Single women tend to vote for the Democrats. Single non-white woemn vote overwhelmingly for the Democrats.
But married white women tend to vote Republican.
Why are so many people drawn to conspiracy theories in times of crisis?
Verified by Psychology Today


In the 2012 presidential election, women favored Obama and men favored Romney. The gender gap was around 9 points, which was roughly typical of gender gaps in presidential elections going back to 1980.
What drives differences in party voting between women and men? A common answer points to abortion rights. But when large surveys look at Americans’ views, we see something that is very often overlooked: Men and women don’t differ much on abortion rights and, when they do, women are a bit more likely than men to oppose legal abortion.
If we look at the U.S. General Social Survey over the past decade at voter’s views on whether abortion should be legal in cases of rape and whether abortion should be legal in cases where a woman is single and doesn’t want to marry, we get the results in the graph below. Abortion is certainly a women’s issue in a very tangible sense, but pro-choice attitudes aren’t more common among women than among men.

So what are the issues where women are more likely than men to be in line with Democrats? One is – unsurprisingly – on questions relating to women in the workplace. When voters are asked whether they think that, because of past discrimination, employers should preferentially hire and promote women, there’s generally around a 12-point gap between women and men.
Other issues that are particularly politically salient include questions about support for government programs aimed at the elderly, children, and the poor. On items measuring support for Social Security, healthcare spending, childcare spending, education, and poverty programs, there’s usually around an 8-point gender gap, with women more liberal than men.
In addition, women are generally more supportive of gun restrictions and more opposed to police battering citizens and capital punishment. Women are also more supportive than men of same-sex marriage.
Sometimes, though, women are more conservative than men. On questions relating to the legality of marijuana and pornography and the morality of premarital sex, women are about 12 points to the right of men.
On other issues, there’s really very little gender gap at all. These often include – in addition to abortion – issues relating to race, immigration, the environment, and military spending.
So why are women more likely than men to vote Democratic? It’s partly because they lean liberal on more issues than they lean conservative, but also partly because some of the issues on which they lean liberal (relating to gender discrimination and government spending on social programs) are bigger deals in party voting than the issues on which they lean conservative (relating to pot, porn, and premarital sex).
Really, though, the gender gap just isn’t very large either in voting or in issue opinions. In our recent book, we look at lots of other gaps – relating to race, religion, sexual orientation, sexual lifestyles, education, income, and so on – that are often much bigger deals.

So why is there so much talk about a War on Women?
Sometimes political campaigns face a thorny problem. They want to increase turnout among specific segments of the public that might not be well-liked by other important voting groups. If they make obvious appeals to these unpopular groups, they risk turning off as many voters as they might attract. What’s a campaign to do?
There’s a standard solution: Make your pitch to the folks you’re trying to get, but use a frame that’s more popular so other voters won’t get scared away. The people you’re trying to reach will get the message, and other voters might not notice who you’re really targeting.
The old Republican “Southern Strategy” was one example. It was framed around states’ rights (that sounds good) and anti-crime policies (that sounds good). But its target audience was white segregationists. The problem with making a straight pitch to white segregationists is that they weren’t very popular among the more educated business-oriented voters who Republicans also needed to woo.
On economic issues, both parties pitch policies primarily favored by either the unpopular poor or the unpopular rich within frames about the much-loved middle. Democrats sell their policies as ones helping the middle-class (that sounds good). Republicans sell their policies as ones to grow the economy and create jobs for everyone (that sounds good). There can be a grain of truth to both sides’ claims, but they’re mostly cover stories.
Another example is the Democratic frame for issues relating to abortion and birth control. These policies, according to the frame, are about supporting women. It’s a great frame – who doesn’t think we should support women?
But, as we saw earlier, it’s also a frame that, well, has only a very loose connection with empirical findings. In fact, looking at public opinion data, it’s clear that the big supporters of family planning are actually – I’m struggling to find a polite way to say this; OK, I give up – godless heathens with freewheeling lifestyles (both women and men). (Before my friends get too upset, I should point out that I’m one of these secular liberals. This discussion isn’t about being a good liberal, though; it’s about being an informed observer of public opinion and political narratives.)
The central fans of liberal policies on abortion and birth control typically include people who aren’t Christian, who don’t go to services regularly, who have had more sex partners, who go to bars, who have no children, and so on. The big conservatives on these issues typically include people who are Christians, who go to church weekly, who have had few sex partners, who avoid bars, who have children, and so on.
Democratic ads focusing on abortion and birth control are actually targeting the heathens (both women and men). There are lots of us, but, as I said, we’re not very popular, particularly with some other groups that are more likely to turn out to vote, including churchgoers, seniors, and married people with kids.
So what’s a campaign to do when they want to turn out unpopular voters? Give the pitch a widely popular frame. The conservative effort to limit family planning isn’t a War on Godless Partiers, after all. It’s a War on Women.
Single women tend to vote for the Democrats. Single non-white woemn vote overwhelmingly for the Democrats.
But married white women tend to vote Republican.
Women seek out resources, and have learned that they don't need to have a man to pay the bills. ... Big daddy government will (aka the taxpayers)
Very interesting.
So basically, women are more likely to socially conservative and economically liberal, (as those terms are used in the U.S.). That is, what can be called *communitarianism*.
American libertarians, (who can be described as just the opposite --- that is, socially liberal and economically conservative), embrace *individualism* as a core value. And libertarians tend to be men more often than women, if I'm not mistaken
So insofar that *communitarianism* tends to be more strongly correlated with women and *individualism* tends to more strongly correlated with men...
...I can't help but think of the thought of Carol Gilligan (in her critique of Kohlberg's stages of moral development)who basically argued something quite similar in regards to development of self-identity and moral reasoning. That is, males tend to see their identity and moral reasoning in terms of being *individuals* / autonomous and females tend to see their identity and moral reasoning in terms of *relations to others*, (i.e. as part of a *community*).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_a_Different_Voice
Could be a lot of interesting dynamics going on here in regards to gender, the self / identity, moral reasoning, individualism vs. communitarianism, and political beliefs!
Women are socially liberal and economically liberal. They support gay rights and women's rights and homeless rights, etc. So I think that makes them socially liberal as well as fiscally liberal. I think it all makes sense if you note that 98 % of prisons are for men. It's and ethical thing. Women seem to have a higher standard of doing the right thing and that is not only shown in crime stats but how they vote as well. Women care more about the have nots and about equality. It's just that simple.
It really isn't that simple. Unfortunately, liberal policies (on the surface) appear to be good-hearted as they tend to promote justice and "equality." But dig deeper and you find the loss of freedom and a lower standard of living as you would see in a, for example, free-market. A common proposition from liberals it to raise minimum wage to $15 an hour. Liberal label this social justice, but it is indeed not just to those who will lose their jobs to offshoring and outsourcing. Many liberal are great people and truely care about their neighbors, but an understanding of labour economics is need to see how this economy truly works.
Yes, you are absolutly right, and I am still trying to figure why. The only thing I can think of is that some women are rebeling against nature, or God, for those that believe in the Word of God, thanks
No Randy, women are basically more ethical as statistics show. They are going to vote to do the right thing and care more about helping people like Democrats. Period. It's not rocket science. Republicans are the Scrooge McDucks if the world. Democrats are mother Theresa.
Republicans are selfish. Dems are selfless. One party gives the other takes away. And the sad thing is, most Republicans are poor but vote completely against their own best interest as if they were the wealthiest one percent that their party cares about. It just ends up as an oligarchy with no checks and balances in corporations. The rich get richer and the poor get poorer while the middle class shrinks just like what happened under Ronald Reagan. I'm so proud that women vote with their conscious more than their wallet. And I'm glad Democrats want to preserve our rights. Republicans want to take them away.
Imagine being so fucking stupid. Hahaha. Holy shit, neck yourself you cucked faggot.
I can't imagine being stupod, but I know you would have first hand knowledge on the topic. If you had any intelligence at all, you could refute my points rather than throwing out baseless insults. Troll someone else. This was your last supper. I won't feed the troll again.
The economy is historically best under democrats. Look at all the depressions or similar economic issues in the US. You will find most had Republicans in office.
I don't think democrats and women are ignoring the money side. They are just thinking more about what has worked and what hasn't. Trickle down economics does not work. It doesn't TRICKLE DOWN! Man is corrupt, which is why communism only works in theory but not in practice. It's the same thing with trickle down economics. So.... in that way, republicanism is similar to communism. I know that sounds nuts but in that one aspect, it is true. You cannot give the wealth to any big group and expect them to do the right thing and give the money to the hard working Americans. Unless you MAKE them do it. The corporations can just keep the money and screw over everyone else. Like communism proves, man is too corrupt to trust them with that power. The same for corporations and trickle down economics that Republicans love.
Lots of Issues to parse there. 1. Who said that women are ignoring the money side? 2. Which direction is causation going? Does electing Republicans cause recessions? Or do recessions cause people to elect Republicans? 3. The distinction between theory and practice is a myth. If it doesn't work in practice, then its a bad theory. If it works in practice, and you can't come up with a theory for how it works, then you are a bad theorist. 4. This is the most important point: "Trickle Down" is a straw-man. No Republican has ever argued that we should just give everything to the rich because they are good people. The argument has always been that re-distributive taxes create perverse incentives that direct people's energies away from productive pro-social things and towards things that we don't like.
Without getting too technical, I think it boils down to the personality trait differences that are common most all men and women.
It is my opinion that it can be best measured by the theories of Carl Jung.
Women have more of a tendancy to have emotions enter into their decision making prosess. They are looking more at the compassion side of the arguement, hence the play on linguistics noted in the article.
Men on the other hand are looking mainly at the sustainability of the proposal. When a politition starts talking about more social programs, men are thinking "who's going to pay for it?"
That's my take on it without getting into a deep analysis.
Randy, women are thinking about both. Scroll up and read why. I've posted and tried to explain this to several folks on this thread. I'm a woman.
Is everything about minorities and gender on this website?
70% of all suicides in this country are committed by white males and I never here any of you psychologists talking about this on here, why? Because you are a website designed to promote a Statist ideology under the guise of Leftism (the statist hijacking of liberals). And you do this because you cannot function without taking more and more tax-payer dollars to fund your dishonest lies about mental illness and the nature of the problem that you yourselves create.
That is to say that almost all so-called mental illness, including at its worst, and without exception, schizophrenia (which can be demonstrated), is rooted in unresolved traumatic stress; whether recalled or not. At its best the cause of anxiety and depression are largely rooted in trauma and a system out of alignment with basic principles required for healing.
Psychiatrists, who are trained by the state-affiliated university, are mere agents of crony capitalism (more statism) i.e. big pharma in bed with the State - and for State profit.
By promoting the lie of mental illness, and by never resolving the root cause of mental problems, it gives you a license to deny reality and to drug people into oblivion while ignoring the consequences of your actions i.e. the death of white males by suicide, drugs and alcohol (acting in) and the death of black males and others, by murder in the inner city (acting out). Part of the nature of trauma in the statist society (from the mixed economy all the way to communism) is to either act out or act in violence.
These are your results. The results of Psychology Today.
Instead of droning on about race and class all the time for division, State profit and power, why don't you try to resolve actual problems?
Get the help you need from a therapist near you–a FREE service from Psychology Today.