Women and Leftism - An Interesting Google Search

[Flannel Jesus]

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:

Using data from the 2000 Canadian Election Study, we test two hypotheses: First, the wider the range of women known, the more likely women are to vote for the Left, and second, the wider the range of higher-status women known, the more likely married women are to vote for the Left.[...]Our second hypothesis builds on Susan Carroll’s argument that women require sufficient autonomy to express their gender-related interests in their choice of party. We argue that married women’s political autonomy can be enhanced if their social networks include a range of women who do enjoy such autonomy. Ties with higher-status women can be a source of psychological resources that facilitate voting for a party of the Left. We find support for both of these hypotheses.

Result 2

New information for women is critical, as the widely-accepted belief that women know less about current events than men is regrettably true.

An April 2007 study by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press shows that the average woman lags behind the average man as much as 12% in correctly answering a news quiz covering recent headlines.

Result 3
a pdf essay:

Using nationally representative longitudinal data, we show that having daughters makes people more likely to vote for left-wing political parties. Having sons leads people to favor right-wing parties. The paper checks that our result is not an artifact of family stopping-rules, discusses the predictions from a simple economic model, and tests for possible reverse causality.

Result 4
a pdf essay:

The last three decades have witnessed the rise of a political gender gap in the United States wherein more women than men favor the Demo- cratic party. We trace this development to the decline in marriage, which we posit has made men richer and women poorer. Data for the United States support this argument. First, there is a strong positive correlation between state divorce prevalence and the political gender gap – higher di- vorce prevalence reduces support for the Democrats among men but not women. Second, longitudinal data show that following marriage (divorce), women are less (more) likely to support the Democratic party.

Result 5

The realignment thesis on gender voting in postindustrial societies argues that traditional voting patterns, where women compared to men were more supportive of center-right parties, are being replaced by a modern gender gap, where women are more likely than men to support parties of the left.

Result 6

"I would suspect this is all about family life. It's saying 'well actually, if I'm going to be out in the workplace, then I need the state to intervene more to provide things like childcare'."

The nature of other countries' gender gaps supports this argument. American women are significantly less hostile to a "big state" than American men and much more likely to vote Democrat. In Sweden, women are particularly anxious to preserve the welfare state and vote accordingly.

Result 7

Over the years, a number of phases have emerged during which there were clear differences in the levels of support that parties enjoyed among men and women. During the 1960s, for example, men were much more likely to support the NDP than women, because of the NDP association at the time with the trade union movement and labour issues. That trend reversed in more recent decades, as the party came to focus principally on general social welfare topics.

[turtle]

where are you coming from....stick your neck out..

[Flannel Jesus]

paris france.

[turtle]

paris france.

i cant access that...i am on dial-up...

[Amorphos]

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

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

[AnitaS]

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

And by "empowered," I assume you mean divorced? '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? [Insert standard caveat/pre-emptive statement that of course, this is ALL generalization.] 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:

Hence, one way to understand marriage is as a contract in which women provide men with custodial rights (as proposed in Edlund [1998]), and in the majority of cases, also sex. If women are compensated for this transfer, a decline in marriage may represent a shortfall in income for women.
http://www.hks.harvard.edu/fs/rpande/papers/qje_all.pdf

Ugh. That may well be one way, but for the record, I’m glad it’s not the only way to understand marriage.

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.

[Moreno]

An April 2007 study by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press shows that the average woman lags behind the average man as much as 12% in correctly answering a news quiz covering recent headlines.

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.

The last three decades have witnessed the rise of a political gender gap in the United States wherein more women than men favor the Demo- cratic party. We trace this development to the decline in marriage, which we posit has made men richer and women poorer. Data for the United States support this argument. First, there is a strong positive correlation between state divorce prevalence and the political gender gap – higher di- vorce prevalence reduces support for the Democrats among men but not women. Second, longitudinal data show that following marriage (divorce), women are less (more) likely to support the Democratic party.

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 would suspect this is all about family life. It's saying 'well actually, if I'm going to be out in the workplace, then I need the state to intervene more to provide things like childcare'."

The nature of other countries' gender gaps supports this argument. American women are significantly less hostile to a "big state" than American men and much more likely to vote Democrat. In Sweden, women are particularly anxious to preserve the welfare state and vote accordingly.

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.

Hence, one way to understand marriage is as a contract in which women provide men with custodial rights (as proposed in Edlund [1998]), and in the majority of cases, also sex. If women are compensated for this transfer, a decline in marriage may represent a shortfall in income for women.

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)

[PavlovianModel146]

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.

[Fent]

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.

[AnitaS]

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.

All pretty cut-and-dried, huh?

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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?

[AnitaS]

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.

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.

[Moreno]

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.

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.

[Moreno]

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.

What a great description of the Bush Administration.

[Fent]

anitas wrote
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?

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.

[AnitaS]

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?

[Fent]

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.

[AnitaS]

All that proves is physical superiority.

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.

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.

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?

[tentative]

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.

[PavlovianModel146]

]All pretty cut-and-dried, huh?

Absolutely not.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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?

"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?

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."

[PavlovianModel146]

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.

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.

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.

[PavlovianModel146]

Most, not all, but most, women just want a level playing field.

Getting paid straight cash, as a single mother, to go to college is not a level playing field. Having equal access to student loans as an individual without children would is a level-playing field. You can even throw in the free childcare, really, if the college chooses to do that. I don't really have a problem with the free childcare, I have a problem with the notion of going to college, not paying provided you graudate (and if you don't, you'd still have to have a job before they go after you) and, in fact, actually being compensated for attending college as though it were a job.

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.

Whatever it takes? I want to make sure I am not misunderstanding you. Is it fair to say that, in your position, a single Mother should be compensated for attending college, should not have to pay back any student loans (because it is all done with grants that will not be paid back on condition she graudates) while a single individual who did not fuck up in any way has student loans to pay back for nearly half (or more) of their lives when such loans cannot even have bankruptcy filed upon them?

My question is simply, why should someone who fucked up live better than someone who did not fuck up and have more opportunities, while actually having to do less for those opportunities? Why should someone who fucked up have the opportunity to live better, financially, than some married couples who did not really fuck anything up?

I think the political left has a skewed perception of what self-sufficiency actually entails. Self-sufficiency entails that, if you get a loan for college, you will eventually get a job after graduation and repay that loan. Self-sufficiency entails not being handed free money for the privilege (and that it is free makes it a privilege) of going to college. That's something most people have to work, not to mention pay, for.

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.

You're absolutely right, and the fact that we encourage our youth to have sex via media portrayals and contraceptive counselling, as opposed to the conditioning of abstinence until marriage, doesn't help either.

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.

Why do you think women end up bearing the greatest responsiblity in raising their children? Don't get me wrong, they do, but why do you think that is?

[tentative]

Pav,

Getting paid straight cash, as a single mother, to go to college is not a level playing field. Having equal access to student loans as an individual without children would is a level-playing field. You can even throw in the free childcare, really, if the college chooses to do that. I don't really have a problem with the free childcare, I have a problem with the notion of going to college, not paying provided you graudate (and if you don't, you'd still have to have a job before they go after you) and, in fact, actually being compensated for attending college as though it were a job.

Well, you might be right IF the woman finds herself single without children. BUT... in this instance, we have three potential citizens (mom and 2 children) being flushed down the toilet. Consider: We won't let them starve to death and if we do nothing to bootstrap them into self-sufficiency, then we end up with life-long welfare recipients that we PAY for. So it becomes a matter of where would you like to spend the money? Do you want to help her get past her mistakes and stop costing us money? Or would you rather leave her on subsistence teaching the children how to live on subsistence? we already have enough 3rd and 4th generation welfare people. Maybe we should bite the bullet and actually DO something about it. It's bullshit to simply throw money at them and think that we've swept the problem under the rug. Remember, the money spent on mom prevents us from having to support three people for the rest of their lives. Why would we continue to create a perpetual underclass of citizenry? There is nothing that says we can't hold mom accountable for our money spent, but we need to worry less about the up front costs and look at the long term dollars spent if we do nothing.

You're absolutely right, and the fact that we encourage our youth to have sex via media portrayals and contraceptive counselling, as opposed to the conditioning of abstinence until marriage, doesn't help either.

Abstinence teaching is bullshit. Raging hormones will make a lie out of that every time. "just say no" is a laughable well-wishing fable. If we're going to teach something, teach them the responsibilities and consequences of pregnancy - ALL the consequences, and then supply them with any and all contraceptives possible. Reality says people are going to have sex at their earliest ability and as often as possible. To deny that is to ignore the history of human experience.

Why do you think women end up bearing the greatest responsiblity in raising their children? Don't get me wrong, they do, but why do you think that is?

Because we don't teach or hold accountable the males who are 50% of the problem. I think it's odd that males are more than happy to be there at the moment of conception, but cease to have any responsibility for providing 50% of the nurture and upbringing of the consequential child. Males are charged with less or no responsibility of their penis adventures - any place in the world.

[AnitaS]

Hey Pav,
See now this is what I like so much about you:

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.

Impressive. Not sure that it offsets what I read elsewhere: that when a female friend came to you for short-term financial help, your stipulation was that she have sex with you first... but knowing what I know about you, I’m sure it was more a “friends with benefits” type deal rather than the sleazy exploitation of a friend in need.

On to the topic at hand.

I think where we disagree, Pav, is in how pervasive the instance of the welfare abuser is. I, like you, am not for handing over money to people who work the system with no intention of giving anything back to the community that was there for them. I fully acknowledge that there are women who are content to sit on their asses all day, put Coke in the kid’s baby bottle and use their food stamps for twinkies. I’m not here to advocate for them.

I think we both agree that there are single mothers deserving of assistance, and those not so much. In my view, there are enough of the former, an overwhelming majority, to make it worthwhile to fight for. And I would sure as hell rather allocate more of my tax dollars to them than to subsidizing multi-million dollar corporations or individuals who pay less in taxes than I do.

It appears that you, on the other hand, feel that there are more single mothers who are happy to live off of handouts than not.

And that’s where I think one of those studies may have had some relevant insight. It goes back to women having larger social networks and having greater exposure to women living in a large range of circumstances, which informs our political views.

If I knew the woman you used in your example, and not many other single moms, I might come to the same conclusion that you do – single moms are handed everything on a silver platter.

But I know a lot of single moms who ended up struggling mightily to hold down at least one job while raising their kids alone. I do know one single mom who lives off the support of others, spends a lot of time drinking and partying, and her kids are growing up paying for it. But I know a lot more who stayed with their husbands longer than they should have to try to do what was “right,” and just needed help getting out of a bad situation and back on the road to normalcy.

My sister is one of the most devoted mothers you will ever find, a stay-at-home mom who left her full-time job when she had her first child. She stayed with a terrible man, an abusive alcoholic, for years in an attempt to keep her family unit together, until one night she woke up in the middle of the night and saw he had a handgun on his nightstand. She called me, and another sister and I went and got her and her 3 girls that night and they never went back. She was on government assistance until her youngest was out of diapers, and after that never had fewer than 2 jobs at a time until her girls were out of high school.

I have another friend whose husband is stoned half the time, and when he’s not yelling at them, he ignores both her and their kids. She, like my sister, made a huge mistake marrying him, but stayed with him in a misguided attempt to give their kids a father. She left him last fall and then promptly lost her job. She’s lucky enough to have a mom with room for her family, but I’m sure she is collecting some sort of unemployment.

Enough with the personal anecdotes. My point is that in my personal experience, in my network of friends, family, and acquaintances, I know many, many more single mothers who just need help getting back on their feet than I do women who are looking for free handouts. They’re not looking for handouts, most are mortified that they have to even ask for financial assistance.

I’m not saying your “network” is more limited, as I have no way of knowing that. Maybe you know just as many women who take advantage of the system and that’s the basis for your viewpoint? Maybe you’ve read studies concluding that most on welfare are undeserving?

In some cases, the divorce financially harms the male as opposed to remaining married, that's my point.

I don’t see how that, by itself, is relevant. In more cases, the female is financially harmed, although that gap is starting to shrink because women are gradually making more.

...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.

That’s a misleading claim. He may find himself living in a financially worse situation than when they were married. But her situation is also worse than when they were married. The improvement she sees because of assistance doesn’t make her better off financially than when she was married, it just makes her better off than she’d be raising her children alone.

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.

Agreed, but the same is true for her. That, in my opinion, is a failing of the system: people can be penalized for trying to earn even a small income while getting back on their feet.

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?

I can’t speak to the specifics in Ohio but I do agree that some people might see that as a pretty sweet deal. Again, maybe it’s just a difference in personal experience, but it seems to me most people would not be satisfied living that life if they had other options. You’re always going to have a percentage who are just plain lazy, but I don’t think most people are like that. I think most would much rather use the assistance to try to better their future with the aim of getting off that assistance as quickly as possible.

And if you want to talk about college entitlements, rather than debate financial aid for those who need it, let’s chat about athletic scholarships and the sense of entitlement THOSE foster. Ah, but that’s really an entirely different topic, and I've rambled enough already, so I won’t go off on that rant here.

[Amorphos]

AnitaS wrote: 'Cause according to those studies, it's not married women who are veering to the left.

Well they don’t feel disenfranchised when married.

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.

So everything that gives base to their snobbery, is what they bend over and aim their bottom line at .

[PavlovianModel146]

Well, you might be right IF the woman finds herself single without children. BUT... in this instance, we have three potential citizens (mom and 2 children) being flushed down the toilet. Consider: We won't let them starve to death and if we do nothing to bootstrap them into self-sufficiency, then we end up with life-long welfare recipients that we PAY for.

I understand your point about the kids coming into play, but this is where I have a problem:

The most responsible order in which a person can do things is that the person would go to college, get a well-paying job, and then have children when the person is in such a position to support those children. In many cases, the responsible decision costs the Government nothing, and results in the person paying back student loans for over half of the person's life.

Contrastly, an irresponsible way to do things is to have children when you are unable to independently support them, (and we've already talked about how many women strive for financial independence, which is fine) and then go to college. However, if you do things in an irresponsible way, you will receive a free college education, get grants that pay you cash simply for going to college, and you will have nothing to pay back if you graduate.

Ultimately, let's say you have two individuals that both go to school to be nurses, or anything else, for that matter. The first person goes to school and then has kids, the second person does that in reverse AND is supported by the Government when she is in school. If you zip ahead to when they have both graduated and are working, the first person has student loan debts that need to be repaid off-setting her income and the second person does not. Just for the Hell of it, let's say they both have two kids.

How the fuck is that fair? How does that level the playing field? You fucked up, but ultimately ended up in the same position as the other person, only you're debt-free, as far as student loans are concerned. I just want to know how that's fair, that's all.

So it becomes a matter of where would you like to spend the money? Do you want to help her get past her mistakes and stop costing us money? Or would you rather leave her on subsistence teaching the children how to live on subsistence? we already have enough 3rd and 4th generation welfare people. Maybe we should bite the bullet and actually DO something about it. It's bullshit to simply throw money at them and think that we've swept the problem under the rug. Remember, the money spent on mom prevents us from having to support three people for the rest of their lives. Why would we continue to create a perpetual underclass of citizenry? There is nothing that says we can't hold mom accountable for our money spent, but we need to worry less about the up front costs and look at the long term dollars spent if we do nothing.

You can make an argument for the childcare, which I really don't have a problem with. You can make an argument for free or reduced tuition, and I'm really not going to attack such an argument ferociously, though I do strongly disagree with free tuition. I think the person should have to take out student loanbs somewhere. Again, if you have student loans and are working you must pay them back, whether you're on assistance or not. Thus, someone could have went to college first, then had kids, now requires State assistance, and if that person works, that person is still paying on student loans.

I think that you can Legislate in such a manner that the person can cost less money without paying her for the privilege of attending college. First of all, you can Legislate in a way that requires all utility companies to deliver utility services to all Government-Subsidized apartments/houses at cost. There is absolutely no reason why the electric companies should profit off of those people when they are bullshit Regulated Monopolies who get to price-rape everyone else, anyway. I think it's bad enough that such services are not delievered at cost as it is, but it's even worse when the utility companies are biting the hand (Government) that feeds them the ability to rape people without having any competition in their markets.

The second thing that you can do is have price adjustments at the grocery store (though you wouldn't advertise the prices) that happen automatically when someone uses a foodstamp card which charges the actual amount but electronically deducts the retail markup on the food items. Once again, I really see no reason that the grocery stores should profit on these people, and it also pisses me off that these people will very often buy all name brand items, buy garbage fucking food, and will not do anything to offset the cost of the food such as clipping coupons or what have you. The Government's money really becomes their money. Shit, I clip my coupons just because I'm a miser, I can afford to pay retail!

Those are a few ways that the costs can be reduced to have people on welfare, and I think those suggestions are completely reasonable. In the event that those suggestions are taken, then you will see that giving someone $12,000/year for going to college (over-and-above the fact that they are already going for free) is completely unnecessary. Why are they being given this money? I'll tell you why, at least, in many cases. They're having that carrot dangled in front of them simply because the prospect of a free education is not enough to compel them to go to college, but if they are paid for going, then it becomes worth it in their estimation.

Can you imagine that, Tentative. Imagine someone walking up to an eighteen year-old with no kids and saying, "Here is a free college education," if the eighteen year-old were to reply, "No thanks, not good enough," what would you think of that person?

Seriously, why do you think the grants pay people actual money in addition to making the college free?

Abstinence teaching is bullshit. Raging hormones will make a lie out of that every time. "just say no" is a laughable well-wishing fable. If we're going to teach something, teach them the responsibilities and consequences of pregnancy - ALL the consequences, and then supply them with any and all contraceptives possible. Reality says people are going to have sex at their earliest ability and as often as possible. To deny that is to ignore the history of human experience.

Bullshit, bullshit, bullshit. Look at the rates of unmarried teens who were pregnant for the last few decades. People simply married younger a few decades ago, it was pretty much expected that you would marry, if not directly out of H.S., then shortly thereafter.

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/tgr/05/1/gr050107.html

Boom! For 15-19 year-olds in the year 1950, of those who got pregnant, 13% were unmarried compared to 79% in 2000.

Let's crunch some numbers:

It is true that a rate of 82 teenage births per 1,000 teenagers in 1950 was close to being an all-time high. while that rate was about 48 for the year 2000. That is offset, however, by 28 abortions per 1,000 teenagers in 2000, making the potential birthrate 76.

Since abortion was not legalized until 1973, you're basically looking at an actual birthrate of 82/1000 compared to a potential birthrate of 76/1000, which is very little difference considering the improvements in contraception.

But, no, abstinence counselling didn't work. Neither does contraceptive counselling, not really, it seems the only thing that, "Works," is abortion...which is largely fine by me.

However, only 13% of those teenagers were unmarried in 1950, so if we look at 13% of 82, then you're talking about 10.66 unmarried teen mothers per thousand teenage girls. In the year 2000, the rate was 48/1000, which is nearly half, but 79% of those were to single mothers. In that case, you are talking about 37.92 unmarried teenage mothers per thousand teenagers, for an increase of 356%.

If you look at the potential unmarried teen Mothers for the year 2000, going back to that potential statistic of 76/1000, then you end up with 60.04/1000 unwed teen Mothers, 6% of the population of teenagers 15-19 and nearly 600% more than there were in 1950.

As you can see, your contraceptive teaching (and the contraceptives, in fact, are better now which is a mitigating factor) does absolutely nothing to alleviate the amount of unwed teenage Mothers. Correlation is not Causation I will grant you, but it seems that taking the social stigma of being an unmarried parent off of both the Fathers and Mothers alike has correlated to...gasp...higher rates of unwed parents.

Thus, even if the welfare system were the same in 1950 as it is now, which it isn't, the welfare system would still be paying out substantially less as you are talking about 1.06% of the teenage population being unwed Mothers compared to 3.79%.

Marriage works. Period. Abstinence education appears no worse, it just seems more people are having abortions and contraceptives are better and more varied.

Morality works. Period.

Because we don't teach or hold accountable the males who are 50% of the problem. I think it's odd that males are more than happy to be there at the moment of conception, but cease to have any responsibility for providing 50% of the nurture and upbringing of the consequential child. Males are charged with less or no responsibility of their penis adventures - any place in the world.

I am inclined to agree with that, but only to an extent. I certainly agree with 50%, don't get me wrong, but how is he to come by that 50%? You have to take into consideration the fact that she gets free access to education after her mistakes where he does not, so his employment opportunities may be limited, unless he is already educated. Furthermore, the Court is going to order him to pay a certain amount of child support, which may impact his ability to get an education independently of Government Assistance due to the time he has to spend at work.

I don't think any of them should get free ediucation, but were we to allow that, I do not think they should be compensated, on direct, for the privilege of being educated.

I sincerely agree with your statements about how males should have to take more responsiblity, though. I would say that if a male fails to pay the designated amount of child support, which should be income-based, for three consecutive months...or if he is three total months behind...we hook him up with a little death penalty action. I think that the prospect of dying will motivate him to get his fucking ass in gear and take two jobs if he needs to.