Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise

Post-Election Polls: Men Were Angry At Bush, Women Wanted Change

By Ellen Goodman, Truthdig. Posted November 24, 2006.


If men had been the only voters in Missouri, Montana or Virginia, we'd have a Republican Senate. It's time for the Dems to listen to what women were voting for in the 2006 elections.

Share and save this post:

      

      

Share on Facebook       

AlterNet Social Networks:
follow us on twitter
find us on Facebook

In Special Coverage

Belief:
Is Blind Faith in God and the Bible a Modern Invention?
Devilstower

Corporate Accountability and WorkPlace:
Who's Paying for the Recession Most of All? Young Workers
Lizzy Ratner

DrugReporter:
Lies About Marijuana Drive People to a Much More Harmful Drug -- Booze
Steve Fox

Environment:
Why Max Baucus' 'No' Vote on the Climate Bill May Really Help Its Passage
Jeff Mcmahon

Food:
Soda Helps Make Americans Unhealthy and Fat -- Will Soda Tax Prevail Despite Pushback by Beverage Industry?
Christine Spolar, Joseph Eaton

Health and Wellness:
Do We Really Want to Enshrine Insurance Monopoly into Law? This and 5 Other Complaints About the Health Bill
John Nichols

Immigration:
NYC Marathon Raises Question of Who Is American Enough?
James E. Johnson, Jr.

Media and Technology:
How Biased Media Can Brainwash You
Melinda Burns

Movie Mix:
The Yes Men: Pranksters Out to Fix the World
Mark Engler

Politics:
4 Ways the Stupak Amendment Deprives Women of Access to Abortion
Jessica Arons

Reproductive Justice and Gender:
How the Stupak Amendment Radically Undermines Abortion Rights
Rachel Morris

Rights and Liberties:
"Women Are Being Killed All Over the World": One Reporter's Fight Against So-Called "Honor Killings"
Robert S. Eshelman

Sex and Relationships:
9 Silly Things People Say When They Hear You Don't Want Kids (And Ways to Counter Them)
Liz Langley

Take Action:
G-20 Meetings: Nothing Much Happened in the Suites, and There Was Too Much Punch in the Streets
Laura Flanders

Water:
Why Natural Gas Is Not a Clean Energy Panacea
Stan Cox

World:
10 Suicides a Month at Ft. Hood -- War Stress Is Taking Soldiers to the Brink
Dahr Jamail

More stories by Ellen Goodman

Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

Allow me to use my grandmother-of-two voice. This is a bit more low key and benign than Nancy Pelosi's famous "mother-of-five voice.'' Toddlers and tryptophan tend to mellow me out.

Nevertheless, during this holiday interregnum between the election and the installation of a new Congress, a grandmaternal word or two to the Democrats may be in order.

There's already been a surfeit of talk about the role of women in this election. Alas, this was not The Year of the Women Redux, although Speaker-elect Pelosi has broken the "marble ceiling'' and has the bruises to show for it. Yes, there will be more women in Congress than ever before, but so far the percentage has only gone up from 15.4 to 16.4485981. Hold the applause.

This was, however, the year women provided the Democratic margin of victory. If men had been the only voters in Missouri, Montana or Virginia, we'd have a Republican Senate. This is also the year in which women drove the agenda.

Pollster Celinda Lake, who coined the terms "soccer mom'' and "security mom,'' hasn't found the right moniker yet for women in 2006. She tries out two of them -- "change moms'' and "had-enough women'' -- and then settles for an explanation: "Women solidified around change a year ago and didn't budge.''

They were the first to think the war was going sour and first to believe the economy was going downhill. And, at the family heart of the matter, a majority of women unhappily concurred that their children were going to be worse off than they are.

What most triggered men to get out and vote Democratic? A desire to "send a message to Bush.'' The top vote-getting message for women was "let's make things better for the next generation.'' In less grandmotherly words, Lake says, "Men wanted to punch him in the nose and women wanted to make things better.''

So if women drove the agenda, what will make things "better''?

At the top of everyone's mind is Iraq. But the commander is still in chief and Washington seems to be waiting for Godot, excuse me, James Baker, to come up with a magical solution.

Beyond that, women voters aren't asking for a debate about gays in the military or reinstituting a draft, thank you Charlie Rangel. Nor are they asking for an intramural party wrangle.

Women worrying about a diminished future for the next generation are looking for a broad, overlapping domestic agenda. Some pieces can be found in the to-do list assembled for the Democrats' "First 100 Hours'': raise the minimum wage, fix the Medicare prescription drug program, halve interest rates for student loans and bury the dead horse of Social Security privatization.

If the new leaders make the deadline, they will offer something we haven't had in a long time: hope. But still an appetizer.

The post-election survey done by Ms. Magazine and the Women Donor Network showed surprisingly that a majority of women listed rebuilding after Katrina as a top priority for the next Congress. Katrina was a turning point for women who saw the government's reaction as cold indifference. Katrina also became a stand-in for the issues of poverty and division.

Women are more united than divided. They tend to see connections between people not unlike those -- pumpkin or pecan pie eaters, octogenarians or toddlers -- who assemble around their own family tables. No matter how much we read about the infamous mommy wars, women also concur on the need for help in balancing work and family.

So for many, the biggest concern still is healthcare. As Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz of Florida, one of the new breed of young moms in Congress, says, "I don't want the next generation of moms hand-wringing over how to deal with the sniffles and waiting until it turns into pneumonia.'' It's past time to make healthcare available to all kids.

As for education, especially early education and child care? The desire to truly "leave no child behind'' tops terrorism on the female list. And for women who share a family-table view of the world, economic security includes the increasingly elusive retirement security.

Democrats won't have much time to prove that the "sea change" on Capitol Hill changes enough. Nor does Speaker-elect Pelosi. The good news from one of the post-election surveys is that voters are three times more likely to see female politicians as trustworthy. The bad news is that only 21 percent of all voters see even female politicians as trustworthy.

It's been a long time since Americans have looked to the government with expectations. Now, we're making a list. And checking it twice.

Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

See more stories tagged with: women, election06

Ellen Goodman is a member of the Washington Post Writers Group.

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


Advertisement
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:
Excellent article, Ms Goodman!
Posted by: fork on Nov 24, 2006 6:55 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
A very enjoyable read.

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

Women want change, unless it costs
Posted by: VannaLaRoche on Nov 24, 2006 7:07 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I played a game of sorts with a group of women. One question was, "If you could make ONE thing happen in this world, what would it be?"

I said I'd provide complete health care, no questions asked, to any person under the age of 18.

Another woman sniffed, "Well, I don't know. Some of those kids are really sick."

This from a person who would no doubt describe herself as a liberal feminist. Selfishness isn't restricted by gender, it seems.

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

zenobia
Posted by: Zenobia on Nov 24, 2006 7:53 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As a woman voter, I am surprised that many of my top concerns have not been mentioned in this or other election analyses.

I don't have children, and don't plan on having them. So while I am certainly concerned for future generations in terms of health care, the economy, etc. as others in the essentialist and monolithic category "Women" are said to be, because I am a HUMAN BEING, these were not the top issues that motivated me to vote or to fight like hell for the past 7 years.

One big concern for me, hardly mentioned, was the environment. Yes, women can have scientific concerns and not just social ones.

Another concern was the erosion of women's rights. This includes the right to control my body obviously, but also the right to know something ABOUT my body! Let us not forget that this is the administration that has been against sex education and birth control as well as abortion!

And how many people even recognize that this administration has substantially weakened Title 9, established in 1972 to protect against gender discrimination in school sports and education? Girls now have to prove they want school sports, whereas boys are assumed to want them. Thanks to changes in Title 9, it is now possible for schools to say, well, we need to teach boys power tech and girls home ec, or to say that girls need less rigorous science classes.

I voted against all the misogyny that comes with a war and dominance-oriented culture, not just against the war itself. How did we go from "Murphy Brown" to "Nip and Tuck" in just a few short years? And worse, why have so many women internalized that this is ok that there was little resistance to this shift?

I voted against the corporatism that turns women into products. Yes, "sex sells" in advertising, and in patriarchal culture, few seem to be able to envision a sexuality that is not based on old-school gender stereotypes. Hence the past 7 years have brought about the worst objectification of women in my lifetime. Life has become a lot more aggravating for those of us who insist on using our brains and abilities, rather than our jiggle quotient, to get what we want in life. But don't forget too, that increased corporatism and no-holds-barred neo-"liberal" globalization also means more Third World families selling their daughters--and sometimes their sons--into prostitution to feed the rest of the family.

I voted in favor of media diversity. Again, heightened corporate power and media deregulation has resulted in less analytical journalism and still more vacuous jiggling on tv. We heard for years only voices preaching fear fear fear, kill kill killl, dominate dominate, suv suv suv, nip and tuck nip and tuck...with no counter voices for global cooperation, sustainability, self-acceptance, a focus on mind-body-soul personhood, human rights, and so on.

So overall, I would say that I voted against all the regressive attitudes revived and policies revised over the past 7 years that would have me be, without choice, the sort of woman who votes primarily for "family table" issues. I voted against a world that says women should be or must be, without choice, the caretakers and nurturers, the sensitive people-oriented ones, not the scientists, the lawyers, the strategists, the analysts.

This is not to say that these roles that women have traditionally played are not important! They may be the very *most* important. But creating such broad, binary, blanket categories as "woman" and "man" in dissecting the elections makes me feel very stereotyped. It also occludes the many wonderful men who are just as nurturing, just as people-oriented, just as concerned about their kid's sniffles.

P.S. Just for the record, I VERY MUCH wanted to punch Bush in the nose. I cannot think of any woman I know who didn't!

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

» RE: zenobia Posted by: yellow
» RE: zenobia Posted by: fork
» RE: zenobia Posted by: yellow
» RE: zenobia Posted by: fork
» Celinda Lake Posted by: Donna_Darko
» Thanks for the thoughtful post. Posted by: MatthewSavage
» Great comment! Posted by: thoughtcriminal
» RE: Great comment! Posted by: yellow
» Had-enough and change women Posted by: Donna_Darko
» RE: zenobia Posted by: munchkinpup
Dangerous Game
Posted by: NoPCZone on Nov 24, 2006 11:05 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm all for advancing the cause of women; their rights, opportunity and place in society. However, I offer a caveat for those thinking the obvious might actually be the right answer. God, as they say, is in the details.

Can any group as large and diverse as American Womanhood actually have a large common set of goals for public policy? The same could be said for Men, or people of color, or of any particular ethnic group. Dealing in generalities generally gets one in trouble.

Maybe I'm off base here, but I'm willing to place a bet on this: what most female voters want is not so much what is good for women as what is good for the country. Good policy is good policy; regardless of one's sex, age, faith, education, etc.

Policies that remove barriers, create opportunity, encourage diversity, reward merit and redress past mistakes are good for all people- not just one group or segment of voters. For example, enlightened policies concerning daycare are not exclusively women's issues- it's in everybody's interest to see our nation's children get what they need. We haven't a person to waste and need to invest all we can afford in our future.

Pay equity is good for all- not just for some. As someone who works in a career field dominated by women, I know that jobs traditionally staffed by women are underpaid. A re-evaluation of pay for equity will raise my pay as well. My example may sound self serving, but I would be for it even if my job sere a different one. Right is right, and we should always stand with and for those getting the short end of the stick.

What I guess I'm saying is that if we stand for traditional progressive values, instead of just giving them lip service, and act as we advocate, our cause will be supported by the majority of people- not just women. Actions speak louder than words and the advent of Speaker Pelosi speaks louder than a thousand round tables, conferences or position papers ever could.

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

better
Posted by: rsaxto on Nov 25, 2006 1:17 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This man thinks that most women are better than most men at ending the stupidity called war. I always vote for the candidate most likely to want to end war which is usually either female or an enlightened male. War has become a mechanism for speeding up environmental degradation which is what is most likely to end the faulty human experiment. The devil is in the bombs and global warming.

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

Interesting article. I'd disagree a little...
Posted by: ABetterFuture on Nov 25, 2006 8:18 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...reinstituting a draft, thank you Charlie Rangel. Nor are they asking for an intramural party wrangle.

Ragel/wrangle. Clever! I like it!

If men had been the only voters in Missouri, Montana or Virginia, we'd have a Republican Senate.

If men had been the only voters in those states, they would have moved to North Dakota, Virginia, or Alabama to try and pick up women.

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

Alternet should take a harder look especially at South Dakota and realize that women-only-ism
Posted by: SDres11 on Nov 25, 2006 4:59 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
is what causes the GOP to stay strong as was the case in South Dakota. Oh sure, the "abortion" ban was condemned on the ballot but that ain't going to change a FUCKING thing !!! Too many Democrats who ran "abortion" as their central campaign theme issue and try to make women-first too important went down in flames.

Alternet should either realize that economic populism along with genuine concern for the environment and safety across the board was what gave Democrats such as Heath Schuler, Sherrod Brown, Jon Tester, McCaskill, etc ... the trust from the voters or Alternet better SHUT THE FUCK UP !!!!!!

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

POLTERGEIST AMERICA
Posted by: Cousin Jack on Nov 25, 2006 10:50 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We removed some of Congress, but we forgot about all the other Governmental Offices
In the movie “Poltergeist” the following was almost said. “We moved the cemetery, but we left the bodies, didn't we? We left the bodies and we only moved the head stones. We only moved the head stones. Why? Why? “
In Cincinnati, Ohio, the White Supremacist Prosecutor of Hamilton County, has issued an edict allowing vigilante justice, yet and I quote him earlier in the year saying “Not-guilty verdicts are rare in murder cases, but Deters and Bennett said self-defense can be a powerful argument for acquittal in Ohio if a jury decides the evidence supports the claim. That's true even if an innocent bystander is hurt.”
Yet Deters won’t let the crimes go to jury!
So now we have men like Deters, let Tyree Henderson’s death go, by stealing the dignity that should be afforded a United States Citizen whether he was stealing or not. State Treasurers have stolen from us over the centuries, yet if they were run over by a truck, wouldn’t they expect to have the killer brought before a jury. Anthony Stone, the killer in this case, and the father of the killer Robert L. Stone, an attorney, who once was incorporated with white supremacist William Flax, who was once incorporated with Roger Ach II and on and on goes the corruption. The bottom line, is, the white supremacists will not let due process be given to United States Citizens of African Birthright.
How would Americans like it if an African shot an American Oil Man in Nigeria, and the prosecutor in Nigeria didn’t press charges, because, “He was defending himself, the American was stealing his Nations oil, and the African Citizen shot the thief, as he ran away while brandishing a finger.”
Oh, how many times the story of Tyree Henderson, the victim was changed in the newspaper. You would almost think that Deters is somehow related to Danny Phillips or his mother Phyllis E. Phillips. Who is this Deters whose name literally means to deter crime, not sanction vigilantism? Let’s hope he is never put in charge of large sums of money, because he surely can’t handle criminal cases with reason. United States Citizens of African Birthright are being killed, and in this case the newspaper (Cincinnati’s finest) that endorsed the Republican Candidates earlier this year (fair journalism America) now has issued conflicting stories about the night in question.
We can boycott businesses that use hate against us, but how does one boycott a government or media that is biased against half or more of the citizens.
What if for every murder crime allowed by the state in a killing of a United States Citizen of African Birthright, one of the 900 million plus Africans (3 times the population of the United States) shot an American oil man in Nigeria? Would that be vigilante justice? What if 900 million Africans chased the United States and the U.K. from their shores for stealing oil, would that be an effective boycott. What if United States Citizens of African Birthright, all 46 million of them, and probably an equal number of United States Citizens of Latino Birthright, all 40 some million of them, and all the other minorities and all the non-white supremacists boycotted businesses in America that wouldn’t sign a petition to remove from government all and any white supremacists who make a living from the taxes of the people they hate. Would that be an effective boycott? …………… Wait, yes, it would, ……………………………………….wouldn’t it!
You can’t deter crime Deters, with your vigilante justice, all you are doing is allowing hate crimes to flourish against United States Citizens. You are Un-American Sir, you and all your white supremacist lawyer friends.
This letter is written for Tyree Henderson,
Ok, we’ve the headstones, now, let’s remove the bodies

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

One sick society.
Posted by: Knowmad on Nov 26, 2006 9:54 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I’ve just read the wire article about global warming, and another about your latest republican poster boy, Trent Lacking. Though I’ve tried to be patient, I just have to say: Where do you Americans get the gall? I mean, from being the planet’s most gluttonous consumer and worst polluter - and then denying the obvious consequences accepted by virtually everyone else of note - to allowing ignorant children like cheney, rove, rumsfeld, bush and the like to assume superiority over others, and actually have power over you as well???? Color me astounded.

And save your breath; I’m pretty sure what your reaction will be: “Hey, I didn’t vote for them; it’s not my fault.” Except that it is. Most of you on this site like to consider yourselves liberal and/or progressive, which is fine. But just having the outlook does absolutely nothing; there are obligations, one of which is to do your best to ensure that the misguided, naive and gullible among you are made aware of the truth - otherwise they simply vote the way they've been persuaded is right. You’ve seen the danger of this starkly, in 2000 and (unbelievably) again in 2004.

Individually you people are pretty much just as nice and just as nasty as others everywhere. However, the luxury of being the wealthiest and most powerful nation (militarily at least) isn’t a free ride. There are many hugely important responsibilities, not the least of which is ensuring you maintain a responsible administration to oversee things. If you don’t - as you’re seeing now - you endanger yourselves, as well as the rest of us. And we’re not likely to be appreciative.

Grow up Americans, and stand up. The planet and all who sail her (not just human) are at stake.

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

» RE: One sick society. Posted by: Cousin Jack
What the fuck is this?
Posted by: AdamG on Nov 26, 2006 10:15 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
An ad in the middle of the posts?

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

» RE: What the f**k is this? Posted by: Knowmad
» RE: What the f**k is this? Posted by: TheNamelessCity
I think women know men
Posted by: jeffersonian on Nov 27, 2006 12:25 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
and they know how stupid men can be with their testosterone-driven behaviors. The war in Iraq was driven entirely by testosterone and not at all by intelligence. As Bill Clinton says, "we have to be both strong AND smart in today's world". The women provide much of the "smart" part. As a man, I admit this (pretty obvious to those of us who refer to our wives as our 'better half')-it's true.

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

» RE: I think women know men Posted by: aonghus36
» terminology Posted by: Donna_Darko
  • 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.

Advertisement
Advertisement