Class Issues: The Bottom Line For Feminist Change?

Off Our Backs, Jan/Feb 2005 by Mantilla, Karla

Presidential elections have long had a gender gap. Since 1980, the average gap between women and men in voting has been eight percentage points, with women voting more Democratic than men. The gender gap for the 2004 election was slightly less than the average, at seven points. It makes sense that women would be more likely to vote for Democratic candidates because of women's greater support for abortion rights, health care, education, and social programs and lesser support of military and defense spending.

Bush's record on women has been particularly abysmal. He is more anti-choice than past republican presidents. He aims to slash social security, which is vitally important for older women, 2/3 of whom rely on social security and are living in poverty. Bush obsesses about fetuses and stem cells while cutting funding for a variety of social and health programs for women and children. He funds the death and destruction of war, which more men than women find tolerable. So it makes sense that there would be a gender gap in voting for Bush.

The marriage gap?

The gap in voting between married and unmarried women in the recent election was remarkable 22 points. Married women were more likely to vote for Bush (54%), while unmarried women overwhelmingly voted for Kerry (68%). What explains such a dramatic gap in voting between married and unmarried women? Surely married women care about health care, education, social security and choice-these issues affect married women as well as unmarried women. What could explain such a huge discrepancy in voting patterns? It looks as though married women feel less allegiance to women's issues than unmarried women. Why would this be?

How much is a husband worth?

Why would there be such a difference in the allegiances of married and unmarried women? The issue of class, or, more plainly, access to money, is key. It turns out that the gap between single and unmarried women in voting patterns is paralleled by their disparate financial situations. It is illuminating to see what a financial difference marriage makes for women, especially mothers-and over 80% of women become mothers.

In 2001, married mothers had a mean household income of $82,000, compared to $36,300 for single mothers. (see the chart titled "Average Household Income.") Of course, household income often reflects the income of two earners as opposed to one, but it is important to see that married mothers are just one husband away from being single mothers. On average, it costs mothers nearly $46,000 per year to be single rather than married. Given the dramatic financial costs for mothers of being single, it makes sense that married mothers' allegiances would lie with their husbands-that is, they may not be willing to do things to alienate him. After all, how much would you be willing to put up with for an additional $46,000 per year?

An even more significant indicator of financial status is net worth.* (see chart titled "Who's Doing Best Financially?") Single mothers had an average household net worth of $12,700, with more than half having an average net worth of zero or even a negative net worth. Mothers who have never been married had an average household net worth of only $1,600. Married mothers had a net worth of $67,800-over 5 times as much as single mothers and 42 times more than never-married mothers! It seem that the current economic system is set up to guarantee that it is in women's financial interest to get married and stay married.

It gets worse with age.

The dramatic gap in financial well-being continues for old women. The median financial assets** available for older women (see Chart titled "Who is better off at age 65-75?") was $53,700 for married mothers, $12,000 mothers who were single mothers for fewer than 10 years (over 4 times less than married mothers), and $1,000 for mothers who were single mothers for more than 10 years of their life (nearly 54 times less than married mothers'). Single women who had no children had median financial assets of $25,800 (half as much as married mothers).

Is marriage the best financial advice for women?

Married women and mothers have a significant financial advantage over single, widowed, divorced or never-married women. The bottom line is that the single biggest financial gain women can make is to marry a man and stay married. And it may be that such a dramatically different financial position shapes where a good number of married women's interests and allegiances lie: more with men than with women. They know which side their bread is buttered on and vote accordingly.

It makes sense why men would want to keep access to money for themselves-it keeps women trapped into marriage to avoid poverty, especially in old age. And the imperative to be married to a man for mothers is even stronger. Single mothers really struggle financially compared to married mothers, who fare quite well compared to all other women.

So the payoff for remaining loyal to men is high. Yet, given these financial statistics it is a testimony to how much women want to be independent of men that so many do remain single or get divorced. How many women are putting up with being talked down to, demeaned or ignored by their husbands, but know that the poverty or near poverty they would face as single mothers would be worse? How many married women diet, undergo cosmetic surgery, take Botox treatments, get breast implants or otherwise make their looks a central part of their life to keep their husband interested, knowing the financial alternatives? After all, a woman's physical attractiveness can determine whether she is deemed acceptable or traded in for "a newer model." How many women put up with emotional or physical abuse because to them, the cost of financial hardships is at least as bad or worse?