Why have women become left-wing: the political gender gap and the decline in marriage

[archerships]

So this is why lefties get all most of the babes...:>

http://www.columbia.edu/~le93/qje_all.pdf

"Why have women become left-wing: the political gender gap and the decline in marriage" with Rohini Pande)
Accepted Quarterly Journal of Economics. Featured in Economic Intuition, fall 2001; and Business Week, March 11, 2002

Paper
Abstract: The last three decades have witnessed the rise of a political gender gap in the United States wherein more women than men favor the Democratic 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 divorce 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.

Comments

[daligirl.livejournal.com]

Hmmmm.... What about the prevelance of anti-abortion platforms? Or the lack of community health support? Or the tendency to cut education and social security funding? Or the correlation with patriarchal religious groups? Just a thought... it might be more than money.

[crasch.livejournal.com]

You're probably right. Although I'm not sure that most of your observations argue against the paper's thesis (that increased divorce rates have contributed to women's shift to the left). (Perhaps they weren't intended to.)

If a woman is uncertain about the durability of her marriage, would she have increased desire for a) the ability to terminate unwanted pregnancies b) state aid for childcare, community health, and eldercare? My guess would be yes.

Out of curiosity, how would you label your political beliefs? What influences (books, life experiences, etc.) were most important in shaping them?

Re:

[daligirl.livejournal.com]

I'm not saying that their argument can't be justified, but speaking as a divorced woman, it had absolutely nothing to do with my political affiliations. Granted, in some cases it may affect some people that way, but I know a lot of women who have similar backgrounds and views.
I think that as a culture, we (Americans) tend to place the majority of the stereotypic "caretaking" role upon women. That's changing, but because it's so enculturated, women consider things like public healthcare and social security. I believe that the healthcare issue arises out of two things -- overly (mis)placed responsibility on women of the couples' reproductive health, in combination with the overall cost of women's healthcare. (Case in point: Viagra, generally around $45/month, and convered by most insurance plans. Orthotricyclen, around $60-$85/month, not covered by most insurance plans.) Frankly, most women I know, even professional women, go to the local clinic as opposed to their OB GYN for annual exams. It's all we can afford when our health insurance doesn't cover it. (And I won't even break out my "average earnings of 70 cents on the dollar" soapbox.) As for social security/geriatric care, how many men do you know who honestly expect that they, not their wives, will be sopping up grandma's drool when she reaches ninety. That sounds a little crass, but think about it.

As women, we are concerned about these issues because we are forced to be, even more so than the men in our culture. So, when you present this hypothetical group of women with a political party that wants to cut funding of geriatric care, social security, and public healthcare, their reaction to not support that party is not surprising. These are issues that the majority of the female population are concerned about, and would like to see supported.

As for the abortion comment, I think you should check the statistics on the circumstances behind most abortions. Contrary to what (predominately male) conservatives would like us to think, abortion, particularly partial-birth abortion, is NOT a means of birth control. It is damaging to the body, psyche, and as cheesy as it may sound, to the soul. Abortion is extremely painful, very expensive, and can render the mother barren. These are all issues one is well aware of when undergoing the procedure. The majority of abortions in this country are the result of rape and/or incest, not of marital strife.

I also think that you are operating on the idea that a woman is not the primary wage earner, and can not/does not support herself and her children (assuming she, and not the male, is the primary caregiver) financially after divorce. This is rarely the case. We may not be paid equally all the time, but we are self-sufficient.

Personally, I have been registered Libertarian since I was 18. I would describe my personal political views as falling somewhere between Libertarian and Democratic. Initially, this was because I don't beileve in mixing/basing politics on (Christian) morality, but now, I just don't agree with what the majority of Republicans value. To give you an idea, I am a member of Sierra Club, Nature Conservancy, and NOW, and have volunteered for CASA.

[waitingforoct.livejournal.com]

Nit-picky point:
In my area, Ortho-Tricyclen retails for $33.95/month.

Re:

[daligirl.livejournal.com]

Wow! That's cheap! That's about what I pay through Planned Parenthood, but if I get a prescription from a doctor, it's about twice that!

Re:

[waitingforoct.livejournal.com]

I'm surprised. I used to be a retail pharmacist, and when I started out 5 years ago, most were retailing at about $22-29/pack (in NJ and MA). When I started having to pay cash for them, they were about $27/pack, and have increased over the years-like I said, now I pay $34/pack-I think that is pretty standard. (although you can get generics for a lot cheaper-I think as low as $17/pack-it is just such a hassle to switch!)

[afb.livejournal.com]

No offense to daligirl, but I'm a woman, and I agree with almost nothing she wrote. :) (I'll give you more on this later, I'm a bit rushed for time.)

[afb.livejournal.com]

OK, more on this...

I've actually read the theory that marriage tends to benefit women more than men and divorce tends to decrease women's quality of life (Steven Landsburg wrote a Slate column on it, I believe). The idea that marriage tends to make women more conservative and divorce tends to make them more liberal is a pretty interesting one. But (and I'm only scratching the tip of the iceberg with the article, as it's pretty long) all these issues really do seem to be financially-based, with a dose of "there but for the grace of God go I" to boot.

The trick about divorce is that, in marriages with kids, divorce leaves men single, and it leaves women as single moms. In almost all marriages with kids, the woman leaves the workforce for anywhere from a few months to a few years to take care of the kids when they're babies. As a result, while the husband continued working his way up whatever corporate ladder he was on to begin with, the wife may have had to start completely over with a new career, or, at the very least, didn't get to spend those months advancing. I think there are genetic reasons for the woman to want to take care of her children in the early years (let's not forget who wears the nursing bra in each family), but it involves some sacrifices in career.

That's assuming, of course, that women are even working outside the home to begin with after marriage. But mostly they do now, so I figure that's not a big assumption.

So when divorce happens, it leaves one member of the couple quite a lot richer, and one quite a lot poorer plus gives her the responsibility of taking care of her kids. Mix into that any possible fear that if she loses her job, no one will be able to take care of her kids, and you have someone who is much more likely to find the idea of social programs meant to be a "safety net" appealing. Keep in mind the diffuse costs-specific benefits angle as well: if her taxes don't feel like a huge bite out of her paycheck, she's not really going to notice the idea that these wonderful social programs are costing a lot of money (or won't think it hits anyone that hard, as only 'the rich' pay for them).

I don't think this is a matter of women vs. men, really, or even divorced women vs. married women. I think this is yet another example of rich vs. poor -- the envy factor, or, alternately, the "they don't need THAT much money, how about paying my doctor bills instead of retiling their floor with doubloons?" factor. I also think the rich have a very different view of what actually helps the poor -- I would think a very large percentage of the rich have, at one point in their lives, been poor ("the rich" and "the poor" is incredibly misleading, as almost no one stays in one income bracket his entire life), and using the power of hindsight ("when I was in that situation, this worked, and this didn't, and I'd have been better off never doing THAT at all..."), recognize that the current programs aren't as efficient as they could be or don't solve the problems they're intended to solve.

I think a lot more in this world has to do with money than most people like to acknowledge. For some reason people don't like to admit that their decisions are influenced by money. Honestly, I don't get it. :)

I think you have a point, however,

[daligirl.livejournal.com]

I would be curious to know exactly how many nuclear families still exist, especially ones that can afford for one partner to be off work for "the first few years" of child-rearing. Also, what about single-parent families in which the dad is raising the kids, which are more and more prevalent these days? At one time, the stereotype which the article seems to be based upon was a very real one, but modern economics have prevented it's continuation.

Again, I'm not saying the argument can't be made that divorced women tend to be less conservative. But perhaps they were conservative to begin with. Perhaps their marital status does not dictate their political views. I think to truly have an accurate idea if that's the case, one needs to survey how these women are voting over a course of a lifetime. In addition, one needs to take into account how many women, overall, are voting less conservatively. (I daresay, we're not all divorced!)

Frankly, I can just see many ways in which our society makes a conservative vote maladaptive for women, regardless of their marital status. I would argue that this is resultant of socially constructed "roles" which we stereotypically expect women to fulfill.

It is the conflict of socially dictated expected behavior/responsibilities of women and the conservative platform which leads women (IMO) to vote less conservatively. To support a platform which does not support the societally designed niche which one is filling is a maladptive behavior, and I think that would hold true regardless of familial circumstance.

Re: I think you have a point, however,

[waitingforoct.livejournal.com]

The current tax burden makes it impossible for a "nuclear" family to have one parent home all the time (and still make a comfortable living-it is possible, of course).

[afb.livejournal.com]

Oh, and on an anecdotal level, I met my husband at a College Democrats meeting (which apparently he felt was a good place to meet hot babes), but later we successfully convinced each other that socialism was not even a good idea in theory or in small doses. (Hence our tendency toward libertarianism or anti-government-nut-ism...)

That's amusing: the last time I voted Democrats into office was two months into our relationship. After we got married, I don't think a single Democrat made his way onto my voting ballot. So I probably fit into this article's projected statistics amusingly well. I can guarantee you that I would not turn into a Democrat if he divorced me, though!

[klarfax.livejournal.com]

if liberals are getting all the babes, why am I not getting any?

[crasch.livejournal.com]

It's a stochastic thing. Someone has to make up for the Kennedy's after all...