Note: This is one of those snarky anti-feminist posts that you should avoid if you like feminism. Lydia and Mary, I mean you. No peeking!
According to to the Women’s Voices Women’s Vote Action Fund:
Romney, for example, has the narrow backing of men, 48% to 44%, while Obama has a somewhat larger lead among women, 51% to 43%. That gender gap exists largely because Obama has overwhelming support, 71% to 19%, among single women.
Democratic strategists have said for many years that abortion, contraception and related issues have particular importance for how single women vote.
Unmarried women voted for Obama by a margin of 70-29 in the 2008 election. Now keep in mind that the Democrat party is for abortion, same-sex marriage, taxing and regulating job creators, massive deficits and spiraling debt. And the Democrats also support anti-family policies like pushing premarital sex onto young people at early ages, mandatory funding of failing public schools, no-fault divorce, and subsidizing welfare programs which make it easier for women to have fatherless children.
In fact, since women were given the right to vote, they have voted for the government to tax more, spend more and intrude more into the family. That’s not my opinion, it is based on research papers like this one. Now my question is this – why are so many single women voting for higher taxes, more government and less freedom?
Why single women vote the way they do
Single women vote the way they do, I contend, because they have been influenced by feminism on a very specific question. Before, women aspired to marriage and children and having a home of their own. But today, they seem to be more interested in making government take over the things that men used to take care of, so that men become optional. This frees up the woman to choose a man based on her feelings, rather than choosing one who is a good provider, protector and moral/spiritual leader. In fact, it is this resentment of male leadership – especially their moral judgments and exclusive truth claims – which women are rebelling against.
Dalrock has an interesting post where he explains how feminism requires big government as a substitute for men. Big government is the answer to the feminist goal of getting the benefits of a husband (providing, protecting) without having to have to be accountable to a husband’s leadership on moral and spiritual issues.
He writes: (links removed)
[A] husband-lead permanent family structure is something feminists must destroy. They have no choice if they are to achieve their goals. They need to find a way to compel men to provide resources for children while removing men’s authority and women’s responsibility. In a society with traditional marriage men voluntarily agree to produce more than they personally need in order to lead a family. The problem for feminists with this voluntary model is something which is core to all voluntary cooperation agreements; women must give something up in exchange for men doing the same.
There are of course multiple ways to attack this problem of mutuality. While the methods appear different on the surface, the ultimate end is the same; men must be compelled to offer financial (and sometimes parenting) resources to women who want to have children, and women must be freed from reciprocal obligation and responsibility. The methods to achieve this tend to fall into one of three models:
- Socialist State Model: The economy of the state must be reorganized to redistribute production. While the stated aim of socialism is to redistribute wealth from rich to poor, in practice this is a very effective tool to redistribute wealth from men to women. In the socialist state model marriage becomes largely irrelevant because the resource transfer is being achieved at a state or corporate level. These resource transfers can take the form of make work jobs, cash benefits, and free or subsidized child care and education (which tend to become one and the same). Marriage tends to be looked down upon in this type of model because women living with men are forever at risk of being “oppressed” by male leadership. Marriage also works counter to the socialist aim of equality of outcome; if some children grow up with fathers (even weak ones) while others lack fathers altogether the children with fathers have a large advantage. This inequality of maternal outcome poses a danger to feminism as well because women who want to give their children an advantage are at risk of suffering from exposure to male authority.
- Sham Marriage Model: This is the model preferred by feminists with a sense of nostalgia. In this model great effort is expended to maintain the illusion of marriage as a fundamental and legitimate social institution. While the edifice is left in place however, the institution itself is entirely debased. Husbands are still expected to support and protect their families, but their authority and rights are all removed. Marriage becomes a vehicle for theft, and something women delay as long as possible and discard as soon as it is no longer needed.
- The Stanton/Povich Model: Under this model women enjoy their sexual freedom and are free to pursue their goals of education and career without the responsibilities and limitations which come with being a wife. Should such a woman find herself giving birth, she heroically whittles down the list of paternal suspects until she determines the biological father of the child. She then enlists the state to compel the biological father to bankroll her and her children.
This explains why single women overwhelmingly vote for bigger government. The government is currently distributing tens of thousands of dollars from working men to single women to achieve this goal of releasing women from responsibility to men and the leadership of men. Single women are then left free to prefer less-demanding, less moral, less religious men based on superficial, emotional, selfish criteria. Entertainment, appearance, postmodernism, relativism, and universalism are the new male abilities in demand. Providing, protecting, chastity, fidelity and leading on moral and spiritual issues were the old male abilities, and are no longer in demand.
Here is my message to single women who vote Democrat: you can either marry the government and collect welfare or you can marry a real man. Marriage costs money for a man – and he earns that money by working. He can either work for the government and those who are dependent on the government, or he can work for you and the family and the private schools and the church and so on. You can’t have both. A dollar can either be spent by a man or spent by the government. Choose one. Bigger government means smaller men, and smaller government means bigger men.
More on this topic in my previous post, which listed 5 ways that traditional marriage has been debased by feminism.
- Traditional marriage is a threat to the values of single women
- New study: relationship quality diminished by early sexual activity, especially for women
- New study: marriage drops probability of child poverty by 82%
- What do radical feminists want women to want?
- New study finds that Christians who regularly attend church divorce less
- How do prostitutes stay in business in an era of hook-up sex?
- Can recreational sex turn a selfish, irresponsible man into a marriage-minded provider?
- New study finds that cohabitation damages children
- New peer-reviewed paper highlights the benefits of pre-marital chastity/abstinence
- Does being a virgin before marriage affect marital stability?
- How important are biological fathers for healthy child development?
- What causes women to become single mothers, and how are children affected?
- New study shows that children of working mothers live unhealthier lives
- New Scientist article shows why fathers are necessary for children’s well-being
- New study finds that women choose mates based on appearance
- Men should prefer women who allow moral judging and spiritual leading
- Where have all the good men gone, and why aren’t men marrying?
- Do men have a responsibility not to marry feminists?
- Why do some women tolerate jerks as boyfriends?
- The dangers of sentimentality in relationships
- Is Mark Driscoll afraid to hold a woman accountable for her own choices?
- How feminism made women unsuitable for marriage and parenting
- Why Christian men should be chaste
- Study: 80% of single evangelicals aged 18-29 are no longer virigins
- Should Christian men marry? What’s the worst that could happen?
- For women under 30, most births occur outside of marriage
- How feminist pastors like Mark Driscoll and Kevin DeYoung undermine marriage
- In the UK welfare state, single motherhood is passed from mother to daughter
- New study finds that teens who lose their virginity are more likely to divorce
- How more compassion and less moral judgments increases teen pregnancy
- Can a person be a feminist and still believe in marriage?
- What happens when the government pays people to have babies out-of-wedlock?
- New survey finds women more sexually active than men in high school
- Research to help you understand the “hook-up” culture on campus
- Why do feminist academics think that feminism has empowered women?
- Who is responsible for the abolition of marriage? Men or feminists?
- Who is to blame for the hook-up culture?
- How the feminist welfare state causes generations of fatherlessness
- How feminism’s war against men ends up hurting women
- Less than half of 7 to 21 year old women think marriage precedes child-bearing