Another long one coming.
Since I was posting on divorce yesterday, I've got more marriage-related thoughts today. Camassia gets the hat tip for alerting me to this post from someone called Olde Oligarch. (UPDATE: Old Oligarch has removed most of the post in question, and he includes an explanation for his action.)
Oligarch on the voting gap between single and married women:
I am always struck by what must certainly be an absolute novelty of the twentieth century: we have a large and ever-growing class of single women, many of whom become completely established on their own in society and live into their 30s before they decide to find a mate and settle down. Is it any surprise when we find that, as a class, they are generally bad for society?
The blurb: "The "marriage gap" - the difference in the vote between married and unmarried women - is an astonishing 38 percentage points, according to aggregated USA TODAY/CNN/ Gallup Polls. In contrast, the famous "gender gap," the difference in the vote between men and women, is just 11 points."
To summarize: whether a woman votes Democrat or Republican turns out to be massively correlated to whether she's married. Democrats are evil. Thus, the 20th century's creation of a large class of single women is both symptom and propagating cause of social dissolution.
Bold emphasis is mine. (By the way, does anyone want to tell the old boy it's the 21st century? I won't if you won't.) After this start, the archaic one offers this:
The article seems to suggest that the married or single state shapes your political psyche, but I bet the causal relationship is reversed. So either: the married state is increasingly populated by conservatives (seems patently false); or, when people want to marry, they find they also want things offered (at least marginally better) by the Republican party. Thus, contrary to the smug poster of the Reagan era, it's really the Young Democrats in Love who are in for a head / heart (or ideology / experience) disconnect.
Or, could we stand the article on its head and say?:
Women with traditional values succeed much more often and remain in stable unions; thus the high correlation between traditional values and marriage.
Does this mean, by virtue of the same statistic:
Despite whatever desire to eventually marry they might have, being an ardent Democrat woman is a per se liability to settling down?
Or, to make it even more polemical, can we wonder:
Is being a single woman in your thirties basically a sign that you've been misled by an ideology that is not great for you as a woman (and certainly not as a mother), but hey, you can't see that; or, if you can, it's too late now, so you vote for the party that defined your status quo?
Oh my. Oh my. Where, oh where, do I start? I love what Camassia said:
Damn. With the future of society hanging in the balance, I'm going to be even more nervous on dates.
Obviously, I'm a thrice-divorced, newly engaged, pro-life, born-again, "Mennoscopalian", liberal Democrat man. With those characteristics in place, I don't know that I have much legitimacy on the subject of the marriage gap. Olde Oligarch is a Republican married man of indeterminate age (I have yet to read through his whole blog to learn more about him). Any exchange he and I have on this subject will come off sounding like two blind guys arguing about the relative virtues of Miro and Kandinsky, frankly, but here I go:
The marriage gap is rooted, I think, in the Republican veneration of the traditional nuclear family. There's no evidence that a marriage gap existed among women in terms of their voting patterns before the Reagan presidency. And of course, the Reagan presidency marked the modern beginning of the ascendancy of religious conservatives within the Republican party, an ascendancy that has hit its zenith (one does hope, anyway) with the current presidential administration.
Implicitly and often explicitly, the Republican party idealizes a certain kind of "traditional family values." Women in the party stand behind their men (three generations of Bush women, for example). More importantly, Republicans send the message that marriage and the family are the ultimate sources of economic security for women. In other words, gals, sooner or later you need to rely on a man. The "safety net" of public institutions provides women with the opportunity to succeed personally and economically without depending upon a man. The more our public safety net is dismantled, the more women will be forced to turn to men. I don't think either party says this out loud, and I think this is a gross over-simplification. Then again, voters often make decisions based upon perception -- and there is little question that the Republican obsession with insisting that the nuclear family is the cornerstone of civilization (as ahistorical a concept as one could ever find) is obviously going to be threatening to those folks, particularly women, who believe otherwise.
Despite my pro-life personal stance, I recognize that the abortion issue is a huge factor here. Though married women do get abortions (what percentage of abortions is open to debate), women who have husbands will, in general, have more financial and personal resources to cope with an unplanned pregnancy than those women who are unmarried. I know that the attempt to restrict access to legal abortion is perceived, often rightly, as an attempt to undermine the autonomy of all women -- but single women in particular! Though few women if any could look forward to having an abortion, knowing that safe and legal abortion is available to them allows them a degree of reassurance that they can be autonomous sexual beings without having to fear the radical upheaval that an unplanned child born to a single mother surely brings.
Many, many single women in our society (and not a few married ones too) have been raised with the message: "Whatever you do, don't rely on a man." That's not a message thought up by radical man-haters. It's a message rooted in bitter personal experiences that countless women have endured. Too many women have grown up in families affected by male abandonment, alcoholism, infidelity, abuse, porn addiction, gambling problems, work-aholism, and a simple refusal to grow the bleep up. Too many women have heard from their mothers and older sisters about the dangers of "placing all your eggs in one basket." Too many women, especially young ones, are keenly aware of just how reliable and trustworthy most young men are. And thus an ideology (and a political party) that venerate traditonal marriage is going to be very, very distasteful to many of them.
I don't believe that we ought to see the state as a parent figure. But I don't think we ought to see strong nuclear families as the solution to all of society's problems. I don't think most young Democratic single women want the state to replace a husband (pace, Warren Farrell*). But they may also deeply resent politicians who insist that their biology ought to be their destiny. And whether intended or not, that seems to be the perception that an increasing number of women have of the Republican Party.
* Farrell, a men's rights advocate, makes explicit a point that I think has become an unspoken part of the Republican Party platform. When he ran for governor of California during the recall election, he said:
When the state of California offers a mom more than the dad can provide if she does not marry the dad, it bribes the mom to “marry” the government—the state turns itself into the Government-as-Substitute Husband.
Sigh.
Hugo, you're going to hate me, but I think often the (particularly poor) woman does "marry the government", and the government becomes substitute-husband, father and provider. I think this is an incredibly bad thing, especially because it is often a result of cynical electioneering, so that the woman is so dependent on the government, she will vote to return it. Dr. Deborah Coddington, NZ Classically Liberal MP, puts it best when she cried to a spellbound House in her Maiden Speech: "Mr. Speaker, where is the Minister of Social Services when the kids find monsters under the bed? Where is the Minister when the tap is broken, the house is flooded, the kids are screaming, the solo mum has a splitting headache, and she needs a hug and a good cry? Where is the Minister when the kids are being expelled? Where, Sir, is the Minister to clean up the mess this government has created? Honourable Members, What is it this nation needs? Is it more government? No! It's DAD!"
By the time she had finished, there wasn't a dry eye in the House. I agree with her.
Posted by: John | September 10, 2004 at 01:56 PM
John, I don't disagree with the splendid sentiments in the quotation. But we DO need the minister when Dad can't find work, when Mom can't find day care, and when the kids are going to schools with inadequate facilities. Fathers don't fix that.
Posted by: Hugo | September 10, 2004 at 02:03 PM
I'm sure it's just two big things--married women are older on average (of course) and therefore more likely to vote Republican. The gap between married men and married women in voting opened up during the 90's. Until then, married women pretty much voted as their husbands did.
The other thing that's a factor is that since more single men than single women are Republican, there's plenty of cross-over marriages being made. And in those circumstances, there is a lot of pressure put on the wives to change their vote. I see it all the time--hell, a friend of mine was complaining yesterday to me that his mom wants to vote for Kerry but his dad won't let her.
In this guy's eagerness to argue that there are two kinds of women, good married ones and bad single ones, he's forgetting that women aren't broken into two, unchanging categories. 90% of women will be both married and single for some time in their lives. Married and single are changeable states, and so are parties.
Before I settled into my life of sinful cohabitation, I made sure to avoid this problem by never dating Republicans and I would advise all single Democratic women to do the same. ;)
Posted by: Amanda | September 10, 2004 at 02:29 PM
Here's a link to a good page on the gender gap:
http://www.feminist.org/Election2000/Gendergap.asp
Posted by: Hugo | September 10, 2004 at 02:38 PM
John, Coddington's speech also makes a good case for child support enforcement once the dad has up and ran off. At least then when the house floods she can perhaps afford a plumber. Yes, we need dads. Too bad lots of them aren't interested in the position.
Hugo, I couldn't agree more with your statement about how women have come to the conclusion that they should not rely on a man via personal experience. Mr. Oligarch needs to realize that men played a very large part in creating the very problems that he is railing about.
I also take issue with his faulty logic. All democrats are evil? Give me a break. That statement pretty much puts me in the frame of mind that whatever follows will be similar nonsense. Wonder what he thinks about Greens. Not.
Their is also a problem with "nuclear family". The healthiest kids grow up with a number of adults to support their growth, ie: extended family. What's up with the two parents, two kids and a dog stuff, anyway?
Posted by: Michelle | September 10, 2004 at 03:07 PM
Did it ever occur to Mr. Oligarch that some single women might not vote Republican because we do not agree with Republican policies on education, the environment, economics or foreign policy? Or that those working in public education, nursing, or social work (all female dominated professions) are likely to be less politically conservative than stockbrokers or engineers? I don't vote Republican BECAUSE I've spent my entire professional life working with youth and children, and I see how Republican policies have a detrimental effect on them and their families, even those with two parents, thank you very much. I can name 10 single, pro-life women who won't vote Republican. Everything is NOT about my sex life.
Some women have made a conscious choice to delay marriage in order to focus on their career. Some of us just haven't found a guy we want to marry who wants to marry us. If the right guy comes along, then I'm absolutely ready to make that commitment. Would Mr. Oligarch prefer that I grab the first warm male body that presents itself and drag him down the aisle or am I just supposed to keep myself at home, unemployed and crying because I don't have a husband?
But since I'm both "a symptom and cause of social dissolution", I'm guessing he wouldn't listen to me.
Posted by: Christy | September 10, 2004 at 03:35 PM
So, we single women are the cause of social dissolution? Wow! Didn't know I was so busy! Who knew you could do so much just relaxing on the couch after dinner?
*snort*
Another one of those "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situations for women... if you're single, you're a selfish careerist. If you're married, you trapped a man. If you're actively seeking a man, you're a sharp-nailed gold-digger. If you're not actively seeking a man, you're all about yourself and are probably a you-know-what no one could get along with, anyway. If you were married and your husband died, well, you probably drove him to an early grave. If he's still alive, you will be driving him to an early grave....bah!
Clowns like this guy always have a reason for the downfall of anything, and that reason always involves a woman. Surprise!
Posted by: La Lubu | September 10, 2004 at 04:31 PM
I'm amused by all the conservative men who run around insisting desperately that women *need* men. One begins to think that they think that women wouldn't elect to be around men, so we must be forced. I wouldn't want to be married if I thought it was because I was *needed*. Call me romantic if you want, but I want to be wanted.
Posted by: Amanda | September 10, 2004 at 05:04 PM
Hugo, Michelle, et al.,
1) There's a good bit of playful cant in that post. But if you're a liberal and a casual reader of my blog, you won't pick up on a conservative hamming around with politics and statistics.
2) Michelle writes: "Mr. Oligarch needs to realize that men played a very large part in creating the very problems that he is railing about." I did say that. It's right in there. And I believe it. Here it is: "men are culpable in this area of social dissolution too. If they weren't busy prolonging their adolescence well into their 30s, their counterparts wouldn't be milling around in day jobs and buying SUVs they can't drive."
3) Most political questions are low-interest for me. I did not take the original article as anything more than thought-provoking but ulimately without any real assessment of the cause of the voting gap. Then I made a bunch of barely sewn together remarks. If you want an argument, you'll have to go elsewhere, or choose a topic where I actually make longish post.
3) Please to God stop making me English. I'm not "Ye" nor "Olde" with an "e." I'm a Kraut. I don't affect anything British.
Posted by: Old Oligarch | September 10, 2004 at 06:43 PM
Hugo, Michelle, et al.,
1) There's a good bit of playful cant in that post. But if you're a liberal and a casual reader of my blog, you won't pick up on a conservative hamming around with politics and statistics.
2) Michelle writes: "Mr. Oligarch needs to realize that men played a very large part in creating the very problems that he is railing about." I did say that. It's right in there. And I believe it. Here it is: "men are culpable in this area of social dissolution too. If they weren't busy prolonging their adolescence well into their 30s, their counterparts wouldn't be milling around in day jobs and buying SUVs they can't drive."
3) Most political questions are low-interest for me. I did not take the original article as anything more than thought-provoking but ulimately without any real assessment of the cause of the voting gap. Then I made a bunch of barely sewn together remarks. If you want an argument, you'll have to go elsewhere, or choose a topic where I actually make longish post.
3) Please to God stop making me English. I'm not "Ye" nor "Olde" with an "e." I'm a Kraut. I don't affect anything British.
Posted by: Old Oligarch | September 10, 2004 at 06:43 PM
Being conservative, male, and having read your blog frequently for sometime, I am nearly convinced that the problem with men or women is simply MEN. Why I allow myself to be drawn into this… I haven’t yet a clue. I tell myself I am trying to understand that other side of thinking (liberalism). But I soon become confounded that one with a PhD. is constantly digging up embarrassments about or by men, being there is plenty from both men and women, which let solely women further bash on men—like this is the solution to any problem. Are you trying to rid your male or conservative audience? I am guessing, Hugo, that if you dug up similar tasteless articles regarding women and further let men “bash”, you would quickly lose your admiring female readers, barring a save of the occasional mea culpa.
I have an idea, but of course, this is your blog, maybe occasionally you could praise men and remind your sisters there are a FEW good ones out there. By the way, I should have asked first, what kid of audience are you looking for? You seem concerned who they are, please tell.
Posted by: anonymous | September 10, 2004 at 06:52 PM
Good start. You should grab Bachelor Girls and read through it. Betsy Israel gives an excellent history of the single woman and the many ways that she's been vilified over the years.
First off, if you want to seriously examine this, you've got to realize that there are several different types of single women:
Never-Weds
Widows
Co-Habitants
Divorced
That is... women who have never been married before (the young who haven't had a chance yet, the older ones who are chasing careers and other interests, and those who plain don't *want* to marry), women who's husbands died, women who co-habitate with another man, but don't feel marriage is important, and women who were married, but are now happily divorced.
Personally, I fall into the never-wed category, and at nearly 29, I've decided that I don't *want* marriage. I'm far too selfish and far too interested in my own endeavors to put in the time it would take to build a relationship with someone else. I've walked away from two engagements because, in the end, I realized I couldn't devote what was necessary -- my half -- to make things work out.
I vote democrat for a variety of reasons, but mostly because the democrats do more for singles than the republicans. This isn't to say that they do anything at *all* for singles, but at least they don't actively work to make us look like pariahs. Take, for example, Bush's marriage initiatives... millions of dollars pushed towards marriage. Then, there are a great and many tax breaks offered to married couples, as well as additional workplace benefits, more workplace consideration to marrieds (if you've ever had to work a holiday because you're the only single one, you'll know what I mean), and even pay raises for married military personnel. The democrats, while not doing anything to directly *support* single women, at least don't drive us away.
THAT is a big reason why a lot of single women didn't vote in the last election. It was a severe case of absolute apathy. One side seems to actively hate us, and the other side just doesn't give a damn... so who cares if I vote? As an unmarried woman, I don't even count.
Posted by: Astarte | September 10, 2004 at 09:03 PM
Even the best-intentioned man can't support you if he gets run over by a truck or if his job is shipped overseas.
John, you do realize that many married women don't have Dad around to chase away monsters, fix dripping taps or mind the kids when Mom has a headache--because those men are working killer hours to care for their families, or are off 'relaxing' with friends every non-working hour, or simply believe that things like monster-chasing are women's work and thus beneath them.
you won't pick up on a conservative hamming around with politics and statistics
Not to mention the utterly hilarious women-driver jokes!
Posted by: mythago | September 10, 2004 at 10:59 PM
It seems to me that there is an upsurge recently in "Republicans are sexual responsible; Democrats are libertines" rhetoric.
Posted by: Jonathan Dresner | September 10, 2004 at 11:38 PM
Old Oligarch, I'm not quite sure where I got the "ye" -- it may have been from a site that links to you; I apologize.
Anonymous: If you think I am trying to cultivate an admiring female readership, you haven't been reading much -- taking a pro-life stance is not, generally, a crowd-pleasing tactic. I've taken more than a little heat for that.
I believe that men have a special responsibility to focus on what men can do better; women have a similar charge. As a man, I'm much clearer on where and how men have fallen short.
Posted by: Hugo | September 11, 2004 at 11:02 AM
If a man defends feminism, the first thing that comes spluttering out of anti-feminist men is that the feminist man *must* be lying to the dumb women to impress them.
Posted by: Amanda | September 11, 2004 at 03:16 PM
Probably because the anti-feminist men can't conceive of reasons to talk to women, other than persuading them to put out.
Posted by: mythago | September 11, 2004 at 03:25 PM
....or, asking their mom for money!
Posted by: La Lubu | September 11, 2004 at 04:39 PM
The Republicans do not push traditional values, any more than Disney stories are an authentic retelling of the Grimm's Fairy Tales. What the Republicans are pushing is new and very radical. Many of the liberal women I know are truly faithful to the traditional ideas of fidelity, honesty, integrity and modesty that have underlined marriage for the last 10,000 years. Liberals are often conservative. John Kenneth Galbraith, the famous liberal economist who served in the JFK administration, said it best in the introduction to his 1958 book The Affluent Society: "I am a conservative, I wish to conserve things, and therefore, by a strange quirk of the language, I am called a liberal."
Posted by: Lawrence Krubner | September 12, 2004 at 09:12 AM
"many of whom become completely established on their own in society and live into their 30s before they decide to find a mate and settle down,"
"DECIDE TO FIND a mate"???? This ass-hat has no clue. A majority of women like me (good job, owns a home, in her 30's, etc.) have become successful in the mean time. Every new job, vacation, year of college, etc. holds the possiblity of meeting ones future husband. Sometimes it happens, sometimes it doesn't. So in the mean time, we travel, hold jobs, get promoted, and hopefully make wise financial decisions. Should we postpone living our best until we find a husband? That would be very unfulfilling.
This man may think he knows all about me and women like me, but he is way off course. (a statement I can also, easily apply to the republican party.)
Posted by: colleen | September 12, 2004 at 10:05 AM
Lawrence, so well said! I have often wondered why the conservatives aren't pushing conservation...a bit of irony there.
Posted by: Michelle | September 13, 2004 at 07:02 PM