In an op-ed piece in the Australian yesterday http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/abbotts-not-such-a-turnoff-for-women-20100306-ppl3.html , Stephanie Peatling makes the rather wistful comment:

"Talking about the "women's vote" is a bit like trying to pin down the "ethnic" or "religious" vote.

In all cases there is an implicit assumption that the people in these groups are more likely to vote the same way because of their gender, ethnicity or beliefs.

It is not, however, generally assumed men vote in a similar way because of the Y chromosome."

She made a strong case for her view, but I still wonder whether she's tilting at a windmill.

While not all women will vote the same way obviously, my suspicion is that women, when making voting decisions, do tend to focus on aspects of policies that they see as being "woman-friendly" or "family friendly".

Which particular policies those may be in individual cases will vary somewhat, but the overall weighting given to such policies will generally be higher than for men.

Once, the vast majority of women in Australia read one of the ACP stable of magazines weeklyand their views were strongly shaped by what Dulcie Boling or Ita Buttrose put forward. The "women's vote" was really the "Buttrose vote" to a very large degree, which made her and Packer very powerful figures politically

Today, that is no longer true, but there is a large amount of money given by governments to groups whose raison d'etre is mobilising women to vote in particular ways on "women's issues".

If Ms Peatling is right, those groups are a waste of money, since they are not achieving their aim: politicians cannot rely on them to deliver votes, thus simplifying policy-making decisions.

Is she right, or are women still more likely to answer the dog-whistle?

No, of course not Anti. We all know women vote for Ruddy, because of his lovely blow dried hair.

Why do some people think women make up a homogenous group?

As far as women's issues go both sides of politics are equal in ensuring women do not face discrimination and those protections are in law. One might argue the case that some discrimination may occur regardless but men are also discriminated against particularly in Family Law. Although the changes to the system have improved this state somewhat.

It was Howard that reformed the Family Law and set up relationship centres around Australia but I am sure not all men voted for Howard on this one issue.

Abbott is more open and honest about his own personal feelings but we would be stupid if we took that as being broader Liberal policy.

Women vote for their chosen party for the same reasons as men - some might be more focussed on comparing policies others on the hip pocket.

I suspect IMO, women who wouldn't vote Libs because of the ironing or virginity comments would not have voted for him anyway and those comments just served as validation for their decision.

Hasbeen
I actually think Abbott is sexier than Rudd but thankfully we don't vote on looks.

Some people may actually vote for Labor in spite of Rudd rather than their vote being a sign of approval of his leadership.

Pelican, it really was a joke.

If being more manley is sexier, then I expect you are right, but it is not an area of experise for me.

I'm sure that you are right, other wise. I would think there are quite a few labor voters who still vote that way despite Rudd being the leader, not because of.

I have found that a number of ladies who used to think he was 'nice" now see him as a bit of a poser.

Many women I know vote at elections for exactly the same reasons as men really.
Antiseptic <" While not all women will vote the same way obviously, my suspicion is that women, when making voting decisions, do tend to focus on aspects of policies that they see as being "woman-friendly" or "family friendly"."

By making that assumption, are you suggesting that men don't care about issues that affect their family and the women in their lives?
Most men want what is good for the education, and financial benefits for their family, if they have dependent children, just like women.

Other men who are older or retiring soon may want what is best for pensioners or retirees, just like women.

I do agree that some anti-female attitudes by some politicians may sway women's votes though. And if the politicians had said something about men's groups or family court issues that men didn't like, then they might not vote for them either.

I guess what I am saying is that men and women vote for much the same reasons. It all depends on the policies and personalities at the time.

I am sure you are right Suze, apart from the pensioners. I know quite a few, & they are all more interested in their kids welfare than their own.

I do see some complain here, or on talk back radio, about lower interest rates, & I think them very greedy. They, like me, would have been putting their wealth together under much easier circumstances.

When I bought my first house, which cost only 4 times average wage, on about the average wage I was paying 7.5% tax, & the interest on my bank housing loan was 4.25%. I think this rate was law.

I have witnessed enough animated discussions between some ladies to know, many of them have a quite different outlook to each other, & to many men.