But lately, I'm starting to see where the stereotype comes from. I've read a couple of articles like this over the past year, but I was hoping it would go away...
Unmarried women, it turned out, were more likely than respondents in general to want the president and Congress to pay attention to health care, the economy and jobs, and Social Security and Medicare. They were less likely to want the president and Congress to pay attention to terrorism and national security, illegal immigration, energy and gas prices, taxes and spending, and moral values.
...it's just too obvious to point out that all those people killed on 9/11, and the thousands more killed by illegal aliens every year since, aren't going to reaping the benefits of Social Security, Medicare or socialized medicine. I'm not very organized on my poli sci, but I'm pretty sure the number one obligation of a government is to keep its citizenry from being destroyed by hostile invaders, not to pay their living expenses.
Unmarried women are also ready to support socialized medicine, the pollsters say. "American voters in general may shy away from 'radical' steps such as importing a Canadian-style system," the pollsters reported. "Unmarried women, however, embrace such a powerful step."
*bangs head against the wall* Ladies, don't expect any sisterhood sympathy from me while you're waiting 18 weeks to start chemotherapy, or when you give birth alone because the system can't afford sufficient staff (aside: the worst offender is a hospital named for Milton Keynes?).
Unmarried women, the pollsters said, "reject the Bush supply-side approach to economics" and agree by 58 percent to 32 percent that America does better when "our government helps create conditions so that many can prosper, not just a few," as opposed to when "we have a limited government that keeps taxes low so that businesses and individuals can prosper."
This is interesting, because more people prosper when a limited government makes it easier for individuals and businesses to succeed without punishment. The only people who "prosper" under a system where the state redistributes goods, money, services, benefits, etc to all regardless of input are the people who run the system; the "many" stand in line to purchase their allotment of toilet paper once a month. I read this as "unmarried women are unsuccessful and jealously vindictive," which I have no trouble believing. I'll even cop to being unsuccessful, largely because I've made some dumb career moves. OTOH, I've pretty sure bankrupting families doesn't improve my life, and hey, I could be successful in ten years if I figure out what direction to work toward and the government doesn't punish me for working.
I'm not sure the analogy of the government as "husband-provider" is entirely apt. Wives have responsibilities and obligations to their husbands, but the picture of unmarried women painted here doesn't show them giving anything back. They're more like children; they want Daddy to take care of them and keep them secure without doing anything in return. Not an attitude to be encouraged in anyone older than 10 or 12, but let's watch Hillary Clinton pander to it for the next year to get this "crucial voting bloc" in line.
Not even sure it's a bloc: in 2007 you can't lump all "unmarried women" together. Old maids with cats (it's not right to intentionally deprive a kid of his father...) are different from widows with children, divorced women with children, divorced women with cats, lesbians of assorted coupling status, and "single mothers by choice," which is a varied spectrum (career women getting IVF at 42 have different lives than women who dropped out of high school when they had their first baby at 15). I have zero interested in being "married to government"--government does not provide for me, it impedes me. If I had four kids with different fathers and a GED, I might feel differently.