According to decidedly non-sex-blogger Kos of DailyKos...
20 million single women did not vote in 2004, a demographic that is amongst the most solidly Democratic in the nation. If NARAL, Planned Parenthood, NOW, and others want to protect the important rights they’re trying to safeguard, they need to start finding ways to reach these women and other friendly voters. Marches ain’t the way to do it.
Now, a couple of critical points here. Kos is a political partisan and, in terms of this blog anyway I’m not partisan. So while Kos would like to see those 20 million single women getting more involved because they’re more likely going to vote for Democrats, I think it’s important that they get involved because it’s their country too, their states, their cities, their families, their partners, and their bodies on the line on issue after issue. It’s not as important to me whether they vote for Democrats, or Libertarians, or Socialist White People’s Party, or Republicans, or Greens. It matters that they matter to their representatives. People who don’t vote typically don’t get represented. Those 20 million women equal approximately 40 House of Representatives seats worth of votes. Depending on which states they lived in they represent as many as 34 Senators! (The seventeen least-populated states, Utah, Nevada New Mexico, West Virginia, Nebraska, Idaho, Maine, New Hampshire, Hawaii, Rhode Island, Montana, Delaware, SouthDakota, North Dakota, Alaska, Vermont, and Wyoming have just under 20.5 million put together.) Oh yeah, and according to this article from 2004 Kos’s 20 million estimate counts only single women who are registered to vote but didn’t do so. There were another 16 million who weren’t even registered! (Hmm… let’s see 86 million single adults in America, estimate half are women so 43 million, of whom somewhere between 20 million and 36 million didn’t vote… Well, if those numbers are right then… yikes!)
Anyway, the point isn’t that these women vote one way or another. It’s the 21st Century in what has been one of the most free and democratic countries in the world for more than 200 years. Single women are playing an increasingly important role in this century, in this country, and yet no women, let alone any single women, were present when, say, President Bush signed a bill outlawing certain types of abortion.
Again, I’m not saying that if more single women got out and voted that the bill in question would have been defeated rather than signed into law. Instead I’m saying that it’s just whacky that the only witnesses present were smiling, happy, largely elderly men!
My partner was a single woman until some time after I met her. Whether she decides to marry or not, my daughter will spend some part of her adult life as a single woman. It’s important to me that when the time comes for her to take up the reins of the world (as I think Hannah Arendt once called it) that there be a place for her to do so. Anyway, the point is that it doesn’t matter to me so much how people vote, how single women vote, how my daughter some day votes, as it matters that we, and they, and someday she is able to enjoy both the privileges and responsibilities that come with being a free, autonomous, self-determined citizen of this most promise-filled and possibility-rich nation.
You got any single women friends? Ask ‘em to come on down. Their world is waiting for them. If they don’t the remind them someone else will be more than willing to do it for — and to — them!
Submitted by 639 (not verified) on Wed, 2006-03-01 04:13.
well said fl!
Personally I think it's not only important but absolutely fundamental that all people vote. Especially Americans. Your politics affects so many other lives, including my own. It makes me angry and sad that I would so happily vote in your elections when many, many Americans can't be bothered.
As for single women, I think in these times where church/state lines are blurring and that is being helped along by a conservative gov, then it is imperative for single women to vote. There are so many reasons for this.
[Don't get me wrong about the whole liberal/conservative/Republican/Democrat thing. I'm pretty sure single women are as politically diverse as any other group and no doubt some would applaud almost any policies. What's important, though, is that they, and their single male equivalents, *be part of those decisions* and not passive recipients. No group is more wise or saintly than any other, but that's not the point. The point is everyone who's affected by policy should have, and exercise, their say in how it's formed. Thanks, M. --fl]
Submitted by 639 (not verified) on Wed, 2006-03-01 10:09.
I serve a lot of low income people where I work, and I tell them the same thing: use your voice, be counted, even if I don't agree with you. Think about it. There are so many of us, and a lot of these decisions affect our ability to meet basic needs. We provide voter registration cards and mail them for them.
[Exactly! Even if I don't agree with you it's important that you be there. Otherwise you don't own what happens, it owns you. Thanks, Xenovia. --fl]
Submitted by 639 (not verified) on Wed, 2006-03-01 10:13.
Excellent post, Figleaf.
However, this ties in with the questions I raised about the 60-80 hour work week. Perhaps my ironic reference to the long hours as a contraceptive distracted from what I was really asking. But when you are working that much you can't be a good parent, partner, lover or citizen. Exhaustion paves the way for a "whatever" attitude, even when voting is concerned. So I think there are very significant implications for our society due to a work week that continues to grow in length and extend itself into our homes via technology (cell phone, computer, etc.) and custom.
Kochanie
[Years ago I heard a lecture on an old artificial business language one of the big, big companies developed back in the late 50s or early 60s called something like "modelnetics." One of the "verbs" in this language was a symbol called "ports of opportunity." You were supposed to apply this verb to employees as a way to think about their total obligations including family, church, civic involvement, recreation, health, and of course work. The goal of thinking with this verb was to recognize *and ideally reduce to a minimum* any "ports" that weren't work. The language, incidentally, was never really put into use but it described real tendencies. Ironically, of course, the symbols were also of great interest in the hard-core communist countries which *also* had a vested interest in increasing worker productivity at the expense of civic involvement. ::: As for cell phones and email, if it wasn't for those I wouldn't be able to work at home and spend so much time with my family, nor would I have had time to blog if I was still commuting more than 100 minutes a day! Thanks, Kochanie. --fl]
Submitted by 639 (not verified) on Wed, 2006-03-01 18:00.
reduce to a minimum any "ports" that were not work...
The mere thought is frightening and the fact that is what has happened even more so. Of course, we work so many hours to buy things we don't need and incur debt we can't afford.
I am glad that technology has made your life better in a work from home scenario. However, I was referring to the poor folks who are at the office 60 hours a week and are still connected 24/7. Was it Sartre who wrote a play in which the characters come to realize that they are in hell because they have no eyelids? That's what 24/7 is -- no eyelids.
Thanks again, Figleaf.
[Yeeks! Someone was talking on the radio about a new drug big Pharma is all excited about that lets you stay awake 22 hours a day. Whee! Mix it with a nice libido-suppressing anti-depressant and we can all have 120-hour work weeks. 'Course none of us would have kids but then without 'em we could all work even longer. And bringing it all back to the topic of this post, it would end the abortion wars to boot. #$!%!@$ :-) --fl]
Submitted by 639 (not verified) on Wed, 2006-03-01 18:35.
Fig,
Beautiful post. Spot on. I hear people - Hell, women talk about how they can't believe so-and-so got elected, what do they have in common with (fill in the blank--Usually male, white, wealthy, private education) and what right do they have to tell the complainer how to live?? Then ask them if they vote. The excuses come fast and furious... I didn't have a babysitter, not re-registered since moving, have to go grocery shopping instead, oh and they pull you for jury duty from registrations...
My city has made an effort to allow early voting, remote voting, voting by mail... They will bend over backwards to get you to vote... There is no excuse to not vote. This is YOUR RIGHT. If you're not registered to vote, no matter WHAT the reason, if you're allowed to vote, there is NO EXCUSE to not be registered to vote. Period. It's YOUR VOICE, use it.
*putting away soapbox*
Again, beautiful post, hon. And I'm still digging the shower ;)
[Good for you and good for your city. Thanks, DN.
Submitted by 639 (not verified) on Thu, 2006-03-02 18:41.
In a recent election, I voted, not because I thought my voted made a difference, nor because I didn't have anything else to do (I think I had all of 30 minutes to vote & eat dinner)...mainly I think when it came down to that day I voted because another young female co-worker made me promised I'd go and atleast cast a ballot. It was a non-partisan, just vote request. So in the end I went, because at the very least one person cared enough about elections.
[Thanks for voting, Kitty. --fl]
Submitted by 639 (not verified) on Sun, 2007-04-01 00:38.
One serious problem is that many men and women feel strongly about this but very few of them vote. The real secret is not in convincing them about this issue, but convincing them the secret is to vote.
[Thanks, BLS. --fl]