Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Hey Pollsters, Leave My Ring Finger Alone

By Eugenia Chien, New America Media. Posted August 1, 2007.


Unmarried women may be the next big group of swing voters.
Advertisement

As a political reporter I am used to the many ways lobbyists try to find the next big group of swing voters at election time. But I was taken by surprise -- then by a strange sensation of indignation -- when a study came across my desk that announced unmarried women as the biggest swing votes in the next election.

Unmarried women make up a bigger electorate than African Americans and Latinos combined, according to a new report by Celina Lake of Lake Research Partners, a key pollster and strategist for the Democratic Party. About 47 percent of American women live without a spouse; more than 18 million of them are not registered to vote. Tapping their potential could save the Democrats in 2008, the study suggests.

But what do unmarried women really have in common? Many unmarried women simply haven't found the right kind of men. Thousands of single mothers are unmarried because the men in their lives refuse to commit. Unmarried women may be divorcees or widows. And let's not forget lesbians who are unmarried because the law forbids their union.

Political strategists have always tried to lump groups together by race, ethnicity, or even by the fact that you're a soccer mom. But unlike those groupings, being unmarried is a category that hardly creates a united political response. Unmarried women are unmarried in so many different ways. Looking around me, I realized that by Lake's definition, I would have the same political response as the college intern in my office, my next-door neighbor who is widowed and retired, and maybe the meter maid who just gave me a parking ticket.

Lake's charts and graphs show that unmarried women increased their support for Democrats in the last three presidential elections. In the 2006 House races, they were most likely to vote Democrat. Lake says unmarried women are "change-oriented" and "cynical about the government," with all the right priorities to put Dems in the White House.

I struggled to imagine political ads and platforms targeted at unmarried women. Perhaps political consultants would think we need better retirement plans since we don't have our husbands' pensions to live on. Or perhaps they will be handing out buttons and stickers at speed dating functions or advertise on Match.com.

Lake offers little clarification to why so many unmarried women do not register to vote. And what about unmarried men? According to her study, the number of unregistered single women (18.5 million) is almost equal to that of unregistered single men (18.2 million). But perhaps because unmarried women are more likely to vote Democrat than unmarried men, the research dives head on into the possible behaviors of unmarried women.

Frustratingly, this study suggests that marriage is still considered an accomplishment for women and merely a side note for men. A man's status and identity are not defined by marriage. Even in an election that might result in the first woman president, female voters are still identified by their marital status.

To me, still single at 30, my unmarried status is a tired label that I have tried to shrug despite my nagging relatives. Being the eldest granddaughter in my marriage-obsessed extended family means constant anxiety from my relatives about my spinsterhood. At every family function, my relatives whisper questions about my love life, not-so-casually mention statistics about fertility rates dropping with age, and give me unwanted advice on how to keep a man.

The popular consensus so far among my relatives is that I have not learned to use my feminine wiles to seduce a husband. So many men have come and go, they lamented (it's not really that many), why doesn't it ever work out?

For me, I just haven't found someone with whom to share my life, someone with the same convictions and values -- who also doesn't mind sharing his Sunday New York Times with me over a lazy brunch. But why should that define me?

In my generation, educated, financially independent women can control most parts of our lives. We choose our professions, invest our own income and buy our own properties. We have the freedom to travel wherever we want. We can participate in most sports. We make our own decisions about our health care. And let's not forget, we can vote. The only thing that we have no control over is who we love. For pollsters to take advantage of the one factor in my life that I have no control over seems incredibly careless.

My relatives already pay too much attention to the fact that I am not married. As if that is not enough, now a pollster is making that the only focus in the swing voter category. It reduces my whole life to one painful label. Coming across this study at my desk puts me right back at dreaded family reunions: I might have graduated from college, climbed up the corporate ladder, or finished my first 10K race, but all I am ever asked is, "Why aren't you married?"

Political consultants would do better with a harder look at what women really care about. Reducing my existence to the bareness of my ring finger certainly would do nothing to gain my vote.

Digg!

See more stories tagged with: election08, politics, women

Eugenia Chien is an editor at New America Media.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Wow! Maybe they will get tax write-offs for internet hook-ups!
Posted by: Bobsays on Aug 1, 2007 4:43 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Puh-lease! This group of women is the reason why communities are going to hell. The government should be encouraging family life and getting married, or at least commiting to other human beings (yes, even if it is same sex). I can only imagine the manifestos to court this most selfish of demographics:

1) The Manolo Blahniks Act: a 20 per cent discount on all designer shoes
2) No Tip Left Behind Act: lower tipping for restaurant brunches
3) An act to remove all tariffs on the importation of Jacobs Creek wine into the US

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» This is not Republicans "R" Us Posted by: christininrome
» Invasion of Privacy Posted by: Libertine
"A man's status and identity are not defined by marriage."
Posted by: karma_ran_over_dogma on Aug 1, 2007 5:04 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What planet is she living on?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

missing the point
Posted by: quitecontrary on Aug 1, 2007 6:31 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The author is saying that there is more to her life than her being single, which is what our society focuses on. I don't recall reading in there that she's desperate to get married, but her family certainly seems desperate to marry her off.

Unless you're a woman, you can't understand how women are regarded differently just because of their marital status. Do you see anyone out there courting the "single man" vote? You probably won't, because men have identities attached to careers and interests. Not so much with women.

If you don't like what you read, don't attack the author by saying that it's women like her that are ruining society. Say something constructive.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: missing the point Posted by: MartianBachelor
» RE: missing the point Posted by: helenwheels
» RE: missing the point Posted by: quitecontrary
» RE: missing the point Posted by: MAD
» RE: missing the point Posted by: quitecontrary
yes
Posted by: woogawooga on Aug 1, 2007 6:29 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
But not all married women are the same either so can we please yank the god awful 'soccer mom' term -

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Why? Posted by: kepstein7777
That's to bad
Posted by: messedup on Aug 1, 2007 6:33 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
That they can't find the right kind of men. Most women I know vote like their man does, so that cancels out the single women swing voters. They are to busy or lazy to vote, if we had run-off voting where they could actually be convinced that their vote meant something then maybe they'd vote.

When people nag I just laugh at them since they are all mostly divorced anyways.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Don't bet on it Posted by: karma_ran_over_dogma
» Bet on it. Posted by: messedup
» RE: Bet on it. Posted by: karma_ran_over_dogma
» RE: Bet on it. Posted by: mrs whatsit
» RE: That's to bad Posted by: stoicnag
Don't forget unmarried men !
Posted by: maxpayne on Aug 1, 2007 6:39 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's not like most of them are "conservative". Like men, women regardless of their marital status are sick and tired of the gender divide and would much prefer that the Democrats quit selling out on the economic front all too often.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Never mind...
Posted by: christininrome on Aug 1, 2007 6:53 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Your just a douche-bag...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: And YOU'RE just a bad speller Posted by: christininrome
» RE: Never mind... Posted by: PortlandLiberal
To Bobsays
Posted by: christininrome on Aug 1, 2007 6:55 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"Douche-bag!"

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: To Bobsays Posted by: Bobsays
» RE: To Bobsays Posted by: christininrome
I don't think you understand political targeting
Posted by: Squid Boy on Aug 1, 2007 7:04 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
First of all, it's CELINDA Lake. With a "D" - your error in getting the name of the woman whose work you fail to deconstruct is indicative of your entire effort.

There is no effort here to moralize about this demographic, or to stereotype any group in order to force them to conform to some social expectation. The goal is to understand the behavior of one of the FEW demographics still reachable by the political discourse. As the country has become more and more polarized, finding groups within the electorate that are actually still listening - or 'persuadable' if you want to be cynical - is increasingly difficult. Celinda is saying, 'here's a group with whom Democrats share a lot in common - we should try to reach them.'

To suggest that she's maligning unmarried women in any way is to not have done your homework on Celinda Lake - who probably has done as much to advance the cause of women's equality as any working in politics today. Celinda has been helping to elect women candidates for longer than the author has been alive, and in no small part, helped to ensure that she will be treated fairly in the workplace, has had the right to choose her entire life, and that there are plenty of female voices in Congress to represent her views.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

How odd
Posted by: Cruella on Aug 1, 2007 8:41 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I mean single women and married women are not, in my world, different species. But then is you are a douche-bag republican who insists on a tax on single-hood you create a political interest group of women who don't think they should be discriminated against. But stories like these remind us all of the benefits of nuclear two-biological parent families.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I was married, didn't like it
Posted by: Arlene on Aug 1, 2007 9:18 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
so in my comfortable widowhood, why should I do it again? Decades ago, the lack of sexual and financial autonomy forced women like me to get married to survive. Until the trade-offs are better, this cohort will continue to grow. In other words why buy the pig when you just want some sausage?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: I was married, didn't like it Posted by: MartianBachelor
» Me, too Posted by: janvdb
» ABF - You're Right Posted by: Arlene
I'm honored to be politically targetted -- now let's discuss universal healthcare, equal pay . . .
Posted by: janvdb on Aug 2, 2007 8:29 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
ending the unfair subsidies to sole-earner couples (paid for by us singles) such as health insurance for wives, Social Security tag-alongs for wives, tax deductions for children, and so on.

Let's also discuss the one-wifelike-person-per-person answer to the gay-marriage debate. Each person would be able to designate one other person to enjoy all the benefits of spousedom -- be that person a disabled sister, a mother, a friend, or a gay partner.

That person would be able to get the very valuable one-half-your-social-security check benefit, would be able to inherit from you tax-free, would get health insurance from your job, could make medical decisions for you, and all other privileges now extended only to the married.

That would really level the playing field for us singles. All this government promotion of "family" is totally wrongheaded, promotes further irresponsible population growth and is destructive of the environment. Population growth is wrecking our world. It feeds urban sprawl, global warming, fills landfills, kills gorillas, etc etc etc.

We need to recognize the selfless contribution to a sustainable future which is being made by that group of people whose sex lives does NOT have a massive carbon footprint into the distant future -- the childless. Many of whom are unmarried.

The government needs to STOP promoting marriage and it's associated destructive over-reproduction. That is so old-fashioned and very very stupid at this point.

The tax deduction for children should be ended, for instance. Children should be taxed.

Not just the unmarried, who are a mixed bag, but the childless need to be recognized and applauded for their good choice.

Children are a burden on the earth. One per couple makes sense, if people just must reproduce. Children cause urban sprawl and they kill polar bears.

This tiny bit of recognition of the unmarried woman being weirdly complained about in this article may be the first edge of some kind of a re-balancing of our national psyche away from this old-fashioned preference for "family," at a time when over-reproduction has become a selfish act which is destroying our future as a species.

The unmarried and the childless have definite political goals. I'm happy to see someone noticing the size of the constituency. Now, let's see some actions taken to end the unfair treatment of the unmarried and the childless by the tax code, by employers and by the legal regime.

Jan VanDenBerg

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

beachpoet
Posted by: beachpoet on Aug 3, 2007 5:53 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I was so happy to read this - I understand your frustration and your quest for social and sexual sanity, because that was me 30 years ago and it is me today. You have taken up the gauntlet from your mothers because you are not willing to look away. Please keep telling your truth.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Will you marry me so I can "screw" you legitimately?
Posted by: blitzmesser on Aug 3, 2007 8:09 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Why is the question never asked: are unmarried men the swing voters?
Women are "supposed to be married" but it is ok for men not to be married. Men simply become "eligible bachelors".
What a bunch of horse manure. Does a woman have to wait around for a man to ask" marry me.....please ? So I can screw you?" (in more than one way)

Everyone knows that men are not the ones who make the decisions. So why do people go on pretending they are?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Ms. (and proud of it)
Posted by: locoadele on Aug 4, 2007 7:24 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Ms. Chien lists a bunch of reasons why women may not be married, all of which are due to circumstances beyond their control. How archaic! Many women are unmarried by choice. Why share your finances, your home and your life with a person with a high potential for dependency and dishonesty? And while we're at it, why does our society not recognize the existence of unmarried women? I include a "letter to the editor" I just sent to several newspapers around the country.

"Editor:
Okay, I’ve had enough! I am sick and tired of being addressed as Mrs. Why does every person with whom I deal assume that I must be married? I am not crazy enough to legally ally myself with a creature who is incapable of boiling an egg or washing a pair of dirty shorts. I have enough to fill my life.
In Medieval times, all women were addressed as "Mistress”. Years later, someone (probably male) decided that a woman’s marital status had to be a vital part of her name. "Mrs.” and "Miss” were invented so that no woman could get away with misrepresenting herself. Never mind that a man was still free to do so.
In 20th century etiquette, if you didn’t know a woman’s marital status, it was proper to address her as "Miss”. Toward the end of the century, intelligent people came up with "Ms.”, because they recognized that the marital status of women, as with men, was irrelevant in all but a few legal documents.
We are now several years into the 21st century. I will respond negatively to any person who addresses me as "Mrs.”. Maybe I can bring a few people kicking and screaming into the present."

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

let's not confuse the personal with the political
Posted by: maggierheinstein on Aug 4, 2007 7:19 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There are personal choices and there are political realities and potential political realignments. Celinda Lake is pointing to the largest growing demographic on the horizon and suggesting that the concerns common to the ovewhelming majority of single women align with democratic positions. 20 million of them, as of the last Presidential election, are still not registered or voting. That's an enormous potential for candidates who address the concerns of their lives thereby encouraging them to engage in the voting process.

Unmarried women make 56 cents on the dollar and 2/3 of unmarried women make $50,000 or less. Their lives are stretched to the limit mainly because of their economic marginality. Obviously not every single women falls into any of these categories. The New York Times just did a story on single women in Manhattan outpacing men in salary. The fact that many single women are blissfully happy with both their career and personal choices does not mean that there are not millions in our country who are living in completely opposite circumstances.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Until Universal Healthcare starts...
Posted by: Landbaron on Aug 4, 2007 10:26 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
marriage can be a win/win situation when someone has good health insurance and someone else has come down with a serious illness that doesn't have insurance. I want to see these insurance companies repeatedly raped, over and over, hard, really hard, until they're into bankruptcy.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]