that younger women would make impulsive choices.

[Paulus Invictus]

It's the PMS thing. Don't the author of this piece get it yet? It also has to do with the difference between female "compassion" and male practicality--they are irreconcilable. Bush tried to include compassion into his program to attract the female votes, but it didn't and did antagonize the males.

[mountainfolk]

The dems use every opportunity to say that whatever they are doing is --FOR THE CHILDREN. For the hordes 0f unmarried mothers,that alone is reason to vote for the government handouts to continue. This is also why welfare agencies promote voter applications.