Single Women Are Quickly Becoming the ‘Evangelicals’ of the Democratic Party

[one_voice]

There's a new voting bloc on the rise and, unfortunately for Republicans, it's not the aging, disaffected, white male small business owner who hauled himself up by his bootstraps to teach himself accounting and microeconomics because he'd be damned if he'd sit through a single lecture at an elitist academic institution — it's the single woman.

Slate's Hanna Rosin writes that single-women already comprise the largest and fastest-growing voting segment, comprising some 55 million potential voters and adding 1 million new voters each year. To put such rapid growth in perspective, just last year single women made up a quarter of the voting population, about the same number as self-identifying white evangelical Christians and, according to Rosin, if the trend continues, single women could form a base for Barack Obama and future Democratic candidates similar to how evangelicals formed a reliable base for previous Republican candidates.

These women, however, do not form nearly such as homogeneous group as other voting blocs. They can be roughly partitioned into two distinct — and previously disparate — groups, the first being younger, urban-dwelling, college-educated women who are likely to be working, politically-progressive, and most likely to be called a slut by human Sarlacc pit Rush Limbaugh. The second group is much larger and composed of women without college degrees, who wouldn't self-identify as feminists, and who remained unmarried not because they don't necessarily believe in "family values," but because eligible bachelors are few and far between, with more men without college degrees languishing in unemployment than ever before. Members of this latter group have been forced by economic and social circumstances into what Harvard sociologist Kathy Edin calls an "ambiguous independence," becoming heads of their own households and often struggling to make ends meet. This tough-slog through independence, moreover, has made them acutely intolerant to political posturing over their sex lives, and though some Republicans count the recent low-marks GOP candidates have been garnering among female voters as a fleeting trend, Rosin is quick to point out that the rise of single-women undermines the core Republican social message of the nuclear American family.

Candidates like Mitt Romney, whose sprawling family of J. Crew models alienates even especially fecund families who are otherwise receptive to all the family values talking points, represent a fundamental disconnect between the image Republicans project and the growing single-woman voting bloc. Where the Romneys are roasting s'mores by their fire pit and playing fetch with the family dog, single women in both groups are creating lives for themselves, forging career paths through male-dominated industries, juggling a wide array of living expenses, and fending off GOP sorties into their gynecologist's office. Though a string of high-profile female candidates such as Sarah Palin and even, gulp, Michele Bachmann from the not-too-distant past managed to encourage more women to vote Republican, the recent Republican self-immolation over women's healthcare and, more specifically, reproductive rights, proves that the party is playing its folksy music to a deaf crowd, as Obama's lead among women over tenuous Republican front runner Mitt Romney has widened from 45-37 to 65-30 since November.

http://jezebel.com/5894303/single-women-are-becoming-the-evangelicals-of-the-democratic-party?utm_campaign=socialflow_jezebel_facebook&utm_source=jezebel_facebook&utm_medium=socialflow

http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2012/03/single_women_are_the_new_swing_voters_but_which_way_do_they_lean_.single.html

[sarcasmo]

1. I would like to thank the Republicans for being stupid enough to piss off

the majority of Women in this country.

[nolabear]

2. We married women aren't taking this lying down either.

[one_voice]

3. No we're not!

[southernyankeebelle]

15. We damn well are not going to take it any more.

[HockeyMom]

24. Neither are us Senior Women

We have daughters and grand-daughters, besides the fact that we too were "sluts" way back when.

[gopiscrap]

40. and neither are the men

who love and care about our mothers, wives, daughters and friends!!!

[HockeyMom]

43. Very true!

[nolabear]

46. And heartfelt thanks to you all!

[EC]

56. And we fought too long and hard

and put up with a lot of shit, just to go backwards to the way it was again. This shit has got to STOP.

[GreenPartyVoter]

27. Absolutely not!

[dkf]

4. The political posturing over our sex lives is going both ways.

Each side is trying to shove their views and values into the others face.

Make birth control pills OTC and get it out of the public realm so that neither party has a say in how we live our lives. That is the only true freedom and power.

[Zalatix]

7. Wait, how are liberals posturing?

[dkf]

9. Next step...vote for us or the Republicans will take away your free birth control.

[The Magistrate]

10. That Is A True Statement, Ma'am: Why Do You Have A Problem With It?

The fact is, Republicans at present desire to go further than that, they intend making most effective birth-control methods illegal entirely.

"Which side are you on? Tell me, which side are you on?"

[Quantess]

14. Birth control ain't free, bub.

Health insurance covers it, or you pay for it out of pocket. I suppose you can grab some free condoms at the P.P. but that's pretty much it...

Anyway, it isn't the Dems who have defined this ultimatum that you mention. Republicans chose to shut out women.

[usrname]

31. I don't think anyone is asking for free birth control

What women are asking for is if they're paying comprehensive health coverage, then that comprehensiveness should include birth control, as it is a health issue and providing that as part of the health care cost, that they're paying for, is cheaper and better for society and the numerical bottom line than not including it in a COMPREHENSIVE health care coverage.

They're saying, if Viagra is part of a man's comprehensive health coverage, then BC pills, IUDs and other items should as well.

[Quantess]

32. I know that. Maybe you should tell that to dkf, who I was replying to.

[BlancheSplanchnik]

37. I did it for you....told dkf

copied your post to him/her

[ljm2002]

19. WTF???

I mean, really: What. The. Fuck. are you talking about?

Are you then on the side of the forced-birthers who want to outlaw abortion altogether? Are you on the side of the anti-birth-control people who don't think anyone (well, any woman) should be allowed to use it? Are you on the side of those who want women to pay their insurance premiums, but have to pay out-of-pocket for birth control pills? and if so, does your position remain the same for women who need them for other therapeutic reasons? and if you make that exception, then how, exactly, will we make sure those women are getting their pills for only the "right" reasons? And finally, what is your position on Viagra? Do you think men should be covered for that drug?

Or are you just bemoaning the fact that the Republicans have handed the Democrats a winning issue, and that the Democrats might use the issue to get people to vote for them?

Some days I wonder what the hell is going on here at DU as well as across the country. This is one of those days.

[Zalatix]

23. The only thing to bemoan here is that it took THIS to wake people up.

These women should have been driven away from the GOP because of their horrible economic policies, which hurt women greatly.

NO woman should have been actually surprised that this Gilead move was coming.

[SammyWinstonJack]

66. I've wondered for a while now whose side dkf is on.

[Zalatix]

20. Ummm wut? Free birth control? Birth control is free? I did not know that.

I should tell my wife who just paid for a prescription for some.

[BlancheSplanchnik]

36. As usrname, post 31 said, NO ONE is asking for FREE b.c.

What women are asking for is if they're paying comprehensive health coverage, then that comprehensiveness should include birth control, as it is a health issue and providing that as part of the health care cost, that they're paying for, is cheaper and better for society and the numerical bottom line than not including it in a COMPREHENSIVE health care coverage.

They're saying, if Viagra is part of a man's comprehensive health coverage, then BC pills, IUDs and other items should as well.

You sound like your being paranoid for nothing, and falsely claiming that Liberals are fear mongering.

[bettyellen]

57. ha ha ha ha

[lumberjack_jeff]

48. rectal exams and an affidavit from a sex partner for viagra?

Of course it's posturing. The question is whether it's productive or counterproductive.

Personally, I think the clever point is lost about the time the 3 millionth person makes it.

[Zalatix]

49. It's not lost to me, not when there are 3 million of the most insane attacks on women

which is why I've had zilch to say about these laws, because none of them are even intended to pass. They're meant to send a message to Republicans.

[lumberjack_jeff]

52. "not intended to pass" = "posturing" n/t

[Zalatix]

63. How so?

[lumberjack_jeff]

67. One only need read the titles in this subthread.

It's obvious.

- too much posturing
-- how are liberals posturing?
--- rectal exams and an affidavit from a sex partner is posturing.
---- I like it, besides, it's not supposed to pass.
----- stuff that you don't expect to follow through on is pretty much the definition of posturing.

The point has been made.

[Zalatix]

68. That's a pretty loose definition of posturing.

You can't just discredit an attempt to demonstrate the absurdity of what the GOP is doing.

It's a shoe-on-the-other-foot thing.

[lumberjack_jeff]

70. Fighting absurdity with absurdity is often a legit tactic.

Nevertheless, it's still absurdity.

[Tsiyu]

65. always the "real" victim, aren't you?

Even when women are facing assaults from all corners, YOU are the one suffering?

It must suck to feel so victimized you can't even offer a hint of support...

[yardwork]

12. Maybe you don't realize that the Republicans are trying to make birth control illegal again.

It was illegal to purchase birth control in many states until the mid-1960s, when the Supreme Court finally said that there was a right to privacy inherent in the U.S. Constitution. That laid the groundwork for Roe v Wade.

Griswold v. Connecticut. Look it up. The Republicans want it done away with, and if they succeed, not only will birth control never be available OTC, it won't be available at all in many states.

[xtraxritical]

61. There are enough sane Democrats in the federal congress

to prevent this b.c. nonsense (not to mention the attacks on Planned Parenthood) from passing but state legislatures are easily passing much more draconian restrictions on women's rights. Vote straight democratic ballots at the federal and state levels (county and city too) to restore sanity in our nation.

[jwirr]

16. Over the counter does not get paid for by most insurance programs. That is the issue as I see it.

[BlancheSplanchnik]

38. the Pill is NOT OTC. Nor are IUD's

Those are methods that require medical supervision.

The only OTC methods are condoms and spermicidal creams.

[jwirr]

42. If you look at the post I was answering you will see that is they said not me.

[BlancheSplanchnik]

44. Hey jwirr

Actually I was adressing myself to you...but maybe I misunderstood your point.

I replied because the issue isn't specifically OTC birth control...it's prescription B.C. taken out of insurance coverage, so that women have to pay insurance, and pay again for B.C.

My understanding is that OTC B.C. would only be outlawed if Sanctimonius somehow got selected. Anyway, insurance has never covered anything OTC.

[jwirr]

47. Agreed. However I am 70 years old and once they did Medicaid and Medicare did cover OTC item.

Before Ralph Nader explained to congress that they could save a bundle of money if they did not. I was so furious at him it was not funny. Now he is the age that many seniors need a lot of OTC meds. Hope he has learned something. Also I am very surprised that my program does again cover vitamins, asprin (81 mg for heart), vitamin D and a few other items. Not sure how that started again but it is good.

[nolabear]

18. Well, no. birth control shouldn't be over the counter.

It really is a serious manipulator of hormonal functions and a doctor should know you're taking them and how your body's reacting. That's important. But the doctor should just be a doctor, not an arbiter of morality or judgment nor a governmental pawn.

[GreenPartyVoter]

28. Absolutely. No way they should never be OTC.

[OrwellwasRight]

34. not all forms of birth control are hormonal

there's IUDs, surgery, condoms, the sponge, diaphragms, etc.

[REP]

45. The Totally Tubular Home Tubal Ligation Kit was not a big seller

It did sell better than Señor Snippy, the Do-It-Yourself Vasectomy.

The Sponge has an alarming failure rate (with perfect and actual use) but it is OTC.

[OrwellwasRight]

51. All I am saying

Is that I don't agree with the argument that birth control should not be over the counter becasue it is "all hormonal." That is factually incorrect.
In addition, Plan B is hormonal, and it is over the counter, so there are lots of reasons why I disagree with that blanket statement (from another poster, not you).

But to simply say that all birth control should not be available over the counter becasue it is all hormonal is a seriously misinformed statement. To have another basis for saying why it should not be available over the counter that is facutally correct is fine, though I still might personally disagree (see Plan B mention, above).

[REP]

53. I was agreeing with you in an ass way :-)

I disagree about Plan B, but many forms of BC are not OTC for good reason. There should be other OTC options, too - like a more effective Sponge, etc.

[OrwellwasRight]

54. Concur.

[MADem]

58. The DIY IUD kit didn't move well, either, so I heard....

[Aerows]

30. Birth control

needs a prescription because not every size fits all. There are many different versions of the pill.

[Bandit]

50. Do you feel the same about pap smears and mamagrams, how about broken arms?

If we are stuck (forced) to accept Health Insurance as our way to Health Care then everything medical should be covered...PERIOD....The individual pays for it anyway whether anyone accepts that or not... Wages are kept lower so Health Insurance can be included from your employer. I suggest after the "exchanges" come into being that everyone demand the money be paid directly to the employee and they can buy their own insurance through an exchange for the same price their employer currently pays.. The "exchanges" are there to level the playing field.. so IBM does not get a better deal for its emplyees than some Mom and Pop business that struggles to keep up with Health Insurance Costs..... Get all business out of the Health Insurance business and maybe we can once again be competetive in world trade...

[RobertEarl]

5. Was at a Women for Obama meeting

Those women were fired up!!

The internet, and women being free, mean the Republicans are doomed.
Finally.

[sarcasmo]

22. +1

[AsahinaKimi]

60. +200

We are not playing around either...

[Zalatix]

6. Interesting...

There's a new voting bloc on the rise and, unfortunately for Republicans, it's not the aging, disaffected, white male small business owner who hauled himself up by his bootstraps to teach himself accounting and microeconomics because he'd be damned if he'd sit through a single lecture at an elitist academic institution

LOL, hilarious!

However, I have to ask about this...

The second group is much larger and composed of women without college degrees, who wouldn't self-identify as feminists, and who remained unmarried not because they don't necessarily believe in "family values," but because eligible bachelors are few and far between, with more men without college degrees languishing in unemployment than ever before.

So women without college degrees don't want men without college degrees? Is that what they're saying?

[cojoel]

11. maybe they just can't find a man who can even support themselves

Why add another mouth to feed beyond their own and their kids'?

[Zalatix]

21. Okay I am going to deviate a bit because I supported my wife when she had no job

and couldn't support herself. But we're still in the 1950s mentality where the reverse is unthinkable?

Woah.

[XanaDUer]

13. I read that as

w/o college degrees, the men were having a hard time finding good job, with benefits, etc. So, the pool of marriageable men was smaller for these women.

[Quantess]

17. I know. I'm skeptical about their cheap psychology.

It looks like the authors is making some leaps. I'm going to take it with a grain of salt, so to speak.

[MADem]

59. I think the ...eligible bachelors... and ....languishing in unemployment... are the controllers in

that sentence--not so much the college degrees. I am guessing what the writer is trying to articulate (not very well) is that someone with a college degree has a better chance of not "languishing in unemployment."

If the guy is an earner, they might not care about the degree. I think the idea is to find a partner who can pull their share of the load--not all of it, just their half.

If they want kids, I'm guessing they will have them and raise them--not marry them.

[Zalatix]

62. But lots of guys support women who have no jobs... I did, too.

I'd be one lonely or unfulfilled and unmarried man if I said "if you can't pull your share, go away". (She's not unemployed now, good Lord is she very much not.)

[MADem]

69. Well, did the spouse work and not get paid?

In other words, raise children, clean, cook, play chauffeur, shop, or run errands? Or are you just stinkin' rich and all you wanted was the pleasure of her esteemed company? There's value in that, if you can afford someone else to come in and do all the "necessary" work.

Many men--not all, in these generations coming up--back in the day thought a vacuum cleaner was a sculpture that did double duty as a place to hang one's jacket. Cooking? Fuggedaboutit. Cleaning? Women's work. Even now, in the "liberated" 21st Century, women still do more work at home than men, even as they are better educated as a demographic, and still make less than men as a group, even as many earn more than their partners. There are still more than a few men who don't pull their load, who spend all day with the XBox and all night on the computer with the gambling and porn--it's what causes problems with a lot of relationships. That's not to say there aren't any fellahs who eschew that kind of serial laziness, that are not at all unwilling do their part, but the playing field, if we are to believe all the surveys in the lifestyle magazines and newspapers, still isn't level. It's why many women prefer to remain single. Can't blame them, really--like I said, if they wanted kids, they'd raise one from scratch!

I have been a strong advocate for more women in Congress--that's probably the only way we will see any progress on this score. There needs to be more emphasis on real equality, though--in earning, opportunity, representation in public life...there still are glass ceilings out there, cracked but not shattered. I'd like to see more minority representation in public life, too--we come up short on that score as well.

[William769]

8. And I thank God every day for them.

[Yavin4]

25. To Paraphrase Beyonce

All the single ladies
All the single ladies
Now put your hands up
And vote for the Dems

[chknltl]

26. Good read here, KnR, nt.

[Kath1]

29. Women

will vote for, and elect Obama in 2012. Former conservative women I know are pissed off and voting Demo all the way!

[kevinbgoode1]

33. Single adults (period) are now the majority in this country. . .

which makes me think the GOP's whole contraceptive crap is going to go down the toilet over and over again.

I do have to share one item I saw a couple of days ago in the Globe and Mail - I'd post it as an original thread if. . .I could post original threads yet. But it speaks a bit tongue-in-cheek to the issues the GOP are creating in their obsession with controlling everyone but themselves:

Americans are being assured all these measures are about states' rights, religious freedoms and balanced budgets. Certainly they have nothing to do trying to restrict a woman's right to control her fertility. And since I don't think it's productive to be paranoid about these things – it's 2012 after all, and surely our birth-control battles are behind us – here's a rundown of a dozen measures Americans can probably expect in the future. Yes, they all seem to be all about your uteruses but, lordy, why are you girls so touchy?

The No Sperm Left Behind Act. An act of Congress ensuring that every sperm be given equal opportunity to fertilize an ovum regardless of its issuer's economic status or desire to take care of a baby. Unlawful detainment of sperm through any barrier method would result in a fine. And no spilling.

Ask, Tell. An official government policy allowing your employer to be nearer to his God by staying fully informed about all aspects of your medical history (but you totally know he's only going to ask you about the sex stuff).

Bill S251: The Defence of Unhappy Marriages Act. An initiative designed to define a marriage as the original framers of the Constitution intended – as the boring, resentment-filled, economically disadvantageous partnership between two people who grew up believing that you can't get pregnant the first time you have sex or if you do it standing up.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/tabatha-southey/new-republican-sex-legislation-i-have-some-immodest-proposals/article2372218/

a good read...

[gopiscrap]

41. Welcome to DU

[stevenleser]

35. Excellent, thanks for posting! nt

[Dawson Leery]

39. Perhaps women will have clear voice in government now.

[spooky3]

55. Only two groups, even "roughly"? That is way too over-simplified and doesn't help

anyone interested in motivating members of this group to vote for a given candidate.

Many women who are single/divorced/widowed but aren't young are well-educated or highly experienced in demanding careers. Some have children at home; many more have children who are adults or they did not choose to have children at all. A small subgroup of this larger group are executive women, who are far more likely to be unmarried and child-free than their male counterparts, who often have very "traditional" families, where the wife is at home or in a "supportive" job. These women are not looking for a husband in order to survive economically; they may not be interested in "coupling" at all, either because that's not what they want, or they do, but they haven't found suitable single men who are their peers. Some are LBGT. Many of them came of age during the first wave of feminism and they fully understand what is at stake.

I personally know dozens of these women. They are out there, maybe not in the numbers as the other two groups the author describes, but far too many to ignore. They have been invisible too long. All of these subgroups (and others) need to be understood if a political party is to be responsive to them.

[Are_grits_groceries]

64. Wait! What?

If it is a comparison because of their identity as voting blocs, it's relevant.

Otherwise, I personally don't like that comparison. Evangelicals are advocaties for their religious views and they don't care about anything else. A lot of them are narrow- minded about a lot of issues.

While women may have started to view just women's issues as a turning point, I don't believe they are nearly as lock step about other things as evangelicals are.

This meme can start a damaging false equivalence.

[roman7]

71. i support womens rights after all my mom,sisters,wife&daughters are women

god bless you all your body is your business.the hypocrisy of the republican right is the real problem