Women and Leftism - An Interesting Google Search

I was reading that thread about libertarians and Rick Santorum. Somebody said something about how Rick is alienating women from the republican party. And then I recalled some information about women just generally being more left these days, and how the entirety of feminism is tied in heavily with the left. So, just for fun, I google searched “Women more likely to be left.” I’m just going to post excerpts for you guys. If anything catches your eye, I suggest you read the whole article. If there’s anything you find that you want to dispute, add to, show the relevance of, ask more about, etc., please post.

None of this post represents my opinion or my own studies, for the record. Just posting excerpts from each page.

Result 1
A pdf essay:

Result 2

Result 3
a pdf essay:

Result 4
a pdf essay:

Result 5

Result 6

Result 7

where are you coming from…stick your neck out…

paris france.

i cant access that…i am on dial-up…

So once married women become empowered they veer to the left, talk about biting the hand that feeds you :stuck_out_tongue: .

I assume men are majoritively right wing, otherwise we’d be living in a socialist world.

And by “empowered,” I assume you mean divorced? :laughing: 'Cause according to those studies, it’s not married women who are veering to the left.

FJ, I’m with turtle, come on man, let’s hear your thoughts on this. Posting a bunch of studies without sharing your own thoughts on them is sort of welshing on your job as OP author.

Is it really so surprising that women in Western societies would be more left-leaning than men? [size=75][Insert standard caveat/pre-emptive statement that of course, this is ALL generalization.][/size] The articles were interesting in their hypotheses as to the reasons behind the trends, but the bottom line is pretty predictable, don’t you think? The progressive issues important to Left end of the spectrum - social justice, equal rights, improving child services and access to high quality education, reducing the gap between rich and poor, are all issues with strong appeal to a great many women.

I think it’s likely true that the rise of “non-marriage” the past few decades is tied to the trend of women becoming increasingly left-leaning. Marriage and divorce have a larger impact financially on women than men; one of those studies puts it rather bluntly:

:confused: [size=85]Ugh. That may well be one way, but for the record, I’m glad it’s not the only way to understand marriage. [/size]

So anyway.

The Left is immersed in social issues, and women are social creatures who often bear the greater burden in caring for the more vulnerable members of society. Women tend to have wider social networks and can be more sensitive to individual family situations and the inequalities inherent in daily interactions that men may not notice.

In general, women benefit from a society with a more flattened hierarchical structure. I happen to think that men do too, but I’m a Leftie, and I recognize that many men don’t see it that way.

It’s interesting what gets considered knowledge - I will guess the quiz considers knowledge, just as most of my social studies teachers in elementary through high school did - the ability to remember disjointed ‘facts’. Rather than, for example, being able to give a nuanced, multiperspective description of issues.

or the Right wing, in fact the whole spectrum, has moved to the right. I mean, Nixon would have been considered a socialist by today’s standards, and even more of an anti-Christ than Obama. I mean he froze prices and wages, let alone social programs, corporate taxes, etc.

I think what you have is a more engaged and politically saavy women’s voting block, here and abroad. Earlier women voted along more ‘family values’, religious lines than they do today, hence the center right appeal back then. Now women are more involved in a complicated way from an earlier age with politics.

I can think of ways a woman can ‘provide sex’ to ‘her man’ without being provided sex in return, but generally speaking marriage sex is, well, intercourse, you know all that genital rubbing on genitals. Hence any providing is mutual in form. (content may vary depending on providers)

I’m really going to get flamed for this post, but please keep in mind I will be speaking in generalities that I would not suggest apply to everyone:

The first thing that you have to understand about unmarried (or divorced) women is that, along with everyone else, there are generally two distinct types of these women.

The first ype of woman who is generally going to be unmarried is a successful career woman who often will view the Democratic Party as the Women’s Liberation Party, and rightfully so, from a standpoint of aiding women in breaking through glass ceilings and giving them more equal opportunity in the workplace with respect to occupational choices, wage equality, and opportunity for advancement. The majority of women that paid attention in High School History class will know that Democrats are the ones to first seriously lobby for these changes, and that the majority of Women’s Rights advocates, at such times, were Democratic.

The second type of woman you will find is one who is not financially well off, and will generally either have children out of wedlock, or be divorced with children. The Democratic Party is, as we all know, more Liberal with Social Fiscal policies, and any woman in this position who is not an idiot will realize that Liberals, in general, have worked and are continuing to work to advance their cause in the following areas:

1.) Higher Income Limits/Amounts for Food Stamps.

2.) Higher Income Limits/Amounts for Welfare.

3.) Higher Income Limits for Social Medical Services.

4.) College Grant Programs and Continuing Education Grant Programs.

5.) Money Allocations for Job Placement.

6.) Access to Free, or Greatly Reduced, Childcare for those who do work and/or attend College.

For example, we’re going to use someone I know (who shall remain unnamed and unidentified as an example):

The individual in question is able to take advantage of numbers 1, 2, 3, 4, and 6…and may eventually take advantage of Number 5.

The individual in question is a never-married Mother of two whose, “Baby-Daddy,” has any number of other kids to such an extent that the child support is spread so thin that she gets almost nothing from him. Furthermore, he is not always employed to begin with. The individual in question has two kids who were born premature, had health problems, no longer have significant health problems (though have lingering effects) and are still collecting SSI. In addition to these collections, the individual in question is also a foodstamp/welfare recipient who receives all medical care (for herself and the kids) free of charge. Furthermore, the individual in question recently started attending college almost exclusively on grant money that may or may not need to be repaid (Graduation-Dependent) and these grants also give the individual in question over $10,000/year in straight cash which is awarded, in part, at the end of each academic period. Finally, childcare is provided by said Institution of Academia at no charge whatsoever.

In total, excluding the free childcare and healthcare, the individual in question (from all sources, including food stamps) clears 30K/year and also lives in an income-based housing unit. The total taxes paid from this money are $0.00.

In essence, the Social Services/Monies provided to this person are such that she is better off not to have married the Father of her children, (were he not already married, which he is) as his income would then offset the monies provided by the Government and College Grants etc.

How could such an individual not vote Democratic?

FAMILY:

The problem with the entitlement society is that it becomes such that women have very little financial incentive to stay with their husbands (who, in many cases, are not neglectful or otherwise abusive) and often find that they will have more financial opportunity by striking it off by themselves and will continue to live lucratively decent lives. These individuals will be able to attempt to pursue a career, and are better off doing so AFTER having kids, because if they were to do so prior to having kids, there may be some kind of financial struggle or discomfort of lifestyle (ex. living in a dormroom) involved. In many cases, these college grants are simply an opportunity to get some extra money and will very often result in, “Career students,” who will be in good financial shape until all of the kids have reached the age of eighteen. At that point, the individual may then seek out some kind of career, or may seek out some kind of a partner.

The family problem is that, were it not for these social programs, it is self-apparent that all couples would be better off to remain married. The primary expenses one faces are generally mortage/rent, utilities and food, so it is obvious that (lacking Social Services of any kind) a married couple is going to be stronger than two single individuals regardless of whether or not both of them work or only one of them works. It is unfortunate, however, that such a system lacking in any, “Safety nets,” can often facilitate abuse of the wife or children within the household, because, where the Hell else are they going to go? It is in scenarios such as these that women, in my estimation, would be more likely to get stuck with an abusive partner due to inability to do anything else. That is truly unfortunate, and I also think that any individual convicted of three or more counts of spousal abuse should get the death penalty, but that’s a different topic for a different day.

Essentially, you are faced with a problem that a divorced couple, with kids, serves to often financially harm the male as he must pay child support (part of his income) while being put in the position of still needing to provide a suitable residence for himself that must also be able to comfortably accomodate the kids should he desire any type of lengthly visitation with them. In many of these cases, the female often ends up better off, or believes that she is in a position where she can ultimately end up better off.

I’ve already stated that the situation with no Social Services can facilitate and abusive household, but the problem lies in finding the right balance of a, “Safety Net,” while still making it patently disadvantageous for either the male or female to extract themselves from a marriage, because certainly (given that the divorce rate is so much higher than it was just twenty years ago, as well as the rate of unmarried mothers) many of these relationships could probably be saved.

Unfortunately, it would also seem that access to these Social Services minimize the effects of making stupid decisions such as being an unmarried individual who engages in unprotected sex, because, the worst case scenario is one in which the State ends up taking care of you anyhow.

ULTIMATELY:

Ultimately, both of these generalized types of women have excellent reasons for throwing their support to the Democratic Party, as it is such party that acts in furtherance of their interests, anyway. Another example that we can look at is that the Democratic Party Candidates are far more likely to be Pro-Choice than Republican Candidates, which further, “Empowers,” women…to not have to take responsibility for their decisions.

I lean Pro-Choice, by the way, but let’s face it, that’s the fucking reason why. Men will often encourage an abortion from a partner they have impregnated, so they’re not innocent of shirking responsibility, either.

I’m a much different kind of Socialist than people are used to, I can get into that more, if need be, but I often accuse the Democratic Party of being the, “Take no fucking personal responsibility for your actions,” Party. Both parties make me sick, just in different ways.

Anyway, both types of women support the Democratic Party for different reasons. The first type of woman does not want to have to rely on anyone except for herself for her survival, and rightfully believes she should not HAVE to rely on a man, or a marriage. The second type of woman is simply changing the entity she relies on for her personal survival (and that of the children) from a man to the Government. The Government can occasionally do a better job, lucratively speaking, anyway, and this is especially the case for a man who is imprisoned for whatever reason.

I have a lot more to say about this subject, but in the interest of facilitating an actual discussion, I would say that this post is long enough and is enough with which to jumpstart this thread, so let’s see where it goes.

Leftism in general is an effeminate philosophy. So it’s a given that women gravitate to its doctrines. There’s also many effeminate males so they move left as well.
It’s funny though, because leftism needs the executive branch of government to implement its causes, as there is no natural order of equality, rights, and social justice etc. But what is the executive branch of government other than a masculine entity? The heavy hand of government with its threats of jail, fines, executions, shame, and guilt is the masculine doctrine of force and domination.
Lefties, despite their so-called caring and altruistic ideals, still need to use the threat of violence and force to implement its doctrines. So it’s a funny mixture: all feel-good and nice, but with the threat of death and hate lingering over the head of non-believers.

All pretty cut-and-dried, huh? :wink:

Well, if nothing else, if we were to use your viewpoint and mine as gender-typical, it would sure serve to substantiate the political gender gap. :slight_smile:

The single example you use to illustrate your second “distinct type” of woman, she may or may not be a money-grubbing freeloader, there are women like that, of course. Or, she could be a woman who is trying her damnedest to be her children’s one and only responsible parent, wanting to make a better life for her family. Unfortunately, many women and their children are treated irresponsibly (at best) by the men who fathered the children and then abandoned them. If the guy’s gonna shirk his responsibilities, should those kids have to starve and go without medical care?

Do you think it would be easy to attend college AND take care of children with health issues? I give her major credit for that. I mean, you haven’t stated that she’s using her foodstamps to buy liquor and lotto tickets. In any event, I have no way of knowing what her personal motivations are, but I guess as a citizen, my main concern is the welfare of those kids.

The goal from a Democratic standpoint is to help her to get an education, enable her children to grow up healthy, and have all of them become contributing members of society. Not saying it always happens, but still, in my eyes, that’s a worthy goal.

Sort of funny, but not in a ha-ha way, that you consider that a problem, that you think women joining the workforce and making their own money is “entitlement.” To me, it’s earned liberation. Do you really want a society where women HAVE to stay with their husbands because they are financially dependent?

No, it’s only possible that they may be better off financially. Couples should not have to stay married at all costs. A prolonged, enforced, toxic environment is not a healthy atmosphere for anyone.

Financially harm the male? Must pay child support? Are you kidding me? You yourself showed in your own example that a large part of the problem is the men who won’t pay child support. You cannot argue in good faith that abandoned single mothers undeservedly work the system for their kids’ medical bills, and then in the next breath complain that men are financially harmed due to the amount of child support they pay. If single mothers mooching off the system is a big problem, as you claim, then deadbeat dads are just as big a part of the problem.

Um, and just to clarify - she doesn’t have to pay child-related expenses? She doesn’t have to provide a residence that can comfortably accommodate kids? And she doesn’t have to do all that on very likely a smaller income?

“Any type of lengthy visitation”? Aw Pav. So she doesn’t have to be there in the middle of the night when they have nightmares, or fevers, or make treats for the Valentine party at school, or costumes for Halloween, or drive them to basketball and to play dates and host play dates and sleepovers? I mean Pav, WTF, really?

That’s not a “leftie” thing, it’s a civilization thing - can you name any sort of government that functions without the use of threats, violence, and force?

Associating death and hate with justice sounds like a pretty emotional appeal. Careful, I’d hate to see you stumble into the realm of the effeminate.

I agree with Anita’s response but I thought I would take a different tack on this one. We could look at the traditional family as having entitlements for women - who must be taken care of financially by their husbands, even if they are sick and don’t provide sexual services or scrub the floors. Or one could look at it the other way and see that men become entitled, in that system, to sex and having their floors scrubbed and an ongoing output of heirs, regardless of how they act. IOW, for example, the quiet man who is nice and does not beat his wife but also never asks her what she is thinking and never develops intimacy with her has no incentive to do this. Socially the men are living in a welfare state.

What a great description of the Bush Administration.

No.
But the point is that while lefties want equality, they need a higher order (the government) to implement it, thus equality is a pipe-dream and a contradiction.

But those who’d promote inherent superiority also have to use force and threats of violence to try to keep the inferiors in line. Often eventually failing, when reason prevails.

So, if that hierarchical paradigm can be overridden by the so-called “inferiors” of society, if the “weak” can overpower the “strong,” implement and propagate their own ideas, well…what does that do to your claims of superiority?

All that proves is physical superiority.
The “strong” usually have to cultivate their talents to prove themselves superior. Like the sportsman, musician, writer, scientist, businessman, etc.This hierarchy is sustained by levels of competence and skill, which is also in turn sustained by reverence and awe from inferiors. Equality, on the other hand, has no respect for talent and so it tries to squeeze everyone into a one-size fits all via the gun.

I wasn’t talking about physical superiority, I was talking about the power to bestow or withhold human rights. That power may or may not correspond to physical strength.

That’s not my idea of equality. The Democratic view of equality is that everyone is deserving of equal opportunity, not that everyone is equal in each and every way. The Left embraces and celebrates differences, it doesn’t want to erase them.

Talent in one specific area has absolutely nothing, at all, to do with civil rights. Just out of curiosity, how exactly would you assign a value to the knowledge a physicist has in comparison with the artistry of a poet? The skills of a marksman compared to a virtuoso violinist? Do you think there’s some objective way to quantify talent?

Most, not all, but most, women just want a level playing field. Often they create their own problems out of ignorance. They marry young, have two children and try to do the proper family gig. Then they find out that they married Mr. Wrong and the shit hits the fan. I suppose we could put them in stocks and throw vegetables at them for being stupid, but that does absolutely nothing to help them get past early mistakes and become a productive stable citizen raising healthy children. She needs help, and she isn’t likely to get it from the ex who is busy trying to start over as well. It’s easy to point to all the possible failures of both men and women because there are many, but what good does that do us? Everyone is stuck between the rock and a hard place. The only way out is up, and someone or some institution has to provide whatever it takes to help that woman become self-sufficient with the ability to raise her children. The political left seems to understand this a whole lot better than the political right.

Moreover, women are beginning to see the light at an earlier age and aren’t about to marry assuming spousal support. It’s wonderful to see the ideal family and there are many of those, but there is an equal number of failed marraiges and/or SO arrangements. As a society, we hold up the ideal and then fail miserably to provide the education and incentives needed for all citizens - male and female - to make that ideal a reality. We preach Cleaverland and close our eyes when it doesn’t happen.

I tire of the sanctimonious preaching of 'personal responsibility" when we don’t teach it to our children. At least the left aims at correcting this mistake instead of punishing those who fail. Women will tend to vote left because they end up bearing the greatest responsibility of raising their children. If we should screw up and actually prepare our children with the skills to be stable productive citizens, then women would most likely mirror the center-right stance of most citizens.

Absolutely not. :slight_smile:

The opportunity is pretty rare that this specific issue is addressed on this Board, or anywhere else (on a personal level) for that matter, so I must admit that my opinion on this matter has not really been challenged. The person with whom I have fully hashed out my opinions on this matter, namely my wife, tends largely to agree with me, so I welcome having my views challenged in this regard, and hopefully, such a challenge will lead me to taking a more Moderate position as I will be confronted with viewpoints that I have not previously considered.

You’re absolutely right in that regard, and I do not want that to seem as though that is what I was suggesting. I am certainly of the opinion that there needs to be a, “Safety net,” in place, particularly for the sake of the children, if not necessarily the Mother. My position mainly concerns to what extent the, “Safety net,” should exist, and whether or not the, “Safety net,” essentially becomes an entitlement. Furthermore, my position also is designed to take into consideration the possibility that the entitlements are such as to make a possibly salvageable marriage or relationship too easy for an individual of either gender to get out of, and I would argue it does.

In other words, my concern is that the playing field, to a large degree, has gone past being, “Leveled,” and has actually extended to making being a single Mother financially advantageous as compared to remaining in a relationship and…God forbid…working through tough situations, in some cases.

I don’t know. Attending college is certainly less difficult when the institution is providing free childcare and when the individual is getting straight-up cash out of the deal that never has to be repaid. Having worked for the scholarships that I did get, by performing well-enough in High School and on Standardized tests, and still paying off student loans at the age of 28, which will likely not be fully paid until I am around 40-45, it just seems that all of these entitlements by which an individual who performed poorly in H.S. and got a G.E.D. would attend college for free…and actually receive money, no strings attached (except the need to graduate) does a little more than level the playing field.

The individiual in question does smoke cigarettes, and a lot of them, which certainly seems like it would be a waste of money for someone who has 90%+ of their money provided to them by entitlement programs. Furthermore, the individual in question has significant assistance with respect to childcare, even outside of the college, to the extent that the individual has plenty of study time.

The individual also takes the grant checks in question and spends the money frivolously when such checks are received. Without going into all of the specifics, let’s just say that the individual certainly buys more new clothing for herself (not just the kids) than I could afford for myself, where I am married and work 65+ hours per week.

I definitely agree with the principles of having the children grow up healthy, and of, “Helping,” her get an education. The problem is, the entitlement programs are doing more than merely helping her get an education. Student loans, which need to be re-paid in the event one is working, HELP someone get an education. There’s a significant difference between helping and giving. No education was given to me nor to most other people (who are not single parents) that I know, so how precisely is that levelling the playing field? We were certainly helped with our education, again, in the form of student loans.

I was not referring to women who actually work and have financially rewarding careers. I was referring to the fact that an individual can often divorce her husband, causing him to pay child support, yet live lucratively better than she did as married by virtue of the entitlements she receives. I obviously have absolutely no problem with self-sufficient women (from a financial standpoint) doing whatever they want to with respect to staying married or not.

That’s fine, and, as stated, should such an environment need to be escaped from, then there should be a safety net in place. I think our main disagreement lies in the scope of said net.

In some cases, the divorce financially harms the male as opposed to remaining married, that’s my point. In addition to having to find suitable living circumstances for himself, he also (as he should) pays for some part of another household, his previous one. My point is that, provided the woman wins custody of the children, the male (and this is particularly true for those of lower-middle class incomes) will often find himself living in a worse situation financially while the Mother will often seen her financial situation improve, courtesy of the entitlements.

I agree with you with respect to deadbeat Dads, of course, but then we have to decide just what exactly is a deadbeat Dad. Looking at Fathers who do pay child support, what portion of their incomes, or of the Mother’s household expenses, should he have to pay? Does such payment prohibit him completely from being able to afford his own domicile, even if modest? Keep in mind that, without custody of the kids, he doesn’t have to make a whole Hell of a lot to fail to qualify for most forms of rental assistance, which are income-based, and from which the amount of child support paid out is often a non-consideration.

No. If the Government is paying the expenses, she is not paying the expenses. Maybe Ohio is different from other States, but in Ohio, all you have to do to be set is have a kid and be single, you’re good for 18 years. You will have a residence, food, healthcare, utilties, etc. The only question is whether or not such an individual feels compelled (and they often do not) to improve upon that. If the individual does feel so compelled, then why should they essentially be paid (College entitlements) for improving upon that as opposed to having to take out student loans as many of the people who made GOOD and repsonsible decisions so often have to do?

What? I’m saying that if the Father actually desires to have his kids overnight or for entire weekends, he must demonstrate that his residence is, “Big enough,” to comfortably house the child or children, or he will not be granted such access. In other words, if an efficiency is all he can afford after CS and other bills, he doesn’t get to keep his kids over a weekend as it is an, “Unsuitable living environment.”

No offense, but that’s weak, at best. The emotional nature of a marriage and the financial nature of a marriage are two completely seperate things.

Just for the record, I am also not averse to doing housework, especially if my wife is sick, but generally I would suggest that housework should be allocated in accordance with the percentage of time one spouse works as opposed to the other. In other words, if a couple works a combined x number of hours and the wife is good for 20% of that, then the husband should do 20% of the housework. That discludes lawnmowing and tending to weeds, by the way, because the husband should always have to do that regardless.