Gender gap

[dazzleman]

I think it was during the Reagan era.

My recollection is that in 1976, women favored Ford over Carter, so that year, the gender gap went in the other direction.  Prior to that, I don't think there was a discernible gender gap, at least not that anybody talked about.

Prior to the 1980s, I don't think politicians really considered women a separate voting bloc.  It was assumed that they would vote their economic class, just like their husbands.

I think the media in general gets the gender gap all wrong.  The gender gap came about as a result of men leaving the Democratic Party as it became perceived more and more as the part of wimps.  This was especially true in the contrast between Carter and Reagan, and has remained true since.

Democrats, buying into politically correct thinking about "women," began targeting women specifically with some success.  But overall, the gender gap has been a bigger problem for Democrats who are unable to attract male voters than Republicans.  Remember, there is a lot more shame in a man acting like a woman than there is in a woman acting like a man.  And in some circles, being a Democrat has a somewhat feminine cast to to, like driving a VW Cabrio.

[dazzleman]

I think the gender gap is in part caused by differences in the ways men and women think, and perceive situations.

In general, men are less emotional than women, and more willing to recognize that you must sometimes endure unpleasant consequences to get to an ultimate good result.

Women will focus more on the short-term pain, while men look further into the future toward the ultimate gain.

The reality is that while Republican policies generally work better, Democratic policies sound better.  It sounds terrible to say that we must endure the pain of temporary economic dislocation to have a stronger economy in the future.  Or that we have to endure casualties now to keep danger from us in the future.

On foreign policy, men instinctively know the rules of the playground  from their boyhood - that you have to stand up to a bully, that if pushed, you must push back, and that a search for peace at any price will generally make you a target for abuse.  Women, with their different socialization growing up, are often less clear about this, and therefore are more favorable to Democratic foreign policy ideas.

The gender gap has also been advanced by our politically correct designation of women as a special interest group.  I found it appalling that John Kerry could get up and say that he would put the legal system on the side of women.  Women are pandered to as a special interest group, and that creates a sense of entitlement and the expectation of more pandering, and the Democrats do it well.

[dazzleman]

The problem with your characterization is that it works exactly the opposite on economic issues. Republicans are the ones who focus on the short term pain of paying taxes, while Democrats see the long-term benefits of some economic redistribution for the benefit of the entire nation. On the deficit, this is now true as well.

And women are more liberal on economics than men, not more conservative, as they should be if your analysis were true.

So I think that while it may have some merit, your characterizations are clearly not always true.

The main reason for the gender gap, as I see it, is on economics; men are wealthier than women on average, and thus more likely to benefit personally from Republican economic policies. Women are more likely to to want the protection of Democratic economic policies, while men are more likely to believe in rugged individualism and not accepting assistance from others. Men are supposed to be tough enough to make it on their own, and if they can't, it means they are a failure. This incorrect perception of the self-worth of men is driving men to vote Republican. Women are conditioned from a young age to find it much more acceptable to be helped by others; they are more cooperative in nature rather than competitive, and also less likely to favor aggressive solutions rather than compromise.

When I spoke about short-term pain, I was speaking about job dislocation, which is far more severe than paying taxes.  People have suffered from job dislocation because it is better in the long run to have an economy that can adjust to innovation, and create new and hopefully, better, jobs.  I don't pretend this is always the case.  There are winners and losers, and in general, the level of income for unskilled workers has fallen in the past 30 years, while the wages for skilled workers has gone up dramatically.

I think you hit the nail right on the head when you talked about economic vulnerability and dependence.  Men are raised that it's less than manly to be dependent, while women are more conditioned to accept some type of financial dependency.  This is a deeply-rooted psychological difference.  Women also tend to be more economically vulnerable, especially if they are unmarried and have children.  That explains why married women with children lean Republican, while single women are Democratic.

I disagree with your proposition that male propensity toward financial strength and independence is necessarily a bad thing.  I think we as a society have gone too far in denigrating certain aspects of male behavior, while applauding female behavior, and this is one example.  All in all, I think society needs men to be the way they are, and when men start to act too much like women, society suffers.  In order for women to be women, men need to be men, and vice versa.  Men and women are supposed to think and behave differently, and society needs both behavior patterns for a healthy balance.