To continue getting breaking news and the full stories from The Boston Globe, subscribe today.
July 22, 2012
Mr. Jacoby wrote: "That explains the Democrats' whipped-up accusations of a GOP "war on women." >> << Since the accusations are well-founded, it is, in fact, what Republicans have done that explains the accusations. An accurate assessment of Republican legislative efforts would be that they are trying to put women in their (1950s-era) place. Let's list some things that lots of Republicans have voted against: fair pay. access to health care, the violence against women act--not to mention innumerable paternalistic measures regarding abortion. (Only the deluded can believe that efforts to "get rid" of Planned Parenthood are not anti-woman.)
As a heterosexual married male who fits the exact demographic that Jacoby tries to claim is the power base of conservatives, I do believe that Jacoby has beaten his own personal record for most erroneous generalizations in a single column. Considering Jacoby's writtem history, that's a fairly considerable mark to begin with. Jeff, claiming that accusations of the GOP war on women (no punctuation necessary since it's fact)is whipped up is like trying to claim that containers of whipped butter do not contain butter. Women are smart enough to vote Democrat because they realize that Republicans are trying to screw them over without the basic courtesy of dinner and a movie first.
Good morning, Jacoby haters. This must be the high point of your week. Be sure to take your blood pressure medicine.
Or teh democratic party could be gaining momentum because the tea baggers have turned the GOP into a bunch of intransigent fools.
The decline in marriage is directly correlated to women rising in earning ability. No longer to women need to go to college for an Mrs. degree. No longer do they have to stay in horrible marriages because there is no other option. As a parent, I would agree that for children, a two-parent household is best, whether hetero or same sex, but Mr. Jacoby's premise that the decline in marriage is bad for America has yet to be proven.
@ Ozark: It's not that we hate him, it's just that he's so often outright wrong, or uses specious logic to arrive at his conclusions.
I would think that Romney does better with taxpayers and Obama does better with people that get checks from the government. What a surprise.
I agree. It's not that I dislike him. I just dislike his views. And he is not very good at what he does.
The implication of course, is that the "good" people are married and the "bad" people are all single. I wonder why the divorce rate is so high? Maybe it's because all those Republican husbands turn out to be rather disappointing in the bedroom, if you know what I mean.
JJ suggests there is no war on women, then goes on to wage it. As we struggle to save the last abortion clinic in the entire state of Mississippi, let's deny the war on women exists. And thanks, Jeff, for the trip down memory lane to the Reagan welfare-queen discourse. Underlying this lovely piece is the suggestion that if women would only stop demanding equality, accept their lower pay, and cede rights to their husbands, America would prosper. Jacoby notes that married women hate welfare while unmarried women collect it. "Julia is able to get an education, go to work, access health care, raise a child, launch a business, and retire in comfort." But Julia demonstrates what taxes do for all of us, not just women. Do not men benefit from all these programs? The last straw is the suggestion that only conservative women deplore their kids' exposure to sex and violence in popular culture. That pop culture is driven almost entirely by corporations supported by republicans glorifying violence for money.
I accept both of your comments. What I object to is the venomous anger with which some posters reply to his arguments. They make ad hominem attacks on Jacoby instead of replying to the substance of his column.
This comment has been removed.
Very insightful article. Although I'm a staunch Democrat, I agree with Jeff's assessment. Single women(especially uneducated single mothers) are very much on the margins economically. There is no question these voters would gravitate towards a party promoting policies friendly to them. The article raises the larger issue of marriage being an indicator of economic security. A married couple raising children are much more likely to be middle class than a single mother. The breakdown of marriage has been one of the biggest contributors of poverty in America.
Let's see. Woman gets married. Probably wants to have kids. Her days of struggling as a single woman are over. Her number one priority is to vigorously and selfishly assure that her family has everything it can in terms of money, safety, etc., with diminished regard for others. Yep, that sounds like republican country to me.
We have had the Equal Pay act since the 60's, let's try enforcing the laws we already have, no need for more, we can't even figure out the ones we already have.
The violence act against women, look it up, stuck in the senate. why do we need ANOTHER law, violence against anyone is against the law.
I have health care, don't you, if your talking about free birth control, that's absurd. I have a high deductible plan, my paps smears, mammograms are covered 100%.
the republicans are not trying to get rid of Planned parenthood, they feel the government shouldn't subsidize it, I agree. They use taxpayer money, 52% of americans are against abortions.
The reality is that marriage isn't as appealing to women today. Most will still have to work outside the home anyway to make ends meet. Many men are almost unemployable in today's economy. The security of yesteryear is a myth. Low wages and offshoring, union-busting and tax cuts for the wealthy put this country on its current road and no amount of blaming single women will change those facts. It's really a corporate America problem. The prospective husband just becomes another child to take care of, right girls? Why bother?
But who puts out these kinds of polls in the first places? It's somebody that is HOPING for a desired result. AND like most polls, it seems, the pollster REFUSES to divulge exactly what questions were asked, and what were the person's choice of answers? Were the questions "Leading", i.e. in legal terms, trying to draw the respondent to a conclusion?----And how many polls, if the result is not what the pollster (or the people who asked for the poll) hopes for, are then NOT RELEASED to the public?
Sir Winston Churchill
If you are 20 and not a liberal you have no heart, if you are 30 and not a conservative you have no brain.
Democrats = gimme stuff for free. Republicans = I earned all this stuff, don't take it all.
I agree that there is a link between single, uneducated mothers and poverty. But where does the solution lie? It seems obvious: better access to education. Access to birth control. Before the Republican Party has been taken over by Tea Partiers, it supported common sense solutions to entrenched social problems. Now it's beholden to Tea Partiers whose dogma is so pure that they won't even discuss realistic solutions.
If you want a good laugh, click on that Life of Julia link...according to Obama, he is a god and saved us all, while Romney wants to squash us all. My kids still don't qualify for Headstart and neither did Julia's...even though Obama acts like he made it so every kid could go...I can afford 4 hours per week, while others get 40 hours of free headstart with meals and transportation....instead o some getting all, maybe spread it so all can get some for free...
Churchill on health care for all: "The discoveries of healing science must be the inheritance of all. That is clear: Disease must be attacked, whether it occurs in the poorest or the richest man or woman simply on the ground that it is the enemy; and it must be attacked just in the sane way as the fire brigade will give its full assistance to the humblest cottage as readily as to the most important mansion….Our policy is to create a national health service in order to ensure that everybody in the country, irrespective of means, age, sex, or occupation, shall have equal opportunities to benefit from the best and most up-to-date medical and allied services available."
Sorry. Democrats = lets level the playing field and remember the middle class. Republicans = Corporations are people.
The program you describe is meant to keep poor working mothers who cannot afford daycare in their jobs. It would be great if it could be expanded, but if Mitt Romney wins and if we have more Republicans in Congress, look to see it get slashed while the welfare rolls rise.
Mr. Jacoby feeds into the right-wing "holier than thou" frenzy, with his assumption that married people lean to the right because of profanity and violence in society, and other affronts to "family values". The truth is that no political ideology has a lock on this. Politicians on both sides have engaged in corruption, infidelity, and public displays of profanity. Culturally, you have Fox-owned entertainment that produces potty-mouthed and unsavory themes, just as the "liberal" entertainment industry does. Country music is full of double-entrendres and tales of cheatin' hearts. And the southern part of the United States, that bastion of church-going conservatism and "family values", has a higher divorce rate than does their northern liberal neighbors. On a personal level, I know both Republicans and Democrats who have been in multiple marriages, committed adultery, and use foul language.
I just read where Joe Paterno, along with Pat Robertson, spoke at the Republican National Convention, as Dan "Family Values" Quayle was thrust onto the national stage…Need I say more? No one can boast of being the most 'moral'.
In terms of why single females (of which I am one) support Obama, it is unfair to claim that we are fearful and want the government to take care of us for the rest of our lives. We are no more fearful than my Republican married acquaintances, who decry government dependency, yet are happy to include social security and medicare in their retirement plans…and who fork over money to lawyers to shield their parents' wealth so that the taxpayers can foot the bill for nursing home care.
So I don't know why unmarrieds prefer Obama, but the values and dependency arguments don't wash.