Women

What Unmarried Women Want: Big Government?

In 2016, unmarried women will-for the first time-make up a majority of the potential female electorate. Should we worry?

|

art around/Flickr

For most of American history, married women have far outnumbered their single counterparts. But this all changed in 2009, when the proportion of unmarried U.S. women first climbed above 50 percent. And in 2016, unmarried women will—for the first time—make up a majority of the potential female electorate.

Should libertarians worry? 

If the portrait of the unmarried female voter laid out by Rebecca Traister is correct, then perhaps we should. 

In a New York magazine excerpt of her upcoming book, All the Single Ladies, Traister writes that the rise of the single-lady demographic represents "a radical upheaval, a national reckoning with massive social and political implications. Across classes, and races, we are seeing a wholesale revision of what female life might entail. We are living through the invention of independent female adulthood as a norm, not an aberration, and the creation of an entirely new population: adult women who are no longer economically, socially, sexually, or reproductively dependent on or defined by the men they marry."

"This reorganization of our citizenry," Traister continues, "is not a self-consciously politicized event." Still, its political implications could be profound.

In 2012, single women made up nearly a quarter of all voters. According to the Voter Participation Center, single women drove voter turnout across many categories, making up almost 40 percent of black voters, 30 percent of Latino voters, and around a third of all young voters. And this year, the single women contingent of American voters could be even bigger. 

What do all these single women want? Well, according to Traister, it is most certainly not a "hubby state," the term some conservatives have used to insinuate that women still desire dependency, just on Uncle Sam instead of a family patriarch. "The notion that what the powerful, growing population of unmarried American women needs from the government is a husband…  is of course problematic," she writes. "It reduces all relationships women have to marital, sexual, hetero ones and suggests that they are, by nature, dependent beings."

Traister is right to point out that when men rely on government social programs or tax incentives, we don't say they're seeking a "wifey state." Also that men, especially married men, long benefited from government policies designed to sustain their dominance, be they direct (laws limiting the hours that women could work) or indirect (policies that propped up the mid-century nuclear family). But the problem comes when Traister tries to define what single women do want from government: laws ensuring "pay equity, paid family leave, a higher minimum wage, universal pre-K, lowered college costs, more affordable health care, and broadly accessible reproductive rights."

With the exception of the last point, those are all either direct requests for state support or requests for state-mandated support from private actors. Sure, these policies aren't designed solely to benefit women (unless you think of things like parenting as purely female), but there's no mistaking this agenda for anything other than a call for More! and Bigger! government.

Do unmarried women really support Traister's policy wishlist, though? That's harder to say. 

There's not much gender- and marriage-segregated data on any of these issues specifically. One recent survey from American Women and Elle magazine showed strong support from unmarried women for "equal pay for equal work"—but it didn't mention any policy specifics. And without specifics, who wouldn't want "equal pay for equal work?" I found a few other studies concerned with these issues and unmarried women, but all were conducted by partisan or advocacy groups and relied on similarly vague language and biasing descriptors.

The American Women poll also showed strong support from single women for both "allowing workers to earn unpaid sick days" and "requiring employers to provide paid family and medical leave," as well as "lowering taxes on businesses and the middle class." When asked what policies would make them most likely to vote for a candidate, "equal pay" was the number one choice for women ages 18- to 24-years-old, but "lower taxes" was the top choice of 25- to 35-year-old women, followed by public school funding and college affordability. Women ages 50- to 64-years-old named public school funding as their top priority, followed by paid sick leave and "equal pay."  

For the past several decades, U.S. women in general have tended to learn more Democrat than men. In 2012, 56 percent of women voted for Barack Obama, while just 46 percent of men did. In 2000, 54 percent of women voted for Al Gore, compared to 42 percent of men. In 1984, 42 percent of women voted for Walter Mondale, compared to 38 percent of men. 

And unmarried women in particular tend to go even more Democrat than women overall. About two-thirds of unmarried female voters cast their ballots for Obama in 2012. 

But unmarried men also tend to lean heavily Democrat. In 2004, USA Today polling showed 56 percent of married male voters supported George W. Bush, while 55 percent of unmarried male voters backed John Kerry. In a national poll leading up to the 2012 election, 54 percent of married men backed Mitt Romney while 54 percent of unmarried men backed Obama. Come election time, the divide was even more drastic: 62 percent of married men voted Republican, while 55 percent of unmarried men voted Democrat. 

As poli-sci types have noted for years, there's much more of a "marriage gap" in electoral politics than a gender gap, though the latter receives much more attention.

"While the "gender gap' has been a statistically clear election phenomenon only since 1980, differences between married and single people can be found in post-election interviews conducted … at least as far back as 1974," The New York Times reported in 1983.

It's not hard to guess what's going on here. Sure, inclinations toward liberalism or conservatism are also likely to affect the importance individuals place on marriage. But the bulk of the gap probably lies in demographics, not disposition: Unmarried Americans are more likely to be young, and younger Americans are more likely to be Democrats (or liberal-leaning independents). Until recently, the unmarried was a population that necessarily included most same-sex individuals—another cohort that understandably leans less toward Republicans. And race also plays a role: black men and women are both less likely to be married than whites, and way more likely to vote Democrat. 

In fact, race may a much bigger predictor than gender of how someone will vote. In 2012, 96 percent of black women and 87 percent of black men voted for Obama, 76 percent of Hispanic women and 65 percent of Hispanic men voted for Obama, and just 42 percent of white women and 35 percent of white men did so. 

The liberal tilt of unmarried women as a voting bloc, then, seems to come down to a confluence of factors, including racial makeup, age, and gender—with gender mattering least. As Kay S. Hymowitz wrote in City Journal, "unmarried women [vote] just the way you'd expect them to, considering their age, income, education, race, and ethnicity." 

"Yes, taken as a group, women vote more Democratic than men do," concluded Hymowitz. "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."

Traister acknowledges towards the end of the New York excerpt that single women run "the gamut of race and class" and have thus far "largely defied the pull of identity politics." 

But Democrats won't take to this failure of collectivism lightly. The rise of unmarried female voters presents "an opportunity that you cannot take for granted," Rep. Steve Israel (D-N.Y.), chairman of the DCCC, told The Washington Post in 2014, "and that is why we are building our earliest and most aggressive field and targeting program ever." 

They'll have hard work ahead of them, however: while women vote in higher numbers than men overall—nearly 64 percent of eligible women voted in 2012, compared to about 60 percent of eligible male voters—unmarried women are some of the least likely to show up to vote. 

NEXT: A.M. Links: Nevada Republican Caucuses Today, Hillary vs. Bernie Town Hall Tonight, Apple vs. FBI on iPhone Privacy

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Well since more and more of them hate men and fear that marrying somebody and relying on them is giving into the patriarchy, they instead have to rely on the government. No historical society or culture anywhere has ever existed where single women can have children and support themselves. It’s why we evolved into social creatures and marriage was found in every early culture on every continent.

    1. This is why we need appoint Hillary as Queen.

    2. fear that marrying somebody and relying on them is giving into the patriarchy

      Nah, they just read the comments and see how much y’all resent your wives relying on you.

      1. Don’t worry, Nikki, you don’t need to posture like this to keep your title of “The Worst”.

        If anything, when my fellow commenters mention their wives, it seems to me they have a great deal of affection and tolerance. I really don’t recall seeing much in the way of resentment.

        1. You, RCD, owe me a new keyboard.

        2. Are…are you kidding?

          1. Exactly what I was thinking. Well, actually it was, “Are you fucking kidding me?,” but close enough.

            Get out of my head, Epi.

            1. I can only do so many things at once! Get off my back! I’m going to the bar!

              (storms out)

            2. I agree with the other XXs here. I see loving mentions (suthenboy and sloopy), but more often sarcasmic’s not the only one being “funny.” Truth in humor and all that rot…

              (No female libertarians. And you wonder why…)

              1. Would men being rude to men lead to no male libertarians?

          2. I’m really not kidding. Maybe I’m just projecting that my griping is all in good fun, so I assume everyone else is, too.

            Give me an example of real bitterness. I’ve cruised a few “men’s rights” sites, so I know what it looks like, and I just don’t recall seeing it here.

            1. How many times will sarcasmic tell this joke? Or does it not count because it’s a “joke”?

              1. Let’s ask sarcasmic what he intended.

                I took it as a well-worn joke dropped into the conversation for yuks.

                Help us out, sarc – are you bitter and resentful about your marital sex life?

            2. “I’ve cruised a few “men’s rights” sites”

              You’re doing it wrong. You need a special-colored hanky in your pocket.

            3. I’ve cruised a few “men’s rights” sites,

              This is by far the best comment of this thread.

      2. Oh yeah, I don’t think a day goes by when Sloopy isn’t bitching about what a drag it is having Banjos in his life and how much he resents her being so pregnant so often.

      3. “Nah, they just read the comments and see how much y’all resent your wives relying on you.”

        She may have a point, to some extent. Who here tends to express that he likes that his girl, woman, or wife relies on him?

    3. Not all women want to breed, jerk.

      1. Still a good chunk of that list was mostly concerning breeding.

        “pay equity, paid family leave, a higher minimum wage, universal pre-K, lowered college costs, more affordable health care, and broadly accessible reproductive rights.”

        1. So you’re saying the problem is with natalists, not women?

          1. No, Nikki. All women. Women are evil, vindictive bitches who just want to have spawn and take money from men. Or the government. Or whoever.

          2. Hahaha, you are the best, Nikki.

          3. “So you’re saying the problem is with natalists, not women?”

            Well this list is about what some women want. And clearly some of them are natalists, but then again most humans are natalists. There’s pretty overwhelming support of public schools, child tax credits, public playgrounds, etc.

            However, I think it’s pretty ridiculous to generalize this list, which clearly doesn’t represent everyone’s point of view as being the wishes of ‘natalists’ or being the wishes of ‘women’.

            It’s maybe best expressed as the wishes of the politically active, leftwing feminist movement.

      2. Well, it would not be a libertarian web site without the top comment being some mysogynist douchebag projecting his personal failings with the fairer sex onto the historical socioeconomic trends that will bankrupt us all.

    4. The article seems to paint the picture of “single” women as some independent, don’t-wanna-get-married group when in actuality, a lot of them are divorced. The truth is that there are a lot of men who realize that marriage essentially favors women and that divorce definitely favors women. They’ve decided that they want to live a life of freedom in their 20s and/or 30s without having to commit to a lifelong relationship that could potentially cripple their freedom, sex life, and bank account.

      1. Too simplistic. Marriage, a woman’s commitment, holds advantages for men. I agree with something that you may have in mind, that there are sex differences in timing and age.

  2. The only men I know who would consider getting married in this cultural and legal climate are gay.

    1. They’ll learn…and some of us tried to warn them

      1. I’m sure you’re such a catch, Mr Lizard.

        Seriously. Every time someone complains about their spouse on here, it just strikes me as silly. Maybe if you have issues in your marital home you should take it up with your partner instead of anonymously complaining on the internet.

        1. I interpreted his comments as having more to do with the shit show that is “family court.” Aka, divorce court.

          Although if both spouses are the same sex, how will the judges know which one to screw over in the settlement? The “top”? Or just whichever one makes less money?

          1. Having been through divorce court myself, I can tell you it doesn’t have to be a shit show. Just sayin’. My divorce was amicable and I’ve used the ex-husband as a reference since then.

            1. Most divorces probably are, but in the cases where it’s not, the courts do seem to favor the woman’s side.

            2. ” I’ve used the ex-husband as a reference since then.”

              Pro Tip: Your new guy doesn’t want to be compared to your ex-husband.

              1. Lol–as a work reference.

                And while I don’t make direct comparisons between my current beau and ex-husband, my man is well-aware of his superiority to his predecessor.

                1. Uh, excuse me? YOUR man? You are the problem, shitlord.

                  1. Money changed hands. Contracts were signed. He knew what he was getting into. Etc.

                    1. *applause*

            3. “My divorce was amicable (…).”

              Does he agree?

          2. This is indeed the intent of my comment. An entire generation of men saw their fathers get fucked over in family court and want nothing to do with marriage. I argue that it isn’t that women generally who have chosen to be single, it is that men know the Russian roulette of marriage and will not propose.

          3. This is indeed the intent of my comment. An entire generation of men saw their fathers get fucked over in family court and want nothing to do with marriage. I argue that it isn’t that women generally who have chosen to be single, it is that men know the Russian roulette of marriage and will not propose.

            1. The squirrels agree

        2. Every time someone complains about their spouse on here, it just strikes me as silly.

          That may be a hint that it isn’t meant seriously. If I “complain” about Mrs. Dean ruling with an iron fist, that’s because what she wants is usually very sensible and I have no grounds for saying “no”.

          1. Perhaps that’s you, R C Dean, but I’ve seen plenty of bitching on these collected forums that I’m fair certain wasn’t jesting.

            I could say the same about any male-dominated environment. When I got married (the first time), the cowboy’s work buddies all insisted that wedding cake adds 15 pounds plus a whole slew of other absolutely sexist nonsense. Like men don’t gain weight when they get married, too? Isn’t that why Dad-bod is a thing now?

            1. Could be. We all make assumptions about the tone and intent of what we read on a screen. I’m making mine (all in good fun, which tells you something about me), and you’re making yours (bitterness and resentment, which tells me something about you).

              1. Yes, it tells us that you think it’s hilarious to be a dick, and we think it’s mean.

              2. Except that she isn’t the only one reaching the same “assumption”. And neither are you. So do you have an actual fucking point?

                1. Just say Nikki

                  Yes, it tells us that you think it’s hilarious to be a dick, and we think it’s mean.

                  +1

                  Episiarch

                  Except that she isn’t the only one reaching the same “assumption”.

                  +1

                  Just say Nikki

                  This is how men joke. It is nasty.

                  I don’t mind how they joke. Men need their Safe Spaces too. I just don’t like hearing it over. And over. And over. And over. And over…

                  “Take my wife. Please.” (e.g.) is funny. Once.

                  I take it as bitterness, thank my lucky stars for my Dude, and feel sorry for their women.

              3. Did you really just get all up in my business about making assumptions about tone…and then make assumptions about my tone?

                Maybe the fact that you’re getting a lot of bitterness and resentment off my posts says more about me than it does about you… Just throwing that out there, buddy.

                1. Derp.

                  More about you than it does about me.*

                  See, you can’t take shit on the internet seriously because it’s all just typos, R C Dean. I gave you a real world experience that certainly wasn’t a bunch of men just joshing around–I don’t think it’s unreasonable of me to see similar statements on the internets and assume there’s some truth there.

                  1. I gave you a real world experience that certainly wasn’t a bunch of men just joshing around

                    If you think that isn’t how a lot of men josh around, you need more real world experience.

                    1. If you think that isn’t how a lot of men josh around, you need more real world experience.

                      You seem to be trying desperately not to get the point.

                    2. You seem to be trying desperately not to get the point.

                      Then howsabout you make it crystal clear for me?

                    3. This is how men joke. It is nasty.

                      When women make similar jokes, how do men on this board talk about it?

                    4. This is how men joke. It is nasty.

                      Some men mean it in a mean way, no question. I believe most don’t.

                      When women make similar jokes, how do men on this board talk about it?

                      As for how men talk about it, I really don’t recall any deep discussions about how to react to humor that you find offensive, other than a generalized anti-SJW “toughen up, buttercup”.

                      But, apparently, according to you, this is how both men and women joke. I find it curious, then, that we are only talking about offensive humor by men.

                    5. Nicole “This is how men joke. It is nasty.

                      When women make similar jokes, how do men on this board talk about it?”

                      I don’t think men’s jokes about men are fine sprinkles of insight shared in a gentle fashion. That said, it appears rough.

                      Good question. Would you answer it? If possible, differentiate based on kinds of women, eg one’s who demand that microaggressions stop, yet make “nasty” jokes about men.

                    6. The bulk of my hobbies are male dominated. The bulk of my work experience has been male dominated. Maybe my experiences really have been singular, but I doubt it.

                2. Did you really just get all up in my business about making assumptions about tone…and then make assumptions about my tone?

                  Yeah, I did, as a way of trying to get you to see how dangerous it is to do so, and how a little self-awareness about such assumptions might be a good thing.

                  whoosh goes the point.

              4. You’re not the only one who thinks the posters are ribbing about their wives in the all good fun manner not resentment and hatred. The only real resentment I hear are from the by choice single types and occasionally story about an ex-wife (which considering the content of said stories I don’t blame them).

                1. Quiet, Tulpa. The adults are talking.

                2. Oh Tulpy-Poo. Really? You’re really going to try and do this?

                3. The only real resentment I hear are from the by choice single types and occasionally story about an ex-wife (which considering the content of said stories I don’t blame them).

                  That’s kinda what I am seeing, not-Tulpa.

              5. So, all those sneeringly contemptuous comments about the homos were jokes, too, right? Sorry, RC, you’re busted.

            2. I see. When did the fat jokes become too much for you?

              1. When did the fat jokes become too much for you?

                For most womyn, that’s around 25o lbs. *ducks*

                I keed, I keed…

                1. I keed, I keed…

                  Probably a good idea to let everybody know very explicitly when you are joking.

                  1. Don’t worry, RC. You already are.

                    1. Are you keeding, Epi, or are you mocking me so that I should take offense*?

                      *Assuming I cared.

            3. Oh dear, I think someone has been triggered.

              1. There’s more triggering on this thread than the last time I went to the range.

                1. Wait, did you just ask me to explicitly tell you when I’m joking?

                  1. Wait, did you just ask me to explicitly tell you when I’m joking?

                    People seem to struggle with identifying a joke around here. I was just trying to be helpful.

            4. I have lost about 40 lbs. It started before the wedding, but most has been since.

              1. Her cooking is that bad?

                1. Hey-oooh!

            5. I can’t believe this thread; do any of you have actual jobs? Or lives outside of this?

              1. No. Yes.

      2. So much this. “Careful what you wish for.” Have fun in family court, idiots.

    2. There are still tons of normal women in other countries who appreciate normal, honest guys who just want to work hard and raise a family.

      It can be hit or miss, but I know several guys who have struck gold with girls from places like the Phillippines.

      1. How much did they have to pay? Or was it just a green card thing? I know a guy who knew a guy who ported two wives over from some Asian country. He had to keep her locked in doors and away from the TV as the last one got all uppity after a while after being exposed to the culture and left.

        1. So, uh, why isn’t Filipino culture better for men as well? I mean, look how uppity all y’all libertarians are from being exposed to the culture here.

        2. May be he should try the sex trafficking route next time and keep her in a shipping container to insulate her from the American culture that may expose her to the idea that she is a real person.

      2. I have a ‘close the borders’ political inclination, but this would prevent american men from bypassing all the gimmethat fat gals.

  3. If memory serves, laws limiting women’s hours in the workplace were justified for largely the same reasons why paid family leave is being pushed as something that must be done for family obligations. If it is achieved as a legal standard, will it be denounced in a few generations as holding women back?

    1. All current paid family leave proposals are for women and men.

      1. Bad career move for a guy to take it, though, Nikki.

        1. It’s also a bad career move for a woman to take it.

          1. Not so much. Smart women will get skills to do work that does not require extended travel and can be picked up again after a two or three year hiatus. Those one or two babies will be the only thing she remembers on her death bed. Men, OTOH, are assholes and will have opium dreams of catching that fly ball that bounced off their mitt a lifetime ago.

            1. Hear that, Nikki? When we’re on our childless deathbeds, we’re apparently going to lament never having bred.

              Jesus. There’s more to life than having children.

              1. No, there’s absolutely nothing more to life than using other people as a means to an end.

                1. Umm, having a child is not a means to an end, but it is the only way to pass the baton without having “your race your face”* extinguished.

                  *that’s a lyric from the Bowie song Five Years.

                  1. Umm, having a child is not a means to an end, but it is the only way to pass the baton without having “your race your face”* extinguished.

                    You…seriously don’t see that you just contradicted yourself?

                    1. But…you can’t *use* your own children, Nicole! No one has ever done that in the history of man!

                    2. But…you can’t *use* your own children,

                      Indeed. Using your children is MY job.

                    3. So I now know for sure that neither Nikki nor Epi have a children and I think they should make one. At first I was going to write something snarky like “God forbid they do.” But hey , it’s better than an arranged marriage in Pakistan among first cousins.

                    4. But…you can’t *use* your own children, Nicole! No one has ever done that in the history of man!

                      We had children to fetch the remote.

                      Also, dishes.

                      Laundry.

                      Lawn mowing.

                      Toilet scrubbing.

                      Mulch shoveling.

                      And, most satisfying of all, to piss off the neighbors.

        2. The only way it won’t have a disparate impact is if men are forced to take time off at gunpoint.
          So that’s probably what’s going to happen.

      2. All current paid family leave proposals are for women and men

        Maybe don’t have kids until you can afford them instead of making others pay for it? What am I crazy, that involves taking responsibility for your actions.

        1. Do you think I’m in favor of paid family leave? Why would I want to further subsidize an oppressive social institution?

          1. What “oppressive social institution”?

            1. The traditional family

              1. **rolls eyes**

              2. “The traditional family”

                I sense a disturbance in the force, as if thousands of yokel souls all gasped at once.

                1. I do not know about these yokels you refer to, but this is hilarious.

              3. Oppresive as opposed to what, exactly?

                1. The alternative on offer does seem to be a massive state transferring wealth as a substitute for the traditional family.

                2. “Oppres[s]ive as opposed to what, exactly?” Right question. Including “who oppressing whom?”.

      3. Funny how the DOL can’t help but talk about “women” and “maternity leave”, then.

        http://www.dol.gov/wb/PaidLeave/PaidLeave.htm

        1. There are 3 instances on that page of “maternity” and 10 of “family.”

          1. I know its all drafted to be facially neutral. I just find it amusing that a heavily vetted government statement still lets the mask slip. We all know the overwhelming beneficiaries of family leave are women. And I actually don’t have a problem with that, but lets not pretend otherwise, shall we?

            1. I never said anything about who the beneficiaries were. I was commenting on the political possibility suggested by Mickey Rat.

              1. See, I thought you were commenting on my link to the DOL.

            2. The US of A is still a great country. God Bless Ronny Raygun.

              It is still next to impossible for an able-bodied 25 yo male to collect welfare here.

      4. Yet we are being told it is a women’s issue.

  4. Worry?

    I reside delicately suspended between two raging dragons feeding voraciously from the fingertips of my millions-strong neighbors composed of complex demographics writhing with abject ignorance about the state of their existence juxtaposed on the canvas of governmental domination and corporate sublimation.

    Dear, an army of single women or chartreuse giraffes simply indicates yet another predictable crew of dragon-feeders.

    1. But Agile, why do those female dragons have to be such bitches about it? It’s like they are permanently on the rag, amirite? We should have never given female dragons the ability to breathe fire.

      1. Dude, we should totally get a hallucinogen and cocaine fueled session of D&D going.

        1. Dibs on being the group bard. Halfling, of course.

          1. Bards are a terrible character class. So annoying.

            So, I’m in.

            Halfling?!?

            1. I got first dibs on the dwarf mage role.

            2. I never got to try the bard class. I always rolled a druid or a rogue.

              1. You… rolled, instead of chose, a class?

                Ok, maybe I’m showing how young I am, but what version of d and d was this? 2? Or are we talking first edition?

                1. Let’s go first. I claim the elf class.

  5. “Broadly accessible reproductive rights” is also a demand for government intervention as for the people pushing these policies an inability to personally pay for them means they are not acessable.

  6. “We are living through the invention of independent female adulthood as a norm, not an aberration, and the creation of an entirely new population: adult women who are no longer economically, socially, sexually, or reproductively dependent on or defined by the men they marry.”

    “Independent” is an odd word for single mothers who are dependent on the taxpayer.

    1. Ta-da! The leftoid dependency pimps discovered they could advance their collectivist agenda by helping women pretend to be independent while actually being dependent on the state.

  7. Raise the voting age to 40 and see what happens.

  8. “It reduces all relationships women have to marital, sexual, hetero ones and suggests that they are, by nature, dependent beings.”

    *Raises hand* But isn’t that true?

    *ducks*

    laws ensuring “pay equity, paid family leave, a higher minimum wage, universal pre-K, lowered college costs, more affordable health care, and broadly accessible reproductive rights.”

    With the exception of the last point, those are all either direct requests for state support or requests for state-mandated support from private actors.

    I’m not sure that the last point isn’t also a request for state support too. When a lot of people talk about “broadly accessible reproductive rights” what they really mean is state subsidized abortion. You have to read between the lines with some people. Apparently legal abortion isn’t enough, they insist that other people be on the hook to pay for them too.

  9. Millions of single women voters…

    Millions of single male refugees from the Middle-East…

    I smell a solution!

    1. does it smell like victory? or seasoned kababs?

  10. “Yes, taken as a group, women vote more Democratic than men do,” concluded Hymowitz. “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.”

    Hymowitz? That’s a cartoon jewish name, I hope.

    1. “Yes, taken as a group, women vote more Democratic earn less than men do,” concluded Hymowitz. “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.”

    2. Yes, taken as a group, women vote more Democratic less Republican than men do,” concluded Hymowitz. “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.

      Yes, taken as a group, women men vote more Democratic Republican than men women do,” concluded Hymowitz. “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.

      Yet we are treated to endless scolding about how the Repubs have a “gender gap”, but never a peep about the equal and opposite gender gap that the Dems have.

  11. “The notion that what the powerful, growing population of unmarried American women needs from the government is a husband… is of course problematic,” she writes. “It reduces all relationships women have to marital, sexual, hetero ones and suggests that they are, by nature, dependent beings.”

    Calling something problematic isn’t an argument. It’s dismissing an argument because you don’t like the implications of it. So we get some weird math being done where a 10% higher gap between married and unmarried women in racial groups is dismissed as being close enough, but similar gaps elsewhere are apparently significant. If the 10% of married versus unmarried men voting Democrat is significant, why not the ones on racial groups? There is still a trend here, but it’s being downplayed.

    At the end of the day, more women tend to vote for nanny statism regardless of race or marital status. Marrying them off isn’t going to make the country more libertarian, either. That’s a generalization, not collectivization. There is a difference there, and libertarians tend to engage in their own form of hand waving when they pretend to confuse the two.

    So, I don’t know. We either need to repeal the 19th amendment or find some sort of pitch for individual liberty that has greater appeal to females if one exists. The exercise in tearing apart poll data to explain away a trend isn’t very productive to me, though.

    1. Calling something problematic isn’t an argument.

      That must be why she explained exactly what the problem is: “It reduces all relationships women have to marital, sexual, hetero ones and suggests that they are, by nature, dependent beings.”

      1. Wasn’t referring to ENB who did put together an argument, though one with a few issues that I noted. The quote in question was from Traister. I have less issue with ENB’s argument, but there’s a level of hand waving going on to dismiss the obvious where women, for whatever you want to attribute it to, do support a larger state in larger proportions. It doesn’t justify sweeping statements about females, but pretending it doesn’t exist despite the numbers being right there isn’t very convincing.

        1. The quote in question was from Traister.

          As was the explanation.

        2. No, it wasn’t. She went on a rant about how for generations the system was set up to support men versus women which I frankly take as some sort of excuse for why women are justified and just playing the same game. Which, frankly, has a bit of truth to it. Most people have no problem taking government goodies. But it actually doesn’t explain why women are doing it in greater numbers today.

          1. She went on a rant about how for generations the system was set up to support men versus women… But it actually doesn’t explain why women are doing it in greater numbers today.

            Maybe now that they’re a politically powerful enough group they’re out to get theirs? Revenge? I don’t know.

          2. Yes, it was.

            “The notion that what the powerful, growing population of unmarried American women needs from the government is a husband… is of course problematic,” she writes. “It reduces all relationships women have to marital, sexual, hetero ones and suggests that they are, by nature, dependent beings.”

            This has been quoted too often now – once by you – for this not to be embarrassing.

          3. Perhaps I’m misunderstanding you, but when you said “as was the explanation” i took that to mean what ENB wrote after that on polling data. If your point is that Traister’s ‘explanation’ is an argument, then the answer to you is very simple. It’s not an argument. It’s not a rational refutation of the point made, but simply says that I don’t like the implications of this so it must be wrong. The idea being expressed was just obviously wrong because.

            The statement may very well be wrong and even for the reasons Traister points out, but she hardly provided an actual explanation supported by reason.

            1. Looking around this thread, it doesn’t appear to be a requirement.

              Perhaps treating humans as fungible is not as effective as it appears?

            2. Traister was responding to the same sort of unsupported drivel that she dished out, so her argument was ok? Finding Traister’s argument weak is not the same as supporting the counter argument that women are being driven by deep seeded biological impulses which cannot be proven. ENB took on the gender angle in a far more rational way, though still wish issues.

              My own point is simple. There is a trend in the data and voting demographics based on the polling, and it is one libertarians do need to think about more. Simply dismissing anyone who brings up the lack of appeal of libertarianism to women as engaging in collectivization isn’t really helpful.

  12. Takin’ all bets! What will be the favorite theme of collectivization of women in this thread? I got 3:1 on “women are inherent statists”, and 2:1 on “women who aren’t married are welfare recipients”! Takin’ all bets! Give me your money!

    1. I dunno, I think “women are inherently in need of someone to support them” is doing pretty well out of the gate.

      1. D’oh! Should have refreshed first 😉

      2. I’m not a fucking fortune teller, Nicole. That’s why there are odds. Fine, I’ll adjust it. Stop yelling at me!

        All right, 4:1 on “women are inherently dependent”! Place your bets!

        And also, 5:1 on “women will nag Episiarch relentlessly”!

        1. Is nagging a form of dependency for the purposes of this bet? Because the answer affects my placement.

          1. No it is not. How much you puttin’ down, chief?

            1. Ok, put me down for two Patriarchs on the first, and a Doonesbury on the second.

              1. Done. Payouts are tomorrow.

                (prepares to skip town)

      3. Women with children do, yes. World history and primate evolution show this.

        1. O Rly? Can you explain primate evolution to us, and how it pertains to this issue?

          1. Single parents have never existed anywhere. You monster.

          2. Well primate mothers do tend to raise the children. And that’s a good portion of this issue isn’t it? Women want someone to help out and some woman would prefer that to be the Government.

            It certainly pertains to the issue. Though I’m not sure it’s particularly insightful.

            1. Not with titi monkeys.

              1. That’s a bonbonobo.

      4. I think “women are inherently in need of someone to support them” is doing pretty well out of the gate.

        I think its more “women sure seem to think they need someone to support them, if their tendency to vote for politicians who promise the state will do so is any indication”.

      5. It is not a question of need but rather of revealed preference. If women are voting for a state strong enough to provide them benefits directly or at the point of a gun then it is evidence that women themselves as needing someone to support them and as defining such support as a “women’ issue”.

        1. And how many men aren’t voting for that, exactly?

          1. Apparently, not as many and not as “men” That is, as a distinct interest group.

        2. You get back to “needing” which requires more attention. If women like to get stuff (for free), and have the power (by voting, or whatever) to get it, does this mean they “need support”?

      6. Distinguish (and question whether) “women” a) “find men who protect and provide sexy”; b) “find men who have power over them sexy”; “like free stuff”; “are not negatively affected by getting free stuff from the government”; and “find a government who has power over them good”. Then compare to men.

        1. Was negatively affected by government not providing free “c)”, etc.

    2. So far, it appears that women are naturally dependent. You heard it here first.

      1. I heard it elsewhere before.

        1. Sloppy seconds, as usual.

          1. As long as I’m in the batting order, I’m happy.

            1. Good news: coach says you’re in the lineup
              Bad news: you’re batting fourth

      2. See?!? See?!? Can I bet on my own book?

    3. I’ll be the outlier and break out with “women are lazy”. But only if I get decent odds.

      1. I’ll take gold diggers, all of them. John told me so.

        1. I’ll take the sluts. Bring me all the sluts.

    4. That’s a generalization, not collectivization. There is a difference there, and libertarians tend to engage in their own form of hand waving when they pretend to confuse the two.

      So, let’s rephrase this a bit. Making a generalized statement is not the same as ‘collectivizing.’ When you look at the policies women on the left and right support, it shows that a larger proportion of them compared to men are statists. Women also are more likely to have received federal ‘assistance.’ More likely to have used food stamps.

      1. When you look at the policies women on the left and right support, it shows that a larger proportion of them compared to men are statists.

        And what makes this really relevant to life is that 99.9% of people you meet of either gender are statists.

        1. Nonsense, Nikki. There has never been a statist culture in existence that was dominated by male voters. This is known.

      2. Nick tells me that a plurality of the electorate identifies as libertarian, actually. So, your argument is that most people are statists, so anyone who acknowledges that libertarianism and individuality has less appeal to women than men in this country is a waste of time? Or do you just not like that being acknowledged? Seems like the latter to me.

        1. Um, most of the libertarians around here are pretty fucking statist.

          1. “Um, most of the libertarians around here are pretty fucking statist.”

            Amen to that.

        2. I’m curious, what is your evidence that “individuality has less appeal to women than men in this country”? You seem to be asking us to just trust you on this. Because it sure isn’t my experience.

        3. Then you are asking to argue the evidence now which isn’t what you started with. I take a look at the polling data and demographic of libertarians. And while there may be statists and hypocrites in the ranks of the libertarians here at Reason, the demographics of libertarians indicates that the message isn’t getting across. You can come up with other explanations. Perhaps the make-up of libertarians is a very imperfect judge of the appeal of individuality. Perhaps libertarians have a little boys club that is unwelcoming to women. I don’t know, but the evidence is in the basic proportions of people who support certain types of policies. It’s in aggregate numbers.

          I’ll remind you that this line of thought started because you jumped in to claim anyone who makes such an argument is just engaging in collectivizing. Which is nonsense. So it’s progress that you are actually discussing the merits of the arguments, whatever they may be, rather than engaging in all or nothing sophistry as the initial comment did.

          1. If this shit isn’t collectivizing, then the word has no god damn meaning.

          2. Which shit? There’s collectivization in the comments here, sure enough. Just like when the issue of cops, bureaucrats, or progressives come up, you engage in a large amount of collectivization to discuss the matter. More than I certainly have by pointing out a trend where women are more likely to support things libertarians oppose.

            1. Are you seriously fucking comparing “people who actively choose to be ‘progressives’ are often like X” with “people born with vaginas are often like X”?

    5. WTF are you even doing up so early?

      1. I couldn’t fucking sleep. I even smoked some weed to get back to sleep and it didn’t work.

        1. Maybe you got hold of some reverse weed.

          1. WEED DOES NOT WORK THAT WAY

            1. I’ve had some sativas that kept me up for a little while, so maybe?

              1. This was a 60/40 indica/sativa hybrid (Albert Walker, it’s on Leafly). Maybe I should have used my 80/20 (Jabba’s Stash).

                1. Why would you use anything else when you have Jabba’s Stash?!

                2. I’ve never had that from a cross (which is my preferred smoke).

  13. So size does matter?

  14. Did all you guys forget that a bunch of us single women are subsidizing your little home breeding programs? It ain’t just you supporting your wives.

    1. Exactly. Ugh.

      I’m all for lower taxes–which includes not funding and enabling the breeders. Go ahead and have your passal of kids, but do it on your own dime, if you could.

      1. The sheer angst of the previous two statements makes me gag. Good for you that you have found a cause to rally behind; the uterus is such a titanic burden!

        Furthermore, the amount of “us single women” “funding and enabling the breeders” with their tax dollars can’t exceed the homosexual couples and singles who are also “funding and enabling the breeders” with their tax dollars. Some of those homosexual couples aren’t completely put out on the idea of having children and a family, probably because they aren’t bitter husks like the posters above.

        How to spot an angst ridden, bitter, pseudo-femme-fatale; Look for “Men are the worst,” “Preach sister,” “Hey, Men, by the way, Women are here to,” “Not so fast Men, Women matter,” “Look how independent we are, See Daddy?” etc ad nauseam ad perpetuam in all derivations and deviations thereof.

        1. Some of those homosexual couples aren’t completely put out on the idea of having children and a family, probably because they aren’t bitter husks like the posters above.

          You know how I know having kids is the right thing to do? People say meanie things about those who choose not to.

          1. You know, having kids is kind of like having immigrants. (Except that immigrants aren’t imported by bees.) So if “having” immigrants is conducive to public welfare, then so is having children. When you say you don’t want to have children, you imply you don’t want to have immigrants. That’s pretty bad.

            By the way, recall Friedman’s argument for free public schools (excluding specialized/vocational training). The “neighborhood effects” argument would also apply to raising children.

            1. Public welfare couldn’t really be less relevant to me.

              1. Your own wellfare is. You’re part of the public. Public welfare includes you. Hence the idea of free-riding (positive externalities), and making you pay for others’ children.

                1. (*”Your own welfare is [relevant to you]”. You may be sort of a nihilist, but certainly hedonistic.)

              2. Maybe you should think of the children, then.

        2. I look forward to your hand-waving away why I am just as bitter and stupid and female, only for completely different reasons.

          *pops popcorn*

          1. Not hand waving, chums, I intend to be mocking. Mocking the zip-zap boogaloo that gets you up in arms on an anonymous forum to complain, protest, and advocate for a position that isn’t at odds with an individual liberty movement. We all get it, you can think for yourselves and you think Men are to blame for some things, but most definitely sexist ignorance. Perhaps. Or perhaps we are being overly sensitive to prodding, unable to realize how bitter we sound, and unable to see that we are disparaging in general terms based on personal anecdotal experience?

            Addendum; I have no children, and plan not to. What now? Where do we stand, you and me, Nikki? Am I a traitor to the “seedless” cause for not jumping at the chance to lament the “breeders” and my theoretical support of them?

            When I see a post of female angst, most commonly in the form of smug “need no man/how about that” expressiveness, I feel the giddy urge to mock this female pride/arrogance relentlessly, as one might do to someone driving a F-350 with a 12″ lift kit, a bald eagle mural on the back window, and truck nuts. Ask yourself, would you find anything problematic with the following? “Girl power.” “I don’t need anyone but me.” “Doritos EXTREME.”

            Dworkin needed no man too. Steinem needed no man, and made Bernie an honorary Feminist. Albright said “Uteruses need to stick together, otherwise we are all going to hell” or something to that effect.

            It’s funny, no?

            1. Yes, it’s funny that you read female independence as angst.

              1. See what I mean about assumptions we have to make about what we see on screen?

              2. That is exactly my point. You THINK female independence is supposed to be shouted from the mountaintops, echoing low into the bowels of the earth. Smear the Mud of Creation on your brow, Mother Gaia, and let the world know you exist.

                How is it not angst? You aren’t celebrating your independence with your tones, you are dipping each nugget of anti-marital artillery in an acid bath of sarcasm, you and Riven both.

                Maybe arrogance is a better word.

                1. When do I shout female independence from the rooftops, as opposed to shouting down complete retardation from sexists?

            2. See, I knew it could be done.

              1. Cheers! Nothing like being right all the time am I right?

            3. So is the fact that I detest being forced to subsidize child-bearing people angst too? Or is that just for broads?

              1. I “detest.” Good starting point.

                Let’s take the average, bible belt Republican, explain to them what detest means, and then ask them what they detest.

                “Hey Cletus, What do you detest?”
                “Well them gays for sure, and the Mexicans for taking my job.”
                “Well, did you know that some Mexican households are on Welfare, and your meager tax money theoretically goes to supporting those Mexican households?”
                “Well shit, sonny, I detest Welfare too! Not MY tax dollars!”

                Again, maybe angst is the wrong word. What is the word for, “Coyly and smugly suggest there is a problem, suggests there is a better alternative without naming it, and continues to sarcastically complain in company of ideological peers?”

                Feminism?

                1. Coyly and smugly suggest there is a problem, suggests there is a better alternative without naming it, and continues to sarcastically complain in company of ideological peers?

                  Do you seriously *not* see your own fucking context and personal issues here? Just say “nag”, dude. You know you want to.

                  “PEOPLE WHO ANNOY YOU”

                  “N_GGERS”

                  1. “You know you want to?” What are you, Satan? What are you, a cigarette ad? Is that the best you got brochacho?

                    Is the thrust of your argument something like; “Cynic is a sexist because when he mocks proud female independents, that makes him one.”

                    All I wanted to was to mock individuals on this board who post things like:

                    “Did all you guys forget that a bunch of us single women are subsidizing your little home breeding programs? It ain’t just you supporting your wives.”

                    Add Bible-Belt Republican filter; “Did all you guys gays forget that a bunch of us single women Christians are subsidizing your little home breeding programs Marriage Licensing?:

                    “My bad. I should know better than to be getting uppity–I’ve already got the two black eyes, after all. *Back to the kitchen to stare out the box window over the sink, wistfully pondering motherhood.*”

                    Add De-Sarcastify Ray: “I am suggesting that men who disagree with my independence only agree with my subjection, but my tone will be one of sarcasm in order to convey this message in an opposite arrangement. Isn’t domestic abuse hilarious?”

                    “While gossip among women is universally ridiculed as low and trivial, gossip among men, especially if it is about women, is called theory, or idea, or fact.”

                    The last line is Dworkin’s. It is a bit more “academic” than the advocacy-lite fare we are treated to on these boards.

            4. I didn’t say I need no man. … I said I need no mewling whelps.

              I have a man and his masculinity is one of his many fine qualities…

              1. Seriously, where else would I get a good dosing of vitamin D*?

                *Not really vitamin d.

                1. Seriously, where else would I get a good dosing of vitamin D*?

                  There is no need to share your sexual proclivities; this is a place for political discussion. Grow up.

                  1. Ok, that shit made me fall out of chair, Crusty. Well played, sir.

              2. Riven: “I didn’t say I need no man. … I said I need no mewling whelps.

                I have a man and his masculinity is one of his many fine qualities…”

                Rare to hear that openly. It’s nice.

        3. My bad. I should know better than to be getting uppity–I’ve already got the two black eyes, after all.

          *Back to the kitchen to stare out the box window over the sink, wistfully pondering motherhood.*

          1. What’s a box window?

              1. Or I could SF the link, like a typical woman

                http://www.nombach.com/images/…..window.jpg

                1. Huh. I thought those were bay windows.

                  /typical man

                  1. Tundra, through not fault of your own. Men stare at them less, and know less about them.

                2. From an aesthetic and design perspective, those fuckers are hideous.

        4. Mmm, yes, complaining about taxation and welfare is a sign of an angst-ridden, bitter person.

    2. Did all you guys
      All? I sterilized myself for the good of humanity long ago.

      1. Florida Man, the one good man in the forums.

        1. I took a good long look in the mirror and said “NOPE. Don’t need another one of these runnin’ round.”

      2. Hunting accident?

        1. It’d be a more interesting story. My 27th birthday present to myself was a vasectomy.

          1. God bless America.

            I tried to talk to my OBGYN about doing the lady equivalent, and I just got a lot of, “Oh, honey… you don’t want to do that. What if you want to have kids in five years?”

            1. Ditto. When I was 26, 28, 29, and 31. Clearly, these ages are old enough to decide you want several children, but not old enough to decide you don’t want several children +1.

            2. The guy I used was pretty cool. He just made me sign a form saying I wouldn’t sue him if I changed my mind in a few years.

            3. So, she (he?) was convincing?

              1. Vasectomies are reversible. Not sure about tubal ligations?

                1. I believe both are reversible, but the odds of success improve greatly if the surgeon knows you’re planning to reverse later.

              2. No. It’s just hard to find an OBGYN who will do it, given my circumstances–engaged and childless. I’m not going to force some baby-crazy lady-part doctor to do a surgery they’re not comfortable with–even if I think their reasoning is condescending and poorly executed.

                1. You know I’m a doctor and I have a Dremel. And no scruples.

                2. Riven, that seems empathic. But are you saying that, to you, it’s not worth the effort of finding one?

                  By the way, do you suspect that “baby-crazy lady-part doctors” are otherwise (and overall) better lady-part doctors?

            4. I had to have two kids before they’d let me have a hysto.

              1. “I had to have two kids before they’d let me have a hysto.”

                So you got two kids in order to have a hysterectomy?

                1. So you got two kids in order to have a hysterectomy?

                  Why YES! Of COURSE! That’s the ONLY reason the cool moms are having kids these days!

                2. I reconsidered my sarcasm. I’m sorry, it was just an infantile response to authority. (Oh, wait. Wrong movie.)

                  Anyway, in case you were being serious:

                  An elective hysterectomy during peak childbearing years for a woman who has never had children is almost unheard of. It’s not even an insurance company issue; it’s an entirely an obstetrician’s call as to whether to do it, and they will almost ALWAYS refuse, even if you’re having severe health problems (e.g., PCOS, endometriosis, prolapsed uterus).

                  Many of those diseases make it difficult to have children in any case, so being denied can become torturous and, at the very least, burdensome, especially for younger women who know they don’t want to have children.

                  It’s even difficult to get one if there’s nothing wrong with it and you’re finished having children.

                  The upshot is that the prevailing wisdom is that someday, if you are “allowed” to have an elective hysterectomy, you’ll regret it later when you meet Mr. Right Sperm. If your uterus is defective, “Well, you never know!”

                  I’ve never been sure if this was a response to medical malpractice claims (ob/gyn is very high risk for this) or because doctors Know Better Than You or because doctors don’t want you to Worry Your Pretty Little Head About It.

                  Of course, unlike vasectomy and tubal ligation, this isn’t reversible.

                3. (cont)

                  I did, once upon a time, want a hysterectomy before I found Mr. Right, mostly because I had some serious problems that prompted them to tell me I’d never be able to have children anyway. But then I did. And somehow my unable-to-conceive womb conceived PDQ.

                  I don’t regret it. I like my kids. They’re funny and they fetch the remote.

                  I’m not sure I’d have regretted getting a hysterectomy when I wanted one, though, so I’m not going to say They Were Right. They were being tyrannical asses despite the fact that a hysterectomy was clearly indicated to solve my multiplicity of problems.

    3. Nikki, I think we are all on the same page as far as subsidizing people’s lifestyle choices go.

      The issue is that women seem to vote more consistently for people to subsidize their lifestyle choices. The question is why?

      1. How many men don’t vote for people to subsidize their lifestyle choices?

        Seriously, you people have no fucking idea how many of your lifestyle choices are built into the state.

        1. “Seriously, you people have no fucking idea how many of your lifestyle choices are built into the state.”

          I’m genuinely interested in that. Please go on and elaborate.

          1. The child tax credit is just one example, and of course there’s government schooling set up for all of the country. The mortgage interest tax deduction is another example. And the Hyde Amendment is a great example as well: why should we treat reproduction as a neutral choice and abortion otherwise?

            What isn’t set up to continue institutions of the traditional family? Jesus, the state has even coopted practically the entire gay rights movement by bringing them into the fold.

            1. What isn’t set up to continue institutions of the traditional family?

              Well, the way we tax married couples, for one. I’d pay a lot less in taxes if I wasn’t married, and there was no mortgage deduction.

              Your larger point is pretty much on track, though.

              1. My wife and I are in the same boat. The tax code is set up to favor middle income married couples and singles of ALL incomes and she’s bitching about the dependent tax credit. Incredible.

            2. To you take these to be “men’s” lifestyle choices, Nikki?

          2. The only one I can think of is my decision to own a home. Which is “subsidized” to the tune of reducing my taxes by less than 10%.

            1. You don’t have to “proportionally” pay for the adjacent road, sewage system, water system, power lines… etc., by virtue of proximity and house ownership?

              1. I don’t think so, at least as far as home ownership goes. To the extent those are funded by property taxes, they get passed through to renters.

      2. Do gay men vote consistently for people to subsidize their lifestyle choices?

        Do black people vote consistently for people to subsidize their lifestyle choices?

        Do Christians vote consistently for people to subsidize their lifestyle choices?

        I’m not asking that y’all think exactly like me. I just would like people to think.

        1. I’m not asking that y’all think exactly like me. I just would like people to think.

          Beatifully stated, and the exact reason why I post here the way I do.

          1. “Beatifully”

            Microaggressive Freudian.

            1. Well, reading my posts should be a religious experience.

              1. Someone’s beat you to it.

      3. I’m sorry… it seems to me that there are just as many men as women who could potentially be “parents” who might vote for others funding their interests/lifestyle choice

        1. The difficulty, of course, is that you can’t map “vote for Repub” onto “vote against big gov”, so its hard to say that men breaking Repub is men voting against big gov. We are making an assumption here, that women’s tendency to vote Dem is because the Dems promise them more free stuff. I’ve seen worse assumptions, but its given the weltering emotional stew that drives most people’s voting, I have no doubt that its not that simple.

      4. I think what RC is saying is: We’re already in agreement that women are whores, now we’re just haggling over the price.

        /runs and dives into pre-dug foxhole

          1. I know. And I clearly read above that this is a ‘must label joke’ thread. Sorry.

    4. “Did all you guys forget that a bunch of us single women are subsidizing your little home breeding programs?”

      You should edit romance novels.

    5. And yet you’re fine expanding subsidies for the right cause(tm). Your convenient concern over subsidies is duly noted by this animist.

    6. It ain’t just you supporting your wives.

      Tut, tut. What makes you think we are supporting our wives? Why assume that they aren’t making their own coin?

      And no, you aren’t supporting my household at all, directly or indirectly. If anything, my choice to be married costs me a lot in taxes, and outweighs any other tax subsidies that my house gets (which is limited to the mortgage deduction).

    7. Do you forget that the product of the breeder’s will be subsidizing the singletons social security and medicare? Since you are not leaving anyone behind to give a damn about your aging carcass?

    8. On a net basis, women don’t subsidize anything. Women have been driving DEBT since they started voting. See Lott’s paper on Women’s Suffrage and Debt.

  15. I find the whole idea of equal pay utterly abhorrent, by the way. It amounts to collective bargaining. Nothing wrong with collective bargaining–so long as you don’t force me into collective bargaining, as well–and that’s what equal pay would do.

    If I outperform my coworkers (something I was known to do when I worked for other people), I expect to be promoted or paid disproportionately compared to my coworkers.

    If anybody told me they couldn’t promote me or give me a raise because I’m a man, I’d fire them and go hire another employer.

    Hell, I’ve quit and changed industries for not being paid disproportionately better than my underperforming coworkers before–when they were mostly men. Paying people correctly based on their performance is an essential part of good management–and taking the ability of entrepreneurs to do that away can only be bad for the economy.

    We’re talking about affirmative action for women, here–only they want to extend it into private sector. We’re talking about using the government to discriminate in favor of low performing women because they’re women and discriminating against high performing men because they’re men.

    1. You’re also talking about using the government to discriminate in favor of low performing women because they’re women and against high performing women because merit is irrelevant.

      1. A degree in Armpit braiding doesn’t translate to Dollar Bills, Nicolas.

      2. I don’t understand that.

        . . . unless you’re suggesting that employers will be more reluctant to hire women at all if they’re forced to pay female new hires more than male new hires to keep the average pay for women at the company up?

        That problem would lessen over time (through attrition) as older, higher paid men retire or leave a company, but it would be a big problem at first–especially at small companies, where adding one more woman could throw the pay balance askew.

        1. No, I’m suggesting that I get paid more than women who fuck off to have kids for a reason.

          1. The problem in the real world is that your emoyer could not read your mind when they hired you and more importantly could not read the mind of future you to know that you would not have children ( presuming that there are any pay differences) and made their decisions based on actuarial expectations.

      3. Hm. Not bad.

        Let’s say you create a system that divides into payment groups (“layers”), and that for each such group, the payment of men and women must be the same. When men consistently earn more in such groups, then instituting “same pay” does not seem to discriminate against “high performing” women. Only when women earn more than men, and (cumulatively) you are bad at setting up these payment groups, would “high performing” women get less as a result of intervention.

        1. And single, childless women do make more than their male counterparts.

          1. Wait, what?!? This is an outrage!

          2. That doesn’t fit terribly well with the sexist discrimination rhetoric. (Not yours.)

            Alright. Include a passage that, as a result of equal pay policies, pay may not be lowered. (Something similar is often done in minimum wage legislation: it’s not allowed to fire [=drastically lowering pay] people.)

            Also, it depends on who their “male counterparts” are. My scenario doesn’t obviously necessitate creating payment groups based on qualification, age, etc. So if you manage to frame groups in a way that puts these single ladies together with older men, you may even get to raise the ladies’ pay, because the older men in the group earn more.

    2. They’ve already got equal pay. But they don’t do equal work (on the aggregate), and that’s fine.
      What progs really want is equal pay for unequal work.

      1. Progressives have a hard time with the idea that individuals should be free to make choices for themselves and that where individuals end up in life should be connected to their own choices.

        My success is due to white privilege–and yet I’ve outperformed other whites. I’m paid more than other women with the same title–but I’ve been paid more than other men with the same title, too.

  16. “pay equity, paid family leave, a higher minimum wage, universal pre-K, lowered college costs, more affordable health care, and broadly accessible reproductive rights.”

    ENB – “With the exception of the last point, those are all either direct requests for state support or requests for state-mandated support from private actors.”

    Unless the last point, “broadly accessible reproductive rights”, refers solely to abortion then it translates to more requests for free stuff. And if it just means abortion, then the author should say it directly instead of talking in code words.

    1. Even if its just abortion, there’s plenty out there demanding that they be subsidized.

      Sorry, ENB. As with gay marriage, the desire for equal rights is overwhelmed in the real political world by the demand for state action.

  17. Seems like most people, women and men, prefer to rely on strong character. There’s a pretty good backlash against individuals who develop strong personalities, but it has to come from somewhere, so they’re looking to rely on the “collective” (the government). Stand out in a big way on campus? Get hammered back into place by the activists. Stand out as a strong business competitor? Get shoved back into place by government regulations. You can’t set yourself up to stand out anymore unless you’re in government bullying others about, so naturally the collective is going to gravitate towards a stronger government.

    The idea that unmarried women are voting more for stronger government is fairly irrelevant when most people are doing that.

    Just an idea anyways. I just had this conversation with someone a few months ago.

    1. The idea that unmarried women are voting more for stronger government is fairly irrelevant when most people are doing that.

      Well, unless you want to get your TEAM on.

      1. Yeah, that’s the sad part, alright.

        You have to make the gargantuan assumption that a bloc that breaks for the Repubs is voting against big gov, which is weird because its been a very long time since the Repubs actually did shit to rein in the government.

        1. The good news is some long time republicans are picking up on that fact and looking elsewhere. Unfortunately, the people that most want to kill government don’t waste their lives getting their hands on the levers of power.

        2. Yeah. I mean, why aren’t we doing stories on “men vote Republican because it serves their interest in working in defense”?

          1. Because it’s boring and everyone knows that already?

            *runs*

          2. Because people implicitly consider “defense” to be a public good?

            1. Who are “people”?

              1. The vast majority of citizens.

          3. Perhaps also because I’m not aware that the defense industries, as opposed to the military, are disproportionately male compared to comparable heavy industry, and that spending on defense is marketed as a male employment program.

          4. Do you actually know people that work in the defense industry? ’cause when talking to people ’round here about why they sought and took the job, idealogy isn’t a big point. Most are interested in a stable job with middlin’ pay and superior benefits and don’t sweat it too much that, when distilled, our job is to devise more efficient and effective ways to kill people.

            Sure, there are some people that work here because they genuinely want to work in the defense industry specifically. But they’re by-and-large in the minority.

  18. When these dames finally getting around to finding a provider, the banter between them and their right-leaning men will lead to fire in the boudoir to be sure!

    1. Indubitably sirrah. By the by, were you able to secure purchase of that boat full of Irish laborers? The railroads won’t build themselves, and I am running low on Negros and Chinese.

  19. something something revoke the 19th

  20. ENB: “They’ll have hard work ahead of them, however: while women vote in higher numbers than men overall?nearly 64 percent of eligible women voted in 2012, compared to about 60 percent of eligible male voters?unmarried women are some of the least likely to show up to vote.” … and that’s because of race?

  21. *walks in*

    *smells hormonal bluster*

    *unzips*

    1. You’re behind Florida Man

      1. Ewww.

      2. Right where he wants to be.

        1. What is that called. It’s got to have a name for being the meat in a FMM sammich.

            1. Don’t tell me I get to name it.

              *giggles excitedly*

              I’m going to call it a “Jacksonville Spit Roast”.

          1. Traumatized?

            1. C’mon, get outside your comfort zone a little, Tundra!

              1. You’ve never been to Florida, have you Riven? Well, I’ve been to Florida.

                The horror! The horror!

                *thousand yard stare*

          2. Pig-in-a-poke?

            1. Or pokin’ a pig*?

              *note: this joke was meant in good fun, as a play on Tom’s comment. No bitterness, resentment, or anti-womyn animus motivated this comment.

              1. That disclaimer is not needed as I was referring to Florida Man as the pig getting poked. As far as I know, there is nothing wrong with sexually mocking a man.

                1. Apparently, since we have learned on this thread that women tell offensive jokes, but only offensive jokes by men are cause for concern.

          3. The guy in the middle is the catcher.

            The guy with the meat is the pitcher.

    2. (passes the bong to CJ)

      1. Listen, I am not humping a bong again. Been there, done that.

        1. I know. Getting the gunk out of your junk is a real pain, amirite?

          1. Not as much of a pain as getting his spunk out of the bong.

            1. Not my bong, not my problem.

        2. It was even funnier watching him trying to take a hit off a fleshlight.

  22. there seems to be some correlation with being single and being a democrat, while I hate to make vast encompassing statements regarding whole groups of people with different backgrounds, however it seems pretty clear that in this case it’s because these people are miserable and nobody wants to be with them.

  23. Wow, this whole thing went south really quickly.

    I just want to say = ladies, i’m on your side. Unlike that creep Epi.

    1. No kidding. I make the rather banal assumption that you shouldn’t assume that everybody but you is bitter, resentful, and acting in bad faith, and I get lit up like a Christmas tree.

      Tough crowd.

      1. Yeah, stop it with the Christmas tree. It makes RC resentful.

      2. Tough day, huh buddy? Maybe you should take a nap.

      3. You guys crack me up.

        Seriously, if I ever need an example of a bunch of people in violent agreement, this thread is pretty much it.

        1. Something something stupid yokels and their oppressive family units.

          Sometimes the leftytarians just need to whip out their throbbing social justice boners and rub a little bit. (oops, sexist microaggression!)

  24. Who can blame them? They want to get fucked by someone, and the government is pretty good at that.

  25. *sigh*

    1. Why the long face, Carl? This is the most entertaining H & R thread in quite awhile.

      1. Have you ever considered a handle change to “Howard Johnson”?

      2. Have you ever considered a handle change to “Howard Johnson”?

        1. Fucking cheap internet connection

  26. Women still want to have children married or not. After all, they’ve been told since Murphy Brown that it’s their purgative. As “a proud, independent woman” in the modern age they CAN have it all…and they can…as long as there is ample government to take the place of the suddenly liberated men.

    How’s that for irony?

    Women’s lib actually liberated men.

    1. Women’s lib actually liberated men.

      Yes. Yes, it did. And those silly women fell for it.*

      [smugly polishes monocle, tips top hat jauntily]

      note: this joke was meant in good fun, as a play on the buddha’s comment about the unintended consequences of women’s lib. No bitterness, resentment, or anti-womyn animus motivated this comment.

      1. “Women’s lib actually liberated men.

        Yes. Yes, it did. And those silly women fell for it.”

        Only if you construe it narrowly. Much of the current campus wars is this backfiring. You have “liberated” women, being told to sexually act like men, and told that women feel like men, who then feel (ab)used by casual sex. They look at the men who don’t feel (ab)used, and notice the difference. When they seek to explain it, the possibility that men and women feel different about casual sex is precluded (greater sensitivity, and different needs would be illiberal and at odds with the teachings). This only leaves more sinister explanations, with the men – who are fine – as abusers, illiberal oppressors.

        I found this article pretty good: http://tinyurl.com/liberation-campusdogma

  27. Traister is right to point out that when men rely on government social programs or tax incentives, we don’t say they’re seeking a “wifey state.”

    This is a bullshit non-point that really says more about the person postulating it than anything else.

    Big Brother and the Nanny State are far more widely used than the wifey/hubby. Based on the same premise I can only assume that nobody says that men suffer from ‘vagina envy’ because of men’s overly-sensitive notions about vaginas.

  28. In other words, correlation does not necessarily equal causation. That whole bacon argument.

  29. Repeal Female Suffrage

  30. Uhoh. The thread is starting to slow.

    As a transwoman, I have a unique perspective on this topic…

  31. I wonder if there are numbers on male/female business ownership amongst unmarried folks. My guess is that more unmarried men own businesses than unmarried women, which may make certain issues where these men advocate for less government (taxes, regd on their industry).

    Of course, thinking about that, the big split their would be cohabiting v living alone. If you are, say, a woman whose partner runs a small business, and you live together but are unmarried, you see first hand and day to day how bs some regs or govt is in a way a single female nonbusiness owner may not.

    And, I dunno, I have heard any number of stories from people about how stsrting a buisness or trying to start one reveals to people how dumb industry specific regs are, even if they never make the connection.

    Of course, all of that is premised on the assumption that more men start, or try to start, businesses (which is cultural), and I don’t have data there.

    1. Ultimate Pen.

  32. “What “unmarried” women want: big government.”

    I see what you did there.

  33. “Sure, inclinations toward liberalism or conservatism are also likely to affect the importance individuals place on marriage. But the bulk of the gap probably lies in demographics, not disposition: Unmarried Americans are more likely to be young, and younger Americans are more likely to be Democrats.”

    Or, single goes with younger goes with renter not home owner goes with not paying property taxes goes with no skin in the game meaning they want more from Uncle Sugar since someone else is paying for it.

    1. Troll alert !!!
      (about me that is) ~

      “Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else.”

      A Frenchman posit this no less.
      Not news to most any libertarian.

      I don’t see winners here playing this game, on the long game that is…

      Republican Libertarian libertarian Chameleon Voluntaryist Cave Dweller (yeah, road ready!).

      (And “Crusty” need keep showing, if he wish claim last.)

  34. I’m an unmarried woman who was going to vote for Rand Paul. Guess I’m the odd-ball. 😛

    1. I like baseball.
      odd ball is hard to hit.
      very ok to be that!

  35. ….$….Just before I looked at the paycheck that said $6914 , I didnt believe that my mom in-law really bringing in money in their spare time from their computer. . there neighbour had bean doing this for only six months and resently paid for the mortgage on there place and bourt a top of the range Saab 99 Turbo . look at this site….

    Clik this link in Your Browser..

    ???????? http://www.Wage90.com

  36. Research done by John Lott convincingly reveals that women’s voting patterns are largely responsible for government debt.

    Do you really need to know anything else on this subject?

    The paper is available on line.

  37. *Do you suspect your partner (husband/wife/girlfriend/boyfriend) might be sneaking behind your back and having an affair?
    *Do you want to hack;
    *Facebook, Twitter, Myspace, Instagram or any Social Media?
    *Phone, Whatsapp, BBM
    *Any Email
    *Do you have an examination you want and you want the questions hacked and leaked to you before the examination?
    *Do you want to hack into you university or college portal to change your grades/GPA?
    *Do you need the service of a PI to help investigate someone online?

    CONTACT: benhacker127001@gmail.com

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.