City Journal Autumn 2014

Current Issue:

Autumn 2014
Table of Contents
Subscribe
Tablet Editions
Click to visit City Journal California

Readers’ Comments

Kay S. Hymowitz
The Misunderstood Gender Gap « Back to Story

View Comments (30)

Add New Comment:

To send your message, please enter the words you see in the distorted image below, in order and separated by a space, and click "Submit." If you cannot read the words below, please click here to receive a new challenge.

Comments will appear online. Please do not submit comments containing advertising or obscene language. Comments containing certain content, such as URLs, may not appear online until they have been reviewed by a moderator.


 
Showing 30 Comment(s) Subscribe by RSS
"But the obvious reason for the marriage gap is that for several decades now, married women have become likelier to be white, educated, affluent, and older—demographic groups that leaned Republican in this election."

Actually, the Marriage Gap is extremely large even when you drill down to homogeneous groups. For example, among white women age 18-34, the Marriage Gap was almost as large as among the general population.

The American Mosaic Polling Explorer website offered by Reuters-Ipsos allows you to drill down on subgroups to make apples to apples comparisons. The Marriage Gap turns out to be an extremely strong factor in terms of voting for Romney or Obama, even more than the Homeownership Gap.
Ugh! Sorry - my spell check was off.
Frank, as I am a conservative, you are "preaching to the choir" about women and behavior. Howeve, we all pay lierally and figuratively when both genders behave irresponsibly. When are cities are even more inundated with packs of feral youth from this grand social experiment which allows unlimited fredom and zero responsibility to the point that we are not safe to walk by ourselves during the daytime, it will be small consolation to be able to point fingers and blame it on the greater culpability of one gender over the other.
Medievel serfs who were bound to the land didnt pay as much tax as the average man under the welfare state and the government still cannot balance the budget. Feminists such as Kay Hymowitz deny that there is anything in the hardwiring of certain peoples brains that would make them more likely to favor totalitarianism rather than freedom.
Emily: thanks for so thoroughly articulating the problem confronting America today, which is, of course, the willfully uninformed voter.

You write about defense spending in the Reagan years. An informed voter would have examined the ratio of defense to "other" spending, e.g., at:
http://www.cbo.gov/publication/42636
which shows $700 billion in present defense spending versus $3.6 trillion in total spending. So defense takes 19% of the budget, and the percent was probably similar in the Reagan years. That of course means that 81% of spending is non-defense. I can show you the words in the Constitution that requires the federal government to "provide for the common defense". Can you show the authority for the other 81%?

You write about Clinton year surplus. Who wrote that budget? It was the Republicans in control of both houses of Congress, the demonized Gingrich, courtesy of the excesses of Clinton and the Democrats in control of both houses of Congress for his first two years, who wrote the budgets that resulted in the budget surplus. All Clinton did was sign it.

Am I happy with the profligacy of the Bush 43 era Congresses? Nope. But if you're unhappy with them, you must be hysterical over the four, repeated, trillion dollar annual deficits of the Obama era, right?

But back to defense. George Orwell had you in mind when he wrote "to abjure violence, it is necessary to have never experienced it". My mother lived for four years under the Nazi occupation of her native Belgium, and my father risked his life to liberate Europe, picking up some memories that gave him nightmares for the rest of his life. They understood the need for defense spending. But you wouldn't understand any of that, would you?
I wonder how many single non-custodial fathers bothered to vote or even register.
There is a profound "gender gap", which is causal of the recent election results as well as previous election results.

Kay suggests the gap is financial not gender. But when the Obama campaign made Sandra Fluke their mascot, was the campaign making a financial appeal, or a gender appeal? I suggest it was most definitely the latter not the former.

I suggest the gap is in the ability, or lack thereof, of a majority of the electorate to critically reason and instead make decisions emotionally. This is true for men as well as for women, but like everything else in life does not occur for men at the same rate as for women.

For every single national issue, there are voters who condition their votes having critically reasoned the issue, and those voters will lean strongly Republican. And for the same issues, there are voters who condition their votes emotionally, and those voters will lean strongly Democrat. How to "fix" an intelligence inadequacy?

Worse still, consider the words of Walter Williams, pinch hitter without peer for Rush Limbaugh, professor of economics at George Mason University, "I can fix ignorance, but only God can fix stupdity".

Note to Liz: yes, there are irresponsible men by the millions. Those irresponsible men should be informed by the women they pursue "go [expletive] yourself", both literally and figuratively, but that's not what they hear or get. Who should get the credit for that?
It will be an interesting next 15 years in Western Civilization to witness our decline. Islamic immigrants should simply start filing disparate impact lawsuits against employers, property owners, academia and media outlets in order to gain ground. How is that for a Civil Rights legacy!
I dont mean to sound like a misogynist but women were instrumental in voting themselves a welfare state.
Grace Kolbenschlag November 23, 2012 at 3:14 AM
The government is the husband, father and parent of most democrat female voters.

Spin it however your may.
Refreshingly honest. Intelligent and perceptive as always, Hymowitz admits she doesn’t have the answer but she’s confident Obama’s victory wasn’t achieved through the voting patterns of middle class, middle aged white women. Other less talented scribblers have resorted, in desperation, to an explanation naming incumbency as the reason Obama won. And, not surprisingly, many Americans will accept an obvious tautology as a logical argument – Obama won because he was an incumbent and incumbents usually win – an explanation which must reference itself to convince - pathetic.

Obama surprised everyone, including himself most likely, by winning an election he should have lost. Magic, the power of incumbency, divine intervention – his victory demands mystical references since it defies all real world explanations. He should have lost the youth vote by a large margin given the unemployment rate among younger Americans. He won the Asian and Hispanic vote by a significant margin – he’s of neither the same race or ethnicity so why did these minorities feel more comfortable siding with a different minority? As protection from white voters – and why should they need protection?

Obama is a political mediocrity based on any conceivable analysis. His 4 year record consists of one grandiose promise after another followed by one clear failure or mundane success after another. Master of the shallow and vapid phrase and advocate of an overly simplistic ideology, Obama is a true product of his cultural and political background. Which also explains his capture of the black vote by an incredible margin.

Since voters in Chicago – or Philadelphia or Detroit for that matter – prefer a tribal form of political rule, a politician emerging from within those cultures isn’t expected to actually accomplish definable results – but he is definitely expected to speak as if he can deliver on his promises. The voters of Chicago or Philadelphia or Detroit know the truth deep down but their candidate is judged based on his charisma, on the elegance of his speeches and not on whether he can actually follow through on his promises. The black vote was always an easy call, it had to go to Obama in the same percentage as 4 years ago since it was never based on Obama’s track record or abilities in the first place.

And now that same tribal mentality, personality-cult voting culture has captured majority America – Obama was simply the more likeable man, a true celebrity we Americans can relate to and are genuinely fond of. And, like no time in the past, Americans hunger after celebrities in every profession so why should a politician be the exception? Lady Gaga, Peyton Manning, Oprah, Donald Trump, Barack Obama – if we as voters can’t embrace our presidential candidate on an emotional level then that’s reason enough to reject him.

And, no, presidential elections weren’t always based on charisma and popularity. Richard Nixon or Calvin Coolidge had no personality which the American electorate could actually discern, yet he still won. But today – and heavy emphasis on today - the majority of Americans are influenced by popular fads in our obsessively singular quest to be just like every other American, to be emotionally accepted by the tribe, to be liked and to vote like others within the tribe. At present, there is no dire national emergency requiring an experienced and brilliant leader so what’s wrong with hiring a man we both like and who is genuinely likeable?
Most people confuse two major movements which overlapped in time: (1) the Sexual Revolution -started by the forerunners to the Hippies and continued by the likes of Hugh Heffner and (2) the Women's Movement. The first was initiated by some men who no longer wanted to rein in their Ids or conform to societal expectations. They essentially wanted to divorce sex from marriage or responsibility for supporting their children. The Women's movement was initiated by priviledged women who wanted access to jobs, education, credit that they had been restricted from or denied outright. While there was some "trickle down" benefit to the working class and poor, the major result of these movements colliding was the destruction of family and social structure for a sizeable percentage of peoples.

The class warfare is really not between the working class and Wall Street, it is actually between double income couples and one parent households.
Interesting, and explains a few things. The Democratic Party is highly sophisticated these days and if it does better with single mothers you can bet that it made sure and will continue to make sure that policies are in place that lead to more single mothers.

Democrats believe it is in their interest to create more single mothers because such people are more likely to vote for them, and they adopt policies creating more single mothers. Not just that, Democrats have used their enormous media influence to show that single mothers are courageous non-conformists - the Murphy Browns of our time.

Democrats are great at winning elections where it is against the long term interests of the voters. Take Newark, New Jersey in my state. 45 years ago the riots happened, and Newark became a devastated city - a shell of a formerly magnificent place - ask anyone who lived there in the 1940's and 50's. After the riots, Democrats adopted policies which ensured that the city remained mired in poverty. Benefits to families were dependent on the father not being in the home. The breakup of families led directly to the institutionalized crime that plagues not just Newark, but the surrounding cities. No father in the home led to diminished education - even under state control, schools in Newark are barely able to maintain order. Newark is a permanent basket case filled with single mothers, and they vote Democrat in election after election.

Most amazing of all, Newark's present mayor, Cory Booker, is considering a run for governor, notwithstanding his complete failure in Newark. But, that failure is as measured by the old rules which don't apply. Under the new rules, Booker has been an overwhelming success - the money still flows to favored interests, the voters still vote Democratic, and Booker may be the first mayor in over half a century not to have to look forward to jail upon retirement. By Democratic standards - by the new standards for everyone, Booker has had a storybook time in office.

Why are Democrats still in charge in Newark? Is it the leadership, which has been paid off with political favors, is it the very lack of education created by the system itself, is it the total control of the media by Democrats, is it the lack of effort by Republicans - for whatever reason, the residents keep voting back into office the very people responsible for keeping them in misery. Even Sharp James, who was tossed in jail once out of office, is talking about a comeback once out of jail. And, it is more than likely that he will be re-elected.

This is the new America, where people just don't base their votes on what is reasonable - a completely different standard now applies. These people don't care that the federal government borrows 40% of what it spends, nor that by electing Democrats they are dooming their children to continued poverty. What matters is bread on the table now - even though tomorrow there may not be any bread.

Hence, the line since the election from the Democrats has been "we did an awful job of governing and we still beat you. Now you have to change and support policies that lead to bad outcomes or risk losing even worse." The election has a certain sense of fatalism about it, a certain will to destruction - a sense that we not only are chucking it all away, but that we should do so.

For Democrats winning is all that counts, not prosperity, not improving conditions, not anything else. If poverty wins elections, then Democrats will create more poverty. If single mothers win election, then we will have more single mothers. Normal rules do not apply to these people. Democrats could have adopted amnesty after the 2008 elections, they could have made abortion legal under statutory law, they could have made gay marriage legal under federal law - they could have done all of this and a lot more.

But that would have meant losing these wedge issues in 2012. And when you have almost complete control over the media - the media that counts - then you need not worry about much of anything especially when your opponents play by the old rules and are terminally incompetent.

And that's really what we have to face going forward - the rules that only used to apply in Democratically controlled areas now apply everywhere. Democrats will soon be flexing their muscles and there isn't a damned thing anyone can do about it. Since poverty leads to winning margins for Democrats then we will have poverty. Republicans are like Cassandra in ancient mythology - able to predict the future but never able to get anyone to believe the prophecy.

So many bitter and mean spirited denegrations toward women - and you wonder why they run from the Republican Party? I'm a married woman who makes at least 50% of the income. I'm white and middle-aged. I'm conservative/libertarian. Republican stances on taxes, defense, etc. are what I believe.

The reality is that the lower claases and the elites embraced the sexual revolution which turned out to be quite devestating for the children of this nation as well as for a sizeable proportion of women - mainly those without high career goals. Look at the decline of male labor force participation. Look at the out of wedlock birth rate. I see a lack of values among both genders. People like Brad (women out to trap me!!) and John (baby killers - what about the fathers? Are they really lining up to take responsibility?) This is why we lost. Women are blamed but what about male irresponsibility?
Kay, I think the gender gap, demographics, and any other excuse people use to try to explain this election misses something very profound. We are no longer a nation where the majority values hard work, the pursuit of excellence, or the spirit of the individual that made this nation stand out among all others.

What are we? Who are we? We are a nation intent on decline and mediocrity. Satisfied to accept empty promises in exchange for freedoms we have long taken for granted. Too many have bought into the "great fiction" where government is the vehicle used to live one's life at the expense of everyone else. As Bastiat pointed out, government endeavors to live at our expense.

We may call ourselves the United States, but the great legacy left to us by those who built this great nation now rests with a President who rejects these principles and vowed to fundamentally transform them.

We are no longer individuals, but instead, a demographic that must be pandered to and purchased by those in power with yet more government goodies that we can no longer afford.

The inevitability of our decline has been sown. Eventually, even the Emperor realized he had no clothes and that his reality was in stark contrast to a world that does not suffer fools lightly.
The reason Republicans are doing poorly in the youth vote is because the party has nominated candidates that are unappealing to younger voters. John McCain was the crazy old man (think Clint Eastwood in Gran Torino). Mitt Romney's problem was that he was square and out of touch with younger voters.

Part of the GOP's problem with younger voters is also related to policy reasons. Ron Paul did extremely well with younger voters, but there are also millions of younger Americans that support Ron Paul, but didn't vote for him in the primary because they thought he couldn't win or wouldn't be allowed to win. I know people that liked Ron Paul and know Obama is no good for the country, but voted for Obama anyway because they basically considered Romney a RINO.

The GOP needs to go in a libertarian direction to win elections (make social issues state issues instead of taking a stance either way to keep the so-cons around). That would actually make the gender gap wider because a libertarian message is much more appealing to men than women. Younger men are overwhelmingly libertarian and could be encouraged to turn out. Women are more likely than men to be concerned about security or free stuff instead of liberty. There are those that would try to deny this, but all anybody needs to do is look at how male-dominated any event put on by the radical wing of the libertarian movement is. Younger men are libertarians. Younger women are leftists. Going after those women is a waste of time because they will vote for whoever promises them the most handouts. They will only stop once they con some man into marrying them and start spending his hard-earned money for him (and then they'll eventually divorce him and use the government to steal his money under the pretext of "doing what's best for the children"). What younger men want is equal rights for everybody and a restoration of economic and personal liberty. Until Republicans find a candidate that is serious about shrinking the government to constitutional levels, restoring liberty and ending handouts and other special privileges for favored groups, they will keep losing because younger men won't vote for a Republican Party that isn't serious about defending and restoring liberty. I know firsthand because I'm male and in my mid-20s. Trust me. The "ladies" my age are mostly a lost cause. The GOP needs the young libertarians to win and if the GOP is effective at turning us out, men will vote in higher numbers than women and the gender gap will increase, but Republicans will start winning.

By the way, Romney (who I voted for) sort of hit on the right message with his 47% comment, but he didn't have the guts to go with that on the campaign trail. Had he gone with that, I think he'd have probably won the election and the best part is that its basically true. Romney was a terrible campaigner and repeatedly shot himself in the foot (probably because of those moronic RINO consultants he hired), but I saw enough to be confident that he'd make a good President. I did not see that in John McCain, who is basically a RINO at his very core, which is why I voted for a 3rd party candidate that year. Other people I know who are basically likeminded missed what I saw in Romney and didn't vote for him. I should also clarify that Republicans should focus on domestic policy, not foreign policy. The Republican obsession with foreign policy in the past and unwillingness to fight over domestic policy is the reason this country is in the shape its in right now. If we don't get our domestic house in order, America will go the way of Formerly Great Britain and will soon no longer be able to do the kind of foreign adventures that RINOs love to drag us into to convince the older conservatives that they're not really RINOs. There's a good reason why John McCain, Lindsey Graham, George W. Bush, David Frum and David Brooks have never met a war they didn't like and it isn't because they are conservative (because none of them is even remotely conservative).
Here's an interesting article that white females should concern themselves with. Because chances are, it's about to get very nasty in the US.

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/333583/tribal-america-mark-steyn#

Just reading the sheer amount of comments about race and immigration by self-hating whites on the Huffington Post, makes me realise that there are some who really want the US to become a third world nation.
Here's an interesting article that white females should concerns themselvs with. Because chances are, it's about to get very nasty in the US.

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/333583/tribal-america-mark-steyn#
Spin it any way you like: The 19th Amendment will be the death of democracy in the US.
Do single women not realize that the policies they favor when they're single they'll pay dearly for when married? Do they not look ahead and think, Gee - if we have to pay high taxes to finance free birth control, then maybe we won't have enough left after tax to save for our kids' college or our retirement. Or is voting treated with the same sobriety as shopping?
Women voting for Obama DOES have to do with their gender. Married white women went for Obama at a much higher rate than did married white men. Similarly, single women went for Obama at a greater rate than single men. Obviously with those factors being accounted for, gender was an important factor in deciding their vote.
I think one of the points of this article is that women's (and men's) demographics: age, financial position, marriage status, etc. account for their voting choices more than gender difference - man versus woman. Abortion, seen as a woman's issue, affects men and our society. Its strange that it has become the sole issue for some voters, both Dems and Repulibcans because it's a red herring, distracting voters from the truly pressing issues of today.
There is a gaping hole in this story. She writes as though abortion didn't exist as an issue, and she's dead wrong. Today's US women are baby-killers. They've killed 55 million since Roe v. Wade and will kill millions more. Obama is their hero. He'd kill 'em a day before birth. Ms. Hymowitz, you are a very dishonest woman, but with The Big Zero, you are in good company.
When I was a 30 something single mother, I voted for democrats specifically because of the help I thought I would get from their programs. (I lived in California then.) After moving to Tennessee and while building a successful career, I began to understand how much more rewarding a life of self-reliance has been. My previous friends who benefited in California from welfare programs including education grants, gas allowances, food stamps, etc., while I worked hard to better myself, never did achieve much. My parents taught me self-reliance and I taught it to my daughter who has a great education and job today. I vote Republican now because I don't believe in giving people so many handouts that it kills their drive to be self reliant, always expecting some help, actually feeling entitled to it. That entitlement culture is dangerous. It seems the Democrats use that to advantage to garner votes. It works...scary!
God bless City Journal. The other media pale by comparison
Mitt Romney had a published plan on his web site to make tax expenditures totaling $5-trillion and wacko military spending for another $2-trillion. And no details on how he was going to pay for it.

Women who have to earn their own food and shelter rejected that as unrealistic. Then the "rape baby from God" crew demonstrated that the Republican Party puts ideology above any part of governing.

Also, "taken as a group, women vote more Democratic than men do. But that has little to do with their sex" is utterly silly. This statement implies rejection of simple statistical correlation, if not causation itself. The Republican Party makes outlawing abortion a prime goal, which only affects those of the female sex. Many single women see the GOP as mortal enemies -- quite accurately, if you've been following what happened to that Indian dentist in Ireland.
Well, that's nice. But the GOP's problem is white women. We can't just win with white men, but we can win with white men and women. Telling women that a rape baby is a gift from God did not prove to be a huge vote-getter. The social issues will need to be addressed or the GOP is dead. Unclear to me why capitalism and freedom need be burdened with the criminalization of abortion. The founders were completely agnostic on the subject.
Wife of 39 years and I have come to agreement on American women voters. They are nuts and most shouldn't be allowed to vote.
Lady parts include brains. Those of us with a full set didn't vote for GWBush, who put us in this mess, or looking back, for Ronald Reagan, either. During his time, the Pentagon spent $34 million a DAY, partly to gear up his fantasy Star Wars project. And Clinton? He left office with a surplus. Eight years later - gone.
Some of us wimmin put our children's future and consideration of the $16+ trillion debt above our Lady Parts and voted for Romney.
We women can be so stupid.