When women marry, Democrats lose

[Kropotkin]

Now, if I should elaborate about this so called 'fact of life'. That women might tend to chose a husband that earns a higher income than her can be explained with at least two reasons. If now this is the case, you cannot make statistics on one as the author of this so called piece of... article does.

First, men earn more than women on average. This would make it quite strange if women didn't tend to marriage men that earn more money than they do. Maybe the author would claim that women earn less than men because their main aim is to find a man to give them security, not make it on their own. That would be to argue in circles, it ignores the historical developement in for example the US when it comes to females and their position on the labour market .And it also leads us to my second point.

Second, there's a tradition in most parts of at least western society to look at a family with a provied and a houswife as some sort of normative norm. This is of cource fading away. It's also a norm that's not much older than industrialized society. Things that have been around for a couple of years has often been seen upon the 'facts of life'. That the idea of the woman as a house wife before wage labour became the main source of income amoungst people is somehwhat absurd is often, if not always ignored. Elementary knowledge in social history should tell anyone with half a brain that the situation is much more complex than that. Conditions cannot be taken from it's historical context and portrayed as eternal law.

[Q Classic]

this, i believe, is what you call a false correlation?

[chequita guevara]

The article's premises are all wrong.

[Arrian]

One is that women's nature yearns for male protection.

I started laughing here.

-Arrian

[Q Classic]

this yearning for male protection--are you sure that's not socially constructed?

[MrFun]

I saw that statement as nothing but based on blatant sexism.

[Japher]

This might piss some of you off

I've been saying it for years, and I have finally brainwashed someone else... Yeah!

For all these reasons, the Democrats know how important it is for them to expand dependency on government and to promote "alternative families" rather
than the family that consists of a married man and woman with children.

This is so true, but I think it extends even further. Democrats certainly do know how important it is for them to "expand dependency on the government" but not so much through destroying "traditional families" but by making it too easy for "alternative families" to exist through their social programs...

I think breaking it down into married vs. non-married is one thing, but they need to go further and analyze also whether they have been married, have kids, are gay couples, were gay, were straight, etc... before they can draw any conclusions from such a narrow address of relationship vs. party affiliation.

IMO, republicans tend to be people with more responsibility to a family and willing to work to give that to their family, while democrats tend to be wealthy and/or single people with little or no responsibility to others and desire to force their "mother insticnt" on others through policy and law.

Really, this is an incomplete study, but interesting none-the-less...

[Kropotkin]

Incomplete study? It's utter crap!

[Q Classic]

umm, that's strange. i've found many a "traditional family" voting democratic and not republican...

and quite a few republicans i know are single with little or no responsibility to others. heck, even one of your ideological windbags, coulter, is unmarried and single.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Q Cubed
this yearning for male protection--are you sure that's not socially constructed?

Since men are physiologically stronger and more suitably built for hand-to-hand combat than women on the average, this male protection could be an artifact of patriarchal society, when higher physical strength meant greater chance of survival.

Now that you have things like firearms, though, so this "male protection" is more or less a moot point.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

My family's been in the US for 3 generations, and its women have always voted. It's a traditional family: kids, no divorces, and (until this generation) the men worked while the women stayed home. It has been progressively upwardly mobile: my grandparents were working class, my parents were middle class, my wife and I are middle- to upper-middle class.

And there's not a woman in my family who has ever, under any circumstances, voted Republican. In fact, the only woman in my family who doesn't consistantly vote Democrat is my wife, who sometimes votes Green. My mother has even occasionally written in her preferred Democrat when she feels that the party isn't running somebody liberal enough for her tastes.

I eagerly await an explanation for this strange behavior.

[Berzerker]

Kropotkin -

First, men earn more than women on average. This would make it quite strange if women didn't tend to marriage men that earn more money than they do.

Yes, everyone knows how women seek out poor men.

Cubed -

heck, even one of your ideological windbags, coulter, is unmarried and single.

Without husband and unattached too...

[Kropotkin]

Another note: The articles explanation for why women would change their voting habits from democrat to republican is that it would have something to do with psychiatry. This is, as most people now, not a vaild explanation, as psychiatry is not even close to science. It would be a much more obvious explanaition to try to find the reason behind this behavior (if there is such a behavior) in that if women marry men that have a higher income than they had before, their economic situation changes and it's more rational to vote republican in the hope for tax cuts.

[uh Clem]

And I also agree with the overall theme of the article that stable maried life is an enemy of the Democrat party as it now stands. They thrive on poverty and keeping minorities stirred up. Any kind of family stability is their worst enemy.

And a low crime rate is the worst enemy of law-n-order Republicans.

[Lincoln]

"... women's nature yearns for male protection. This is a heretical idea among the well educated whose education is largely devoted to denying the facts of life."

Well that statement (the last part) is certainly demonstrated here. I guess it is necessary to deny reality in order to be an intellectual now days. It is easier to call this guy a "sexist" than to actually travel the world and find that what he says is in most case exactly correct. So much for intellectual honesty when the golden calves of liberalism are under threat. Has it ever occured to anyone that western society with about 40 years of harping on femenism is not a representative sample that the rest of the world follows? Trying to make women into men is great for votes if you are a Democrat.