US Democratic Senator Barack Obama and Republican Senator John McCain are the contenders in the presidential election this year, but the campaign has also been dominated by two very different women, Democratic Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton and Republican vice presidential candidate Alaska Governor Sarah Palin. Indeed, many observers believe that women will determine the election’s outcome. So, to paraphrase Sigmund Freud, “What do American women want?”
Until the 1960s, women were more likely to support Republicans. In the 1980 election, a different gap emerged, with women more likely to support Democrats. In 1996, women’s support for former US president Bill Clinton was 14 percentage points higher than men’s, and in 2000 women favored former US vice president Al Gore over US President George W. Bush by 12 points.
But since 1996, the political gender gap has been halved. The women gravitating back to the Republicans, according to conventional wisdom, are “security moms” — suburban wives and mothers who started worrying about their families’ safety after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. McCain’s selection of Palin was an attempt to appeal to these mothers and to pick up votes from women disappointed at Clinton’s loss.
But the shift to Republicans from 2001 was largely confined to Southern white women. In the US as a whole, notes political scientist Karen Kaufmann, 50 percent of mothers with children voted for Bush in 2000, and this dipped to 49 percent in 2004. But Southern white women, who were much more likely than Southern white men to support Bill Clinton in 1996 and Gore in 2000, were less likely than Southern men to support Democratic Senator John Kerry in 2004. There is now a bigger difference between the voting preferences of Southern white women and white women in the rest of the US than between men and women.
Outside the South, female voters are less likely to be hawkish on foreign policy and more likely to support spending on health, education and other social welfare programs. Women also tend to be more sympathetic to efforts to reduce income inequality, although African-American men are just as “compassionate” on these issues as African-American women.
Can parties win by appealing to gender? Women do like to see other women emerge as leaders. When the Democrats nominated Geraldine Ferraro for vice president in 1984, she attracted huge crowds, just like Palin. Shortly after Palin’s nomination, one in three white women said they were more likely to vote for McCain.
At first glance, it seems reasonable that the parties might be able to translate gender consciousness into a unified voting bloc. Women do have common interests, especially on controlling reproductive decisions and protection against sexual exploitation and rape.
Most women also recognize and resent that the media judge them more harshly than they judge men. And, because women generally expect to bear most of the responsibility for nurturing children, they tend to evaluate social policies through this lens.
But how women address gender-based reproductive, sexual and family interests varies by their class position and their personal options outside the family. Women who compete in the labor market generally support efforts to challenge sexual double standards and vigorously prosecute sexual harassment. But women who are more dependent on a husband often accept a double standard that stresses female purity and male gallantry. These women believe adherence to stereotyped gender roles protects “good” women.
Women also know they are usually paid less and have less chance for professional advancement. But they may choose different strategies for coping with these disadvantages. Those who support themselves outside marriage tend to favor expanding economic opportunities for women and to oppose laws and values that give authority to husbands and fathers.
By contrast, women with less economic autonomy may feel their interests are best met by emphasizing family hierarchies and reciprocal duties. Wifely deference may be seen as reinforcing the husband’s obligation to support the family.
Even on issues like contraception and abortion, women’s positions are sometimes influenced by conflicting assessments. Women who plan to postpone marriage while building their careers are far more likely to want to ensure that they can avoid or end an unintended pregnancy. But women who believe that their best hope for security is to find a husband often tell interviewers that if other women are allowed to escape the biological consequences of having sex, men will be less willing to offer marriage in return for it.
Likewise, women who want to stay home with children tend to favor tax breaks or subsidies, whereas women who want to combine work and family are more likely to support more childcare and guaranteed parental leave.
In the long run, these differences outweigh women’s commonalities. Palin’s approval ratings among women fell as they learned about what she stands for. The main reason some women — and even more men — are more likely to vote for a McCain-Palin combination is not because of Palin’s gender but because her presence on the ticket reassures social conservatives of McCain’s willingness to accommodate their agenda.
But Palin may have had an unintended effect on the views of social conservatives. The Pew Research Center found only 20 percent of Republicans said they would support a female candidate who had school-age children. Today, those Republicans find little to criticize in the fact that Palin returned to work three days after the birth of her last child. In supporting a woman’s choice to combine motherhood with a demanding job, social conservatives seem to agree with long-time feminists.
Stephanie Coontz teaches history at Evergreen State College in Olympia, Washington, and is director of research and public education at the Council on Contemporary Families.
COPYRIGHT: PROJECT SYNDICATE
We are used to hearing that whenever something happens, it means Taiwan is about to fall to China. Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) cannot change the color of his socks without China experts claiming it means an invasion is imminent. So, it is no surprise that what happened in Venezuela over the weekend triggered the knee-jerk reaction of saying that Taiwan is next. That is not an opinion on whether US President Donald Trump was right to remove Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro the way he did or if it is good for Venezuela and the world. There are other, more qualified
This should be the year in which the democracies, especially those in East Asia, lose their fear of the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) “one China principle” plus its nuclear “Cognitive Warfare” coercion strategies, all designed to achieve hegemony without fighting. For 2025, stoking regional and global fear was a major goal for the CCP and its People’s Liberation Army (PLA), following on Mao Zedong’s (毛澤東) Little Red Book admonition, “We must be ruthless to our enemies; we must overpower and annihilate them.” But on Dec. 17, 2025, the Trump Administration demonstrated direct defiance of CCP terror with its record US$11.1 billion arms
China’s recent aggressive military posture around Taiwan simply reflects the truth that China is a millennium behind, as Kobe City Councilor Norihiro Uehata has commented. While democratic countries work for peace, prosperity and progress, authoritarian countries such as Russia and China only care about territorial expansion, superpower status and world dominance, while their people suffer. Two millennia ago, the ancient Chinese philosopher Mencius (孟子) would have advised Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) that “people are the most important, state is lesser, and the ruler is the least important.” In fact, the reverse order is causing the great depression in China right now,
As technological change sweeps across the world, the focus of education has undergone an inevitable shift toward artificial intelligence (AI) and digital learning. However, the HundrED Global Collection 2026 report has a message that Taiwanese society and education policymakers would do well to reflect on. In the age of AI, the scarcest resource in education is not advanced computing power, but people; and the most urgent global educational crisis is not technological backwardness, but teacher well-being and retention. Covering 52 countries, the report from HundrED, a Finnish nonprofit that reviews and compiles innovative solutions in education from around the world, highlights a