I found this recent article...interesting...yet oddly not surprising. I suppose it's expedient for him to now suddenly start backtracking on these ridiculous proclamations, considering which sex composes the majority of the electorate. But look, this really seems to be a whole theme in the Republican Party. Pollsters routinely note that women overall tend to vote for Democrats, and specifically are more supportive of the Democrats' economic and foreign policy positions (not so much questions of hardline feminism). I'd like to take this opportunity to communicate a few thoughts on why that is. Attitudes like these that Mr. Santorum has expressed in the not-so-distant past, and some of which he continues to express, are not well-received by single women (who compose a growing percentage of all women and of the electorate) in particular. Why? Because what Mr. Santorum and so many other American conservatives don't seem to realize is that the overwhelming majority of us, myself included, are not radical feminists, but rather moderately feminist on compulsion. The former governor of Michigan aptly highlights this reality in the linked article: That's Michigan, but a similar story can increasingly be told everywhere in this country. Maybe not concerning assembly lines, but concerning the need for women to do paid work. Like I said, most women, myself included, are not radical feminists. We don't believe that the increasing failure of marriages and families is a good thing. Fanciful notions of whether women should be thought of as strong or weak are not the essential issue. The essential issue is survival. The reality of the modern United States is that marriages and families are increasingly failing due to the protracted disappearance of this country's middle class. Stable marital and family life represents a middle class standard of living. Hence when the middle class starts to disappear, marriages and families tend to become unsustainable in an industrialized context where people don't have their careers at home like they did back in the feudal days. I hate to rain on the 'love conquers all' parade here on Valentine's Day, but here in the real world, economics make a real difference in terms of whether marriages can actually succeed. In that kind of context, where marriages are decreasingly viable, women increasingly find themselves left with two options: 1) find paid work OR 2) fail to make ends meet. What's your preference? In fact, due to the historical dependence of women on men for economic survival, the break-up of the traditional family unit hurts women substantially worse than men, economically speaking. Hence, unlike a small handful of radical feminists, most women don't think of such things as positive developments. Nevertheless, single women are faced with certain realities: they have to survive. And single mothers have to raise their children. That means they have to try and find paid work. And many cannot find paid work that's adequate to meet their basic material needs, especially in these difficult economic times. As a result, women are the principal dependents on state assistance. What is the answer of so many Republican officials and conservatives more broadly to this development? Move to cut off state assistance and tell impoverished women to just get married. That's not an answer. Maybe it's okay with some pampered, married women who still have the luxury of being far removed from such conditions, but not for the rest of us. So until you start coming up with real answers (ones that can actually work) to the growing feminization of poverty in this country, I suspect you'll simply continue to have a difficult time winning the loyalties of single women. Related: I think this commentary on the decline of marriage in America and what's needed for the future sums this all up quite well. Check it out.
I will agree that financial problems are a major reason (not the only reason) for marriages failing, and I will agree that some assistance may be needed to help single mothers and fathers get on their feet. But this assistance treats the symptom, not the problem. In order to fix the problem, you need the economy back on its feet. Something that this President has failed to do. Less Government not more is the answer. Huge one size fits all mandates from the Federal Government only create misery and destroy families.
I disagree. The state sector frankly is the only major sector of the economy where women have experienced job growth in recent years. And guess what sector of the economy Republicans in particular so desire to impose mass layoffs on now. Voting to reduce the welfare system hence hurts women (and single women in particular) in two different ways: 1) it cuts them off from assistance they require more than men AND 2) it cuts off their single most important source of employment opportunities in the present context.
I think the more women..libertarians and fiscal conservatives examine his record the more they will be TURNED OFF . You dont need to go back 30 years..just look at what he has saiid and done in this election cycle..to discredit and attack his opponents character. Then he sits back and says No mas ? When he gets the lead ...
The state sector is the only sector period that has experianced job growth. And this has been at the expence of the private sector. Women are not as fragile and dependent as you paint them. My wife was laid off three years ago. She started her own business, something that I frankly would be scared to do. She now makes more than I do, and I am proud of her. The cuts to assistance would be needed at some point but not right up front. Your statement that women can only make it in government jobs is not only false but condescending.
I can be a sucker for feminist-sounding morale boosts as much as the next woman, but morale boosts do not change objective conditions. The objective fact is that the state sector currently provides employment opportunities for women that the private sector does not. It's not "condescending" to recognize that.
This wouldn't be such a big deal except he also goes against women serving in Combat roles in the military. http://content.usatoday.com/communi.../02/rick-santorum-women-in-combat-emotions-/1 and it goes against what AMERICANS FEEL. An ABC News/Washington Post poll last March found that 73% of Americans support having women in the military serve in ground units that engage in direct combat. So the working woman and those serving in the military may not FEEL like Santorum is worthy of their vote. gee great..The nominee is painting us into a smaller corner every week..instead of expanding that base.. The MORAL leg of the Republican stool will be the end of the party as we know it. That feeling you get tingling up your butt is that leg being rammed up your GARBAGE recycling delivery device. A vote for Santorum sends us back 50 years..
The state sector is the only employment opportunity for both men and women... The problem is that as the state grows, the private sector suffers. What happens when less and less people are paying into the state and more and more people are geting paid by the state? Sooner or later you run out of other people money. And when that happens you get Greece on fire.
Yes but men have actually been recovering jobs on balance since 2009. Women have simply continued to lose jobs for most of the interim between then and now. Even with the positive jobs report from this last month, we can see a remarkable distinction in who is recovering and who isn't. To quote from the linked article: Conditions continue to be borderline recessionary for women. In that context especially, it would be nice not to lose my existing job as a public school teacher. I wouldn't want to give up my position anyway. I like my current line of work.
I did some checking, and the unemployment rate among men and women is the same according the the BLS. http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/empsit.pdf
That's simply not true. The state sector is currently not a growth area and hasn't been for a few years now. There was a one-time growth under Obama while the CONSTITUTIONALLY required census was being taken.
According to the Office of Personnel Management, Federal Employment fell from 2003 to 2007. From 2007 to 2010 it increased. Is there a source for your table Todd? Mine is here: http://www.opm.gov/feddata/HistoricalTables/TotalGovernmentSince1962.asp
Somewhere in the 60's with the advent of women in the workplace and birth control a new paradigm emerged, it's called change. This happens from time to time in societies and you'd think by now we would get used to it. The Rick Santorum's of the world fight against change, they want it the "old" way, "their" way. The inevitable adjustments we have to make will not happen in one generation and it will not turn out the exact way anybody wants either. The role of women and marriage in our society has changed, we need to accommodate because it's not going back.
That would account for the census hiring, would it not? These temporary hires masked the significant downward trend in government employees. Here, you don't have to believe me, the internet is at your fingertips: http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/01/06/under-obama-a-record-decline-in-government-jobs/ Here's another way to look at it:
Well what I've highlighted in the OP is one issue related to this question of why Republicans simply have less appeal to female voters. Another that will certainly apply in this election cycle, given how much press attention this subject is finally being given nowadays, is the absurdity of their views on non-controversial topics like birth control that (obviously) disproportionately affect women. (I say that contraception is non-controversial since literally 99% of women use it at some point in their lives.) Consider if you will the remarks of Mr. Santorum highlighted in this video segment, where he explains that it is a task of the state to ensure that all sex leads to reproduction, and likewise, in another highlighted interview, as one of the commentators highlights, uses the terms 'rape' and 'gift' in the same sentence. The said commentator aptly compares Mr. Santorum's views on women's reproductive rights to those of the president of Iran. When your party honestly believes that kind of person should be their presidential nominee, that communicates a certain definite message to women, frankly. Well we wouldn't want to be "radical feminists" now.
Santorum is such a right-wing extremist and his comments/ideas are so radically outlandish that I doubt that he has any chance of winning against Obama. That the Republicans are heavily turning to him as their favorite just shows who is running the Republican party now, and that they will have an unfortunate end. Surely the country wouldn't put up with this utter garbage talk that "contraceptives" are bad for our nation and that women should stay at home. This guy sounds like something from the 17th century. I say, more power to Santorum, make it easier for Obama.
