What do (married) women want?
Apparently not Obama.
For all the furor about how Obama has the female vote, it turns out that women are hardly monolithic on that score, and that there’s a big divide between the married and the un.
First, let’s look at men and women in general:
Obama-Romney (among registered voters)
Men: 43-51
Women: 49-43
Big difference, right? Yes. But let’s break it down further (remember, the first figure is support for Obama):
Married men: 35-59
Unmarried men: 51-41Married women: 40-55
Unmarried women: 57-32
So although women definitely support Obama more often than men do, among married women Romney is the leader by a mile. Unmarried people—both men and women—prefer Obama, and married ones of both sexes do not.
Is it actually marriage that makes the difference, or something else? If you look at the poll you can see that there are other factors that might account for at least some of it. For example, Obama leads among younger people (more likely to be unmarried), and his advantage is super-strong among blacks (who have a lower marriage rate). And only people whose incomes are below 50K support Obama; those above are for Romney. Younger people are less likely to make that much money, and more likely to be unmarried as well.
You better believe that Obama and the Democrats are aware of those statistics, as well as these:
A new report from the Pew Research Center analyzing Census Bureau data found that only 51 percent of Americans 18 and over were married in 2010, compared with 72 percent in 1960. Among Hispanics and African-Americans, the decline is even more steep.
But want to hear a shocking statistic? Obama is doing worse among unmarried women than John Kerry did.
I’m pasting my comment from the “you can talk” thread; I had posted on the tail end of that thread:
“Last night I had to overhear Bill Maher. I did not know he was as disgusting as he is. He said that he liked it that women want to be in Monica Lewinsky’s position with this president: he actually said he thinks it’s ‘cool’ that women want to ‘do’ this the President.”
“physicsguy” replied with some data from Quinnepiac poll.
M of Hollywood: yes, thanks, I did see that comment by physicsguy, and replied thusly:
Married women (and men) are much less self-absorbed than singles, and in their concern for their family they look at how each candidate would handle the economy (will me and my spouse have jobs/make ends meet?), national security (is my family safe?), and healthcare (will I have to care for my parents? will my child get good care if sick/injured).
For single women, either they have the luxury of not having others dependent on them (so “women’s health” trumps all other issues), or if they’re single w/child(ren), they’re most concerned with what government assistance is available to them (just look at the poverty stats on single moms). In the case of “women’s health” and gov’t benefits for the poor, Obama is their sugardaddy.
Women perhaps shouldn’t be allowed to vote, certainly most women… okay half at least – for their own good and well being of course.
It can’t possibly have escaped everyone’s notice that women (half, at least) are not what they once were and certainly nowhere near what they ostensibly aspired to be. The movement that beguiled young women a half century ago to liberate themselves; to emancipate their libidos; to jiggle freely; to glow in the feminine mystique(?!?); to think ‘equal’; to foreswear pillbox hats and face nets; to sing the anthem I am Woman, Hear Me Roar before every female event; has failed – or succeeded if you are prepared to accept malevolent motives behind the beguilement.
Here is what a half century of beguilement has fashioned:
“No free abortions! I have to pay? I have to pay for my birth control too? That’s not fair.”
“How dare you refer to a woman as ‘slut’… you’re lucky I’m late for my ‘slut walk’ protest buster.”
“Women are underrepresented in the science and engineering departments. That’s not fair…do something.”
“He told a pudenda joke… right in front of me… it made me feel litigiously uncomfortable.”
Fifty years of feminism and their greatest aspiration is to ‘live the life of Julia’. You go girl, but not to the polls.
It actually surprised me that single men are so much more prone to vote Obama. I can only surmise too many men have been made dependent by a college education (wonder what the numbers are — single white male, college grads vs. high school grads.) The reluctance of the young to marry speaks of a reluctance to take up a responsibility, other than one that pays – instead of costs. Apparently, living the life of Reilly has only passed from the lexicon but not the mind. Apparently, a good many men need to be disenfranchised also.
I think the big thing about the married men and women is they have a responsibility for others (spouse/children) into the future. They are also more likely to have sacrificed to have a job/business to provide this support. Obama is selling “gifts” at the expense of tomorrow and stability
The split between married and unmarried is interesting. I suppose it could mean that people who are always looking for the next thrill, rather than choosing to delay gratification in order to commit to a serious relationship, tend to prefer the appeal to emotion that is characteristic of Democratic candidates.
The freebies that they are buying votes and guilt “go away” are move valuable from the young who also have yet to learn they have to pay for the freebies (And mom’s and maybe dads freebies were more free than state freebies).
the unmarried category will also be made up of gay and bisexual, the married not so much… single mothers taking the divide by two get three idea that didn’t work out that way… welfare mothers of which the rules required father absence to get benefits (and increase them in various ways).
the system favors women who are not with men, which gives a bias we deny exists. however, when you look at who votes, and how they vote, its broken down by various lines of who has or hasnt got a man (in terms of women). if you think that’s accidental, they you haven’t read their ideas and why they target groups and what all these social welfare engineering laws are about in demographic terms over time. [it is well known that women without a mate value the state to make up the difference – so the more you can get into that social position, the more you get votes. so its critical to define liberation and anti oppressive points as conducive to this end but described as something else publicly. the side wishing to stop such a process would seem to be oppressive, while the side promoting it would gain a welfare state and all its support in trade for goodies and protecting those hard earned ‘new rights’]
the deeper you look into demographics and the effects on policy the more you see a major area that tells them where to focus early before a change so that they sit pretty when it occurs, and as to how to facilitate changes in populations less influential (like intelligence)
What? Women are not all the same and think the same way? Say it ain’t so, Neo!
I think the difference mostly comes from the fact that blacks (who have a much lower marriage rate than other ethnic groups) solidly vote Democrat.
Many people don’t realize this, but black men have a very low rate of voter participation. I saw one exit poll from the 2008 election that showed women made up two thirds of black voters.
Hence, the gender gap comes mostly from missing men on the Democratic side rather than an abundance of women.
I forgot to mention that this dynamic (though denied), became well known after WWI and there were so many women who were left without husbands, and mates. it created the deciding factor that made things possible, and questionable without.
after that discovery by circumstance, the whole of it has been to promote the liberation of women from their mates, and then let the rest take its course.
in this case our social behavior based on conditions is more useful than any kind of logic or political argument.
the reasons one takes up such action to socially engineer it are different than the reasons you give the public who have to crawl into that lifestyle to create the conditions to move the numbers.
this condition (for a time) could be artificially inflated (as it was) by causing women to put off marriage, making state aid easy to get (requiring men to vamoose), flooding colleges, asymmetric family court laws, and on and on, way too numerous to mention – but all done over time so we don’t think twice about them and cant imagine life without it…
any crisis that came of such games would be a benefit anyway, so to the power hungry without morals, its the easy plan if the victims don’t resist and adore you for it (because they are young and appreciate what faux generosity buys – or bad advice has them in circumstances where their best choice is not the best choice).
if you can make a monolithic thing out of that voting block (as they have – regardless of voting or other minor things compared to the whole), you basically eventually get control of everything through the (careless) opportunities it gives you to do so under the guise of needing more power to do what is ‘promised’.
between the monolithic group and their sensitive and socially concerned supporters, you have a huge dominant voting block. and one that will get angry when the goodie train stops.
as you can see it is with recent articles, especially in the UK, covering women’s dissatisfaction that they are doing all the work. but note who the targets of said articles are. after all they are finding themselves taking the helm of greater earnings and higher responsibility at the time of record taxes and record welfare and almost mandatory state paid college for women (and minorities). with each expanding program and vote bribe comes a larger responsibility that their taking up the jobs gives them at the same time. in a way the young idyllic women and welfare ladies are forcing the older women many who have families (of which now there are burdens), and other older working women to pay for it (before they climb up there).
demographically speaking, as they take up the mens jobs and the men fall behind they will find themselves pitted against themselves but without the gender line to cloud the issue. the welfare high tax love the state ladies will want the working in business in the corner office ladies to pay their way (not to mention pay for the Nintendo playing men out of work, who without state aid would have what happen to them given the social changes??).
all veddy interesting…
Artfldgr, I don’t think in their wildest dreams they could have hoped for spectacles like “Slut Walks” and protesters dressing up as vaginas to demand free abortions on demand. The current feminist movement is an embarrassment to women.
I do not ‘Get’ why unmarrieds are significantly more stump-stupid than marrieds. Especially with our country very obviously in such vast trouble.
Generally married women will be older (and wiser), have some semblance of conservative values, and probably have a husband who has been devastated by this economy.
Unmarried women are, generally, younger and don’t have to worry about the unemployment line as much, statistically speaking.
I agree with DirtyJobsGuy and Phil. The difference may be characterized by an individual’s long-term investment. People who have such a vested interest will not be the first to destroy what they have developed. Others are notably more fickle.
Still, it doesn’t explain how they managed to divorce concepts such as slavery and involuntary exploitation, protected classes and discrimination, and abortion and human rights. Actually, the answer is clear. The greed of the so-called “1%” is only matched by the avarice of the “50%”. However, whereas the former is corruption in the exception, the latter is an outcome of progressive or cultural corruption.
“Women are underrepresented in the science and engineering departments. That’s not fair…do something.”
Reinstitute the draft.
“Sorry, honey, but your number came up. Report for physics boot camp at 0800.”
The implication of this bleat about underrepresentation is that hordes of women yearn to go into science and engineering, but are somehow prevented from doing so.
The fact is that there’s nothing whatever stopping anyone from taking such courses except the will to do so.
Re the married/unmarried segmentation, good comments above regarding age, ethnicity, and the correlation between political views and marital habits.
I’d add another: willingness to accept responsibility. It’s pretty common in the Bay Area to find aging hipsters suffering from the Peter Pan syndrome who might be living together, but have never married, and who are, needless to say, raging Obamanauts.
Single women are the key. Single men will espouse whatever they think will help them get laid by those single women. (Uh, according to “a friend.” I wouldn’t know myself.) If single women came out adamantly against beer, single men would all be ordering wine spritzers in clubs.
My outrageous conjecture (yup, here comes another one) is that single women adopt such touchy-feely politics to show their nurturing side (“they care”) and thus subliminally to signal that they will be good mothers. (Consider the converse proposition: a single woman taking a hard-nosed conservative sink-or-swim everybody-pull-his-own weight stance. Doesnt work, does it?)
Once they really are mothers, this pose would become superfluous, and the financial pressures on a family (plus greater experience of human nature) would tend to move them rightward.
Many single women have children, and they are physically and financially overwhelmed with the demands of single parenthood. They want a nanny state to make up for the missing husband.
Lizzy,
In a way they did. Not specifically, so yeah, not in their wildest dreams did they know what form the crazyness would take, but they knew that it would cause it.
its as simple as this. the purportes supporters normally support people by some criteria, and dont support mutually exclusive positions. however, feminism (and the copies of the idea) is representation without any question. that is, other than being on the ‘right’ you have a home in feminism. so in its essence its not selective by some doctrine. every vote is welcome no matter how crazy or nutty, or how much it lacks support. the small groups never get support but do give it, and they exist in mutual exclusion to the opposites.
so what happens is there is this complete sense of entitlement. what ever women want (if your with that group) is goodness. if feminism has become falsely synonymous with women, the choices of feminists have been made synonymous with goodness and without question.
while that may sound interesting it has the effect of causing the groups to go nutters (the way the absence of another has caused the US as a state to kind of go nutters). who could tell the group so well protected from any criticisms? would you dare stand in front of the slut walk and tell them? no man can.
no one can tell them anything. trust me. i know. been trying to wake them up to the harm everyone moving the same time can be in and of itself. which is what mass movements are and why they can never be good. no matter how acclimated to the story you are.
with nothing capable of pushing back,there is nothing to question the sanity or outcome of anything. they control that and so if they don’t say they are nuts, no one can. meanwhile if they said Clarence Thomas was or that Cain was, then what? they even have gone so far as to legalize favoritism. you try to complain about that and see where it gets you.
you ask a feminist what does she really think 200 people walking outside with candles will do in terms of stopping some local rapist (maybe rapist given some events)? like the person who didn’t care for the other persons feelings and life enough not to do it would care once they saw the candles… heck, from what i see on tv, they would do it again just to see the candles…
once they made talking vaginas an almost religious experience in theater across the country with more regularity than charles dickens cristmas carol, what would or could you expect?
what the ladies dont miss is that the leaders dont care. that is, they will promote anything that keeps them in the fold and thats it. the more destructive, abnormal, weird, the better… because the more women are like that, the more the natural society will drive them into the arms of the only people that understand them and their specialness in nuttyville.
that is, for every nutty harmful idea, the feminists were right there to give advice to go do it, and egg them on, just as long as whatever they did didn’t get them to focus on feminists. just focus on what women do, and celebrate it all, without question, from hookers, to high heels.
the women never asked if the whole thing was even valid. that is, the whole construct of research, and validation, and social games, and blind support (if your not opposing them), etc… was all a ruse? a farce? something that could never work because it has no actual substance. its everything to every woman, but only what the leaders dictate.
if the fit hits the shan and we have to fight a war in which the impact was not just far away and economic with a dash of sci fi interest… then what? the interlocking safe whole integrated pull together society we had will be seen in start relation to what we have and what is missing that we lost.
look around, this is the landscape since the slow revolution of the 60s. at some point, the rational that what society was at that point is now seen as a golden age in which women look back and even say things like “women were allowed to stay home” (direct quote from an article).
sadly… for many, what they destroyed is what they still want, and that bouvier said they would want and cant be allowed to. the family, the mate, the kids the house, the yard…
to read the people that define the movement and have the ear of the politicians helping to make policy, one would wonder how it could turn out well at all. from nut cases, to hateful harridens, all of them pushing the same ends, and admitting it to followers that somehow rationalize they are not what they are and are not doing what they are doing, and so on.
we wouldn’t be pondering why women without mates and going it alone favor the statists and totalitarians as women without mates and going it alone did pre WWII. WHY they had no mates is biologically irrelevant. war? disease? gender war of ideas given to them? the ones that took up the new living style would live the same hard lives that then got them to make the same statist choices (as they are doing).
the trick was how to do it… the US was the war winner, so you cant do it that way. though just war and the idea of attrition may have worked, if not for technology making smart ordinance and our kill ratios going to comparatively nothing given past conflicts.
about the only way would be to do what was done in the US. foster hate between the two groups, favor one, disfavor the other, support one completely no matter what, criticize the other ignoring anything good at all. no fault divorce, easy welfare, the social message… all policies and ideas pushed by the same small cadre of people following self admittedly the same ends…
in essence they socially engineered an equivalent over time, and acting to enhance what worked, and drop what didn’t, so it would do more over time than anyone could plan at a start.
and here we are, in a social condition that we accept but also do not see or know. after all, we are all for the laws and favoritism and all that. but we ignore the lives we are creating with it through EBT and birth rate being a way to an easy better life (and how different groups take that up over others).
cant stop it as whats created it and supported it and all that is an entity we monolithically support without question. that may not be true at the individual level, but they (of which i am one) amount to nothing… we may feel that our ideas dont, but in the sphere, there is no representation at a level where alternative ideas would be presented and outcomes debated by those who make choices.
pull back the lawn chair
crack yourself a beer
and sit back and watch
as you may save the crazy driver from going off the cliff in the wacky car ride, but at best its a temporary condition as the car is still moving, the polity is wacky with these things they wont get rid of, and our ability to avert the outcome is becoming more and more limited as the older people disappear over time.
Maturity cures a lot of ills and eliminates a lot of thoughtless behavior.