Women Don’t Like the Republican Party? Really?

17 Nov

An insightful analysis of the so-called “gender gap” in politics by Kay Hymowitz in City Journal exposes the faulty conclusions of those who claim the Republican Party is out of touch and out of favor with women.  Titled “The Misunderstood Gender Gap”, you can see the whole piece at http://www.city-journal.org/2012/eon1116kh.html

Excerpts:   [Emphasis is mine]

There’s no denying that if you put all individuals with female reproductive parts into a single category, more of them voted for President Obama (55 percent) than for Mitt Romney (44 percent). Men, by contrast, went for Romney, 52 percent to 45 percent; hence the press’s conviction that an important gender gap exists.  .  .  .

The truth, though, is that other demographic characteristics have considerably more significance. A widely reported example is marital status. Fifty-three percent of married female voters went for Romney. Among single women, by contrast, Romney was about as popular as an extra 20 pounds; a mere 31 percent supported him. The gap between married and single women, then, is wider than the male-female gap that the media have been touting.  .  .  .

But the obvious reason for the marriage gap is that for several decades now, married women have become likelier to be white, educated, affluent, and older—demographic groups that leaned Republican in this election. Romney lost the black, Hispanic, and Asian vote, while he won the college-educated vote (though not post-grads), the votes of those making over $50,000 a year, and the votes of older Generation X-ers, Baby Boomers, and voters over 65. In other words, married women voted less as part of a sisterhood than as part of a cohort of white people holding college diplomas, earning more than $50,000 a year, and wearing reading glasses.

Similarly, unmarried women voted just the way you’d expect them to, considering their age, income, education, race, and ethnicity. A large number of unmarried women are single mothers—and minorities are disproportionately represented among that population.  .  .  . Single mothers are also likely to be younger, less educated, and poorer than married women are. Sure enough, all these groups went Democratic in this election.  .  .

The chatter about the “largest gender gap on record” ignores one last surprising fact: women, like men, were less likely to vote for Obama in 2012 than in 2008. The gender gap expanded not because more women went blue but because so many men switched to red. Obama won the male vote in 2008 by 2 points; this year, again, Romney won among all men, 52 percent to 45 percent.

So yes, taken as a group, women vote more Democratic than men do. But that has little to do with their sex, which is why analysts would be wise to pay a little less mind to the gap.

[End of excerpts]


4 Responses to “Women Don’t Like the Republican Party? Really?”

  1. Dee-lightful Musings of an Old Country Woman November 25, 2012 at 7:37 am #

    As a Libertarian, I voted for neither, but since third-party statistics are rarely publicized by the mainstream media, it’s no surprise that I don’t see myself represented in the above analysis … or at least the posted excerpts.

    I think that if the mainstream media didn’t play “the two-party game” and actually reported the news, platforms, etc. of third party candidates and actually gave them media time, the results of the election would have been far different. But, the mainstream media (especially in the last months, before an election) will only report the Democrat and Republican positions, because our system has been molded to give us two candidates from one of the two parties in order to make us think that we have a real choice. In actuality, we have a choice between two hand-picked candidates who have both been groomed by their parties knowing that one of the two would win the election.

    There is plenty of room in this country for more parties, but if we were given a real choice of 5 or 10 presidential candidates, that would force the American public to think and in my opinion, “thinking” is something they’d rather us NOT do. ~Vicki

    • illero November 25, 2012 at 8:38 am #

      Thanks so much for visiting and giving feedback. Good thoughts. Not to be too cynical, but I might maintain that not only do the established party leaders not want us to think too hard about selecting the right candidates, but the American voting public itself, on the whole, does not want to think too hard about it. Ten candidates on the ticket might just result in more choosing by race, gender, age, looks, veteran status, or even by nice-sounding name – I’m quite certain we have too much of that now, with only two or three candidates.

      I would love to see a third party (or more) succeed as well. However, I also think that unless the third party is formed from moderates of both existing parties, and not from the far left or far right, neither the third party nor the party it was mostly formed from will have much success getting people elected in the short term — even with media attention.

      Problem is, I think any new party with some fairly extreme platform points can easily be labeled as a party for only fringe elements of society. For example, I happen to respect very much the Libertarian motivation, but I personally also view the Libertarian platform as imparting an extreme and troubling viewpoint regarding some key issues — something that a huge number of Americans are unlikely to get behind.

      I don’t know what the answer is . . . . unless it is a party that embraces the best (the most broadly accepted?) platform points of the several existing parties and leaves the two extremes to fend for themselves. For example, we know that many Democrats are troubled by the number of abortions, by big government, by bail-outs, and by infringement upon religious liberties. And we know that many Republicans are troubled by tough immigration stances, extensive deregulation, etc.

      • Dee-lightful Musings of an Old Country Woman November 25, 2012 at 9:30 am #

        I agree that people don’t want to think or work too hard to make a decision, but I believe that that’s a result of the world we live in today.

        I think that if our history wasn’t re-written and white-washed, and if the Bill of Rights and the history and reasoning behind *why* we have the Bill of Rights as the first 10 amendments to the Constitution were all taught in schools today, more people would actually get excited about changing the system we have today.

        The fact is, most people are taught and/or believe that We, the People are powerless and our government is supreme. It’s supposed to be the other way around, but as the Federal government has grown into a huge monster, the People have lost their power. It’s never too late, but because our schools and universities are geared to teach Federally and state mandated curriculums, our kids and young people only get taught what “the system” wants them to know. This has been going on since post-World War II and coincidentally, we have been dumbed down in the process.

        I believe that this “dumbing down” is intentional. (A very good read is “The Deliberate Dumbing Down of America”, by Charlotte Iserbyt. If I remember correctly, she was a staff member of the Department of Education for years and shares much of what she learned in the department.) This deliberate dumbing down has made most students docile and able to memorize and parrot-back that which was memorized, but we have failed to create critical thinkers in the process.

        This lack of critical thinking skills is good for a government who wants more and more control over its people, but it’s bad for the people who could make this country a much better place, had they only been taught these skills and had been given an education that is interesting and exciting, rather than the technique we use in today’s educational system, of memorizing facts and being able to blurt them back again.

        Regarding the Libertarian party, I agree that it is radical by today’s standards, but it’s much closer to what the founding fathers believed and taught than any other political party today. I also have a lot of respect for the Constitution party, but through NO FAULT of the individual citizens who make up the membership of the Democrat and Republican parties, those two parties have been hi-jacked by money and power hungry people and industries. This is not an insult to anyone who subscribes to either of the two parties, but those whose job it is to run and maintain those parties seem to have much different agendas than the People do. This seems to be the reason, in my opinion, for the platforms and promises being different before an election as compared to after a candidate has won. We might call those unkept promises “lies”, but many politicians simply consider them strategies to win an election. “Tell the people what they want to hear…” ~Vicki

      • illero November 25, 2012 at 11:46 am #

        Excellent follow-up, Vicki, and — darn it — I don’t really find anything to take serious issue with in what you say. With respect to “dumbing down”, I notice that even the new federal standards for curriculum in our public schools force a few of our states to “dumb down” their own standards or face the prospect of having their federal funds reduced. Ridiculous!

Please reply here -- I value your thoughts

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: