WASHINGTON, Feb. 10, 2016 – There was an air of panic in the voice of former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright when during a campaign speech on behalf of Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton she told all females within earshot, “There’s a special place in hell for women who don’t help each other.”
Speaking ex cathedra for the feminist movement, Albright condemned to the flames of perdition the eternal souls of women supporting the candidacy of Sen. Bernie Sanders.
Hillary laughed with delight. She shouldn’t have.
In last Tuesday’s Democratic primary in New Hampshire, 53 percent of the female vote went to Sanders, 69 percent of it from women under 45. Women under 30 backed Bernie by 82 percent.
Feminist icon Gloria Steinem tried to explain the trouble Hillary is having appealing to young women voters while on HBO’s “Real Time with Bill Maher.”
“Men tend to get more conservative because they gain power as they age, and women tend to get more radical because they lose power as they age… but when you’re young, you’re thinking, ‘Where are the boys?’ The boys are with Bernie [Sanders],” said Steinem.
Steinem’s statement is a tacit recognition that differences just might exist between men and women after all.
Her mistake is thinking the mass migration of women to the Sanders camp issues from a youthful female expectation of whirlwind romance with “Bernie’s Bros.”
That’s because Steinem believes the old Freudian notion that all human action stems from the sexual impulse.
But John R. Lott Jr. (Yale University) and Lawrence W. Kenny (University of Florida) see it differently. In their 1999 study (“Did Women’s Suffrage Change the Size and Scope of Government?”) they examined women’s voting patterns and the significant role it plays in the growth of government:
“Women appear to be more risk-averse than men, but why do women choose to use the government rather than other mechanisms to provide insurance? Many government programs are primarily wealth transfer programs that do not merely provide insurance. Marriage also provides another economic basis for men’s and women’s preferences for different policies. It typically encourages men to accumulate market capital and leads women to acquire household skills and shoulder most of the child-rearing responsibilities. While the gains from marital specialization and from efficient statistical discrimination in the labor market can be internalized through marriage, divorced women often have been unable to recoup the full compensation for their family-specific investments through alimony. Women experience great difficulty in obtaining even court-ordered alimony payments. Since women tend to have lower incomes, they benefit more from various government programs that redistribute income to the poor, such as progressive taxation.”
It’s worth noting that the study was conducted while Hillary’s husband Bill was finishing his second term as president.
The study found that in the presidential contest between Bill Clinton and Republican and WWII hero and Sen. Robert Dole, “If men alone could have voted in the 1996 presidential election, Robert Dole would have been elected president by carrying 33 states.”
But women voters did not give Hillary’s husband a second term as president because of his irresistible animal magnetism. America’s “soccer moms” preferred “a more progressive tax system and more wealth transfers to low-income people as an alternative to a share of a husband’s uncertain future income [or alimony]… after women have to raise children on their own, they are more likely to classify themselves as liberal, vote for Democrats, and support policies such as progressive income taxation,” the study found.
In her book “My Life on the Road,” Steinem says the success of the Clinton marriage is because it’s a political union not based on old-fashioned ideas about sexual fidelity:
“If a sexual connection is the only bond between a husband and wife, an affair can make her feel replaceable – and perhaps cause her to be replaced. This was not only emotionally painful but devastating when it also meant losing social identity and economic security as well. I began to understand that Hillary represented the very public, in-your-face opposite of the precarious and unequal lives that some women were living.”
In other words, Hillary stayed with the philandering Bill for the sake of security, not economic per se, but the security she thought her marriage gave to her political ambitions.
Hillary’s rejection by New Hampshire’s female voters last Tuesday made “her feel replaceable,” which is “not only emotionally painful but devastating when it” comes to “losing social identity.”
Bernie Sanders, you see, is a better big-government sugar daddy than Hill or Bill.
Gloria Steinem’s feminist ideal of the strong and independent American woman is not dead.
She never existed.