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.

Yes Hasbeen, I see what you mean.

Take me as an example of a not-so-usual female voter I think.
As soon as I hear something about religious issues swaying the opinions or policies of a politician or political party, I am appalled and find another party to go for!

It may not always be logical of course, but I am always worried that issues like abortion will be outlawed again, or that euthanasia will never be voted upon, or that somehow Sharia law will be considered as a valid court in this country.

Abbott will never, ever get my vote because he is just way too old-fashioned religious for my liking.

suzeonline, "It may not always be logical of course, but I am always worried that issues like abortion will be outlawed again, or that euthanasia will never be voted upon, or that somehow Sharia law will be considered as a valid court in this country."

Regressive law is always on the cards and multiculturalism can top feminism, SMH today:

'Muslim leader wants elements of sharia in Australia
PAUL BIBBY
March 8, 2010

ELEMENTS of Islamic law - the sharia - should be legally recognised in Australia so that Muslims can live according their faith, a prominent Muslim leader says.

Addressing an open day at Lakemba Mosque on Saturday, the president of the Australian Islamic Mission, Zachariah Matthews, said parts of sharia could be recognised as a secondary legal system so that Muslims were not forced to act contrary to their beliefs. ''Sharia law could function as a parallel system in the same way that some traditional Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander law was recognised in the Northern Territory,'' Dr Matthews told the Herald after the session.

''I don't think we are so unsophisticated that we cannot consider a multilayered legal system as long as it doesn't conflict with the existing civil system.''

.....

But Dr Matthews said he was referring only to certain elements of family law and inheritance law and was not advocating the sharia penal system.

''I wasn't talking about sharia law in its entirety - we are not calling for the introduction of the penal system which calls for cutting off hands,'' he said.

Dr Matthews said a clash occurred in some custody matters. ''Under sharia law, if a couple divorce and the mother remarries, her former husband has the right to decide whether the children will live with the new husband or not,'' Dr Matthews said.

''There is still a preference for the child to go with the mother, but the father has the ultimate decision.

''This does not exist in Australian law but I do not believe it clashes fundamentally with Australian values or the Australian legal system.'''

www.smh.com.au/national/muslim-leader-wants-elements-of-sharia-in-australia-20100307-pqlo.html

"Pelican, it really was a joke. "

No worries Hasbeen. I took it that way.

Suze I also believe one-issue choices can be strong such as you mention in the case of pensioners.

The other strong one-issue would be superannuants who were led to believe that the Rudd government would make changes to indexation - which of course they did not. However, the opposition has no plans in this regard either so it leaves a bit of a stalemate except for Independents and minor parties.

Cornflower
Should any party advocate for the changes you posted above, I would suspect it would be the death knell. Secular democracies don't usually embrace changes to legislation based on religious preferences. The irony being that many Muslims would not be in favour of a return to sharia law even if it is only in respect of inheritance and child custody matters.

Pelican, I hope you are right about secular societies shunning religious based laws. Happy International Women's Day by the way!

Cornflower, all this discussion about some Muslims wanting ANY part of Sharia law implemented in Australia is bringing me out in a cold sweat.

If any Muslim coming to this country is still keen on Sharia law principles, then I think they should live in a country that provides those laws.

If I went to live in such a country, I would respect their laws, and I shudder to think what would happen to me if I started agitating
publicly about changing their laws to suit my preferences!

Sharia law principles will never be enacted in this country - we just won't allow it!

What a load of stereotyping.

Anti you must in live a permanent state of disappointed every time a woman, any woman fails to comply with your narrow perspective.

Men and women are not singleminded organisms. We are not hive-people. Men are just as likely to vote in favour of issues favouring families and for equal rights for their wives, sisters, daughters, mothers, girlfriends and grannies.

Your topic straightjackets men just as much as it attempts to homogenise half the population.

Why would women EVER vote for Family First? Tony Abbott? I don't know, but women do. But then I am not privy to the thoughts of any other person - male or female.

Why would straight men vote for Bob Brown? Because they consider the politics not his sexual orientation. Why would men vote for buddgie smuggler Abbott - because they consider the politics not his.....

What is the true agenda of this topic, Antiseptic?

how quaint!
men oblige women to elect candidates to men's legislatures only and entertain speculation
as to how they may vote.
the puppet master indulging his puppet in the democracy of delusion.

pelican, "Should any party advocate for the changes you posted above, I would suspect it would be the death knell."

No, the change can be implemented by informal means. Example from the UK experience:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article4749183.ece

suzeonline, "Sharia law principles will never be enacted in this country - we just won't allow it!"

We don't allow child marriage for the mainstream population either, but authorities including the courts, do turn a blind eye to it where Aboriginal girls are concerned - and there are no arguments about informed consent.

Polygamy? Recognised by Centrelink.

Incremental change.

Dear Antiseptic,

I read an interesting article in "The Age,"
Saturday, March 6th 2010 (Insight, page 3),
by Gabriella Coslovich, in which she says:

"...We live in times when women are constantly
given advice on how to live and what to aspire to,
to safeguard their precious gift of virginity, to
put children before completing their PhDs, to
lower their standards, to stay skinny, cook, clean,
and do as men say..."

And then you have publicists such as Max Markson who
said of his "celebrity" client Lara Bingle (only
days before the scandal broke over the naked photo
in the shower):

"It's because of her relationship with Australian
cricketer Michael Clarke that makes her interesting.
Without him, her worth would be cut to about a fifth..."

Yet amid all this cultural noise you get facts that
the author points out. Facts such as:

1) More women go to tertiary studies than men.
But they continue to be under-represented in
Parliament, Ministerial positions, as Legislators,
Senior Officials, and Managers.

2) On average women earn 17 per cent less than men.
Pay differentials have gone backwards in recent decades.

3) Occupations that are traditionally seen as women's
work, such as nursing, teaching, and child-care,
are typically lower paid than male-dominated industries.

4) There's a superannuation crisis looming for women who
on average have $3 for every $10 men have in their
super accounts.

These are all issues that could be important to women.
However, as other posters have pointed out - we're not
all the same, and what's important to one, may not
be important to another. How we vote depends on how deeply
we care about certain issues, and whether party
loyalties feature in the equation, as
well as the importance (or not), of the
personalities involved.

Each of us (male or female) are multi-faceted individuals,
with our own take on things - and how we vote will be based
on what is important to us, rather than what a
magazine/newspaper, or personality tells us should be
important.

if a majority of the parliament don't like how women vote legislation can be passed to simply ban
women from voting and being elected to the parliament.
any discussion on how women vote must be accompanied with the qualification that their vote is
entirely dependent upon how men feel at any particular moment in time or the discussion is
disingenuous and dishonest.
only a majority of registered voters in a majority of states can ban men.

Hay Foxy, do you think that after years of equal pay, womens pay has slipped, perhaps, because employers have finally figgered out what most of them are really worth.

Don't worry about womens super, they will just divorce their husbands, & the family court will give them his, [& hers as well].

Whistler, that sounds like a great idea mate. Can you suggest how we would get them off the roads though, so we could drive our cars. The silly things would be marching all over the place, just like they did a hundred tears ago. No sense of justice, you know, as well as overpaid, that's their problem.

Runs for cover!

Hasbeen the only inalienable right a woman in Australia has right now is the right to male supervision.
feel free to give full reign your diabolical fantasies.
all other rights men granted women which men may take away.
the provision of a women's legislature is the only way women will ever obtain equal rights with men.

whistler
How would you reconcile a women's legislature with issues like Family Law that involve men, women and children?

What sorts of issues would the legislature deal with? Would criminal sentences vary for women and men for the same crime under such as system?

Surely the law has to be even-handed without fear or favour on the basis of gender, age, race or religion.

Dear Hasbeen,

I like your sense of humour!

Seriously though, we all have issues that
are important to us, at least that's my
reasoning in the way we choose who to vote for.

Foxy

The attitude expressed by your quote is disgusting.

"We live in times when women are constantly given advice on how to live and what to aspire to, to safeguard their precious gift of virginity, to put children before completing their PhDs, to lower their standards, to stay skinny, cook, clean,and do as men say..."

As we all go through life, we all receive criticism, unsolicited advice, nasty comments and all manner of other comments on our behaviour from other people. If we never listened to any of this, society would fall apart. It is only women, who are told that this is controlling. Why should women be 'protected' from this? Do some people think that women have such fragile little egos that they need to be 'protected' from any and all criticism?

Thanks for the responses, folks.

Allowing for the digressions, the consensus among the women who responded seems to be that they believe they vote the way they do for good, rational reasons that are unrelated to their gender other than peripherally.

I'm very glad and not at all surprised to hear that. I'm sure that almost all women would respond similarly if asked.

Pelican said "both sides of politics are equal in ensuring women do not face discrimination", which begs the question: what if they weren't? What if the perception could be created that they weren't?

Would women still vote on other issues, or would a goodly proportion vote against the party that was perceived as "anti-women" even if the proposed policies would have no impact personally. Perhaps you're post-menopausal and a party has an anti-abortion policy, for example. Does it influence your vote?

The final part of my initial post asked if all those "women's advocacy" groups are worth the money that government pays them. A major reason to fund them is their claim to represent women in matters political, yet if women are truly as independent of thought as has been claimed here, then they cannot possibly do so, surely?

Is the Office for Women a waste of time if women are so heterogenous? How can it possibly be all things to all women and hence, how can it fail to discriminate?

Suzeonline:"are you suggesting that men don't care about issues that affect their family and the women in their lives? "

No, of course not. I'm suggesting that men are less likely to think much of specifically "family friendly" policies unless they put more money in the bank and they're much less likely to prioritise such policies

Dear benk,

Thank You for being so open and honest
in your feelings about the quote I cited.
(Don't hold back, tell us what you really think).

However, my point was that there are many issues
that may concern some women - and these are
issues that may influence the way they vote.

I wasn't attempting to speak for all women by
any means, and I thought that I'd made that
clear in my post when I said that we're all
(men and women) multi-faceted individuals
and that we shouldn't be lumped together
because we vote as individuals.
Perhaps you should re-read the post?

And perhaps you should examine the chip on
your shoulder - heaven forbid should you lose it!

pelican, equal rights legislation is reconciled in the women's and the men's jurisdictions of ALL courts.
Australian law already considers "a person's sexual identity [is] determined by their ''brain sex'', not their genitalia".
http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/court-gave-teen-the-right-to-change-gender-from-boy-to-girl-20100305-popg.html
the aptly titled doctrine of 'mens rea' determines that if there are women's and men's minds, at law there are women's and men's jurisdictions.
the efficiency dividend once the indecision of what might be on the mind of the opposite sex is removed, sourced from the vote sent through parliament and secured in the courts, can be measured in squillions.

the parliament of an equal rights republic, elected from the women's vote for female candidates to a women's legislature and the men's vote for male candidates to a men's legislature, enacts law when the legislatures reach agreement on the same issue, exactly the same as the federal parliament now only gendered.
criminal sentences are negotiated exactly the same as they are now, only with the collective agreement of women and men interpreted in courts of women's and men's jurisdiction.

if the law is even-handed on the basis of gender, it's even-handed on the basis of every demographic comprising
gender including age, race and religion.