Harper & the Gender Gap

August1991 · August 26, 2007

A gender gap has hobbled the Conservatives - and their precursors the Reform Party and the Canadian Alliance - off and on for nearly a decade. In the 2006 election, according to a study by five Canadian academics, there was a six-point gender gap on the right, with men more favourable to the Conservatives than women, and a five-point gap on the left, with women more likely than men to support the NDP. As small as these variances might appear, they had the effect of blocking a Conservatives majority.
The gap has persisted: According to polls done between April and July this year for the Globe and Mail and CTV News, 39 per cent of Canadian men supported the Conservatives, whereas only 29 per cent of women did. In Quebec, there was an eight-point gap, with 22 per cent of men and 14 per cent of women saying they vote for the Conservatives.

Janet Bagnall

The paper states this in its abstract:

This paper uses data from the 2006 Canadian election study to assess their argument that the “modern gender gap” is rooted in cultural differences between women and men rather than in structural and situational differences. While there is some evidence that public sector employment and higher education help to explain why women are more likely than men to vote for the NDP, their impact is offset by religiosity. Women tend to be more religious than men and this helps to explain why many women remain attracted to the Conservatives. The most important factors in explaining why men are more likely than women to vote for the right-wing party and women are more likely than men to vote for the left-wing party are clearly cultural. Women are more skeptical than men of market-based arguments, less ready to embrace closer ties with the US, and more liberal when it comes to social mores and alternative lifestyles.

U de M

The paper is a curious mixture of leftist mumbo-jumbo and feminist cant:

Rising levels of education, the increasing average age of first marriage, a growing divorce rate, and movement into the paid work force have all made for increased economic and psychological independence from men. The key point is that more women now have the autonomy they need in order to express their differences from men.

(So women express their independence by voting for a corrupt party that promises but never delivers on more ways for the government to spend taxpayers' money. Hmmm.)

A July 2007 Strategic Counsel poll gave this:

Male Lib 27%, CPC 37%, NDP 17%, BQ 10%, Green 10%
Female Lib 36%, CPC 26%, NDP 18%, BQ 10%, Green 10%

Link

IOW, women and men support the Liberals and Tories in directly opposite proportions.

Incidentally, we have discussed this in another thread that got awfully hihjacked. For better or worse, I thought that I'd start a new thread.

----

Looking at this different evidence, and the fact that in the past men tended to support left-wing parties more than women, it's hard not to conclude that women simply (and generally of course) prefer the status quo and are risk-averse. Harper was presented as a threat or at least a change. The SC poll above shows no difference in men and women's NDP support.

To win a majority, Harper is going to have to do better in Quebec, better in urban Canada or better with women. He must do sufficiently better among these groups to win about 30 more seats. The thing about women's votes is that they are spread out across the country and a few more can make the difference in close ridings.

This underlies the idea that each day of a minority government brings Harper one day closer to a majority government. As women become comfortable with Harper as PM, he and his government will in effect become the status quo.

I could be wrong but I suspect that most women pay even less attention to politics on a daily basis than most men do. Current polls of women provide a better understanding of what they thought in the last election. If we were to have an election now or next year, I think many women would revise their opinion of Harper. He has been reliable and trustworthy. His values in fact are not that far from what many women would want.

Edited August 26, 2007 by August1991

M.Dancer · August 27, 2007

My wife is vocal about Harper. She doesn't pay much attention to politics but whenever he is on TV she comments about his looks and charisma. She says someone in his position should at least be able to go to Harry Rosen and get a suit that fits him properly. About his charisma she feels he doesn't project empathy or sincerity.

I agree with her about his clothes but once I see a politician projecting sincerity I can no, longer trust anything they say.

Edited August 27, 2007 by M.Dancer

Fortunata · August 27, 2007

She says someone in his position should at least be able to go to Harry Rosen and get a suit that fits him properly. About his charisma she feels he doesn't project empathy or sincerity.
I agree with her about his clothes but once I see a politician projecting sincerity I can no, longer trust anything they say.

In order for the public to feel confidence in a leader he must look like a leader, not someone who doesn't appear to care about his appearance, including fitness. During the election there was much ado about the policy for fitness for kids; you can now get a tax rebate for enrolling your children in sports to promote fitness. Another one of Steve's do as I say not as I do. If he wanted believability he would show that he takes fitness seriously and get into a program himself. As it is now the optics is one of bribes for votes. Not sincere.

One of his big problems is that he comes across as calculating instead of caring. He is an elitist but one without the common touch. I think he figures if he says something that should be enough - he doesn't have to show it. His crime bill is not because he feels for victims of crime it purely political - an area that he knows people get upset about so it will get him votes. His previous stance on environment and health care prove his uncaring. The environment is a nuisance to business and health care should be a personal choice and he doesn't care whether poor people can afford private health care or not. The safe injection site in Vancouver is another example of his indifference to human life and his elitism.

IMO this man cares not for humans or humanity, he cares about policy and how his policies should work. He cares about the upper crust and hopes the lower crusts will just go away; he doesn't care that it shows he doesn't care.

August1991 · August 28, 2007

In order for the public to feel confidence in a leader he must look like a leader, not someone who doesn't appear to care about his appearance, including fitness.

Really? FDR was in a wheelchair and chained smoked cigarettes. Churchill made a point of smoking cigars, drinking to excess and never watched his weight.

With the arrival of TV, and given most people's passing interest in politics, politicians must now take care about their physical appearance since many voters judge on these factors. A politician with a beard or even a mustache is unelectable to national office in English North America.

He is an elitist but one without the common touch.

That's laughable. Harper is middle of the road, plain vanilla, middle class. He's the kind of guy you see on Saturday mornings in an SUV at the Tim Horton's window.

Topaz · August 28, 2007

Well, as a woman, I don't care for him either. He doesn't come across as a caring person or caring about Canadians or maybe some Canadians. We don't see his wife that much, I get the feeling she can't wait to get back to Calgary. Its really too late now for him to try to change because we ready know it wouldn't be real!

Michael Bluth · August 28, 2007

Well, as a woman, I don't care for him either. He doesn't come across as a caring person or caring about Canadians or maybe some Canadians. We don't see his wife that much, I get the feeling she can't wait to get back to Calgary. Its really too late now for him to try to change because we ready know it wouldn't be real!

Laureen Harper has been far from invisible in her role. Maybe you just aren't looking?

She was on the cover of Maclean's a few issues back.

She's active with the Ottawa Humane Society.

Granted she remained off camera by choice during the Rick Mercer thing.

There isn't really a need for Harper to change. You seem pretty set in your opinion of him. No matter what he does if it doesn't confirm with what you think of him it won't be 'real'. Why should he bother to try and change the opinion of those people who don't like him.

A leader leads. He doesn't dither about and try and please everybody. Remember, a PM with 57 priorities has no priorities.

Fortunata · August 28, 2007

Really? FDR was in a wheelchair and chained smoked cigarettes. Churchill made a point of smoking cigars, drinking to excess and never watched his weight.
With the arrival of TV, and given most people's passing interest in politics, politicians must now take care about their physical appearance since many voters judge on these factors. A politician with a beard or even a mustache is unelectable to national office in English North America.

That's laughable. Harper is middle of the road, plain vanilla, middle class. He's the kind of guy you see on Saturday mornings in an SUV at the Tim Horton's window.

I think times have changed since FDR and Churchill with respect to awareness of personal care, including fitness.

Nobody votes on fitness alone, just as most of us don't cast a vote on any other single issue. But impressions of who has enough self-respect to present a good appearance does have an effect overall.

Harper does not consider himself a plain vanilla middle class meet you at Tim Horton's. He might try to present himself as such but it is quite plain to me that he would hate to have to stand in line for a coffee and actually have to make conversation with people around him (unless he is looking for votes). The way he talks in question period and to the press is very sarcastic and superior, suggesting that he either feels you or your questions are beneath him. Sad really.

Michael Bluth · August 28, 2007

Harper does not consider himself a plain vanilla middle class meet you at Tim Horton's. He might try to present himself as such but it is quite plain to me that he would hate to have to stand in line for a coffee and actually have to make conversation with people around him (unless he is looking for votes). The way he talks in question period and to the press is very sarcastic and superior, suggesting that he either feels you or your questions are beneath him. Sad really.

Clearly your impression of him and the preconceptions you bring about him, and Timmies for that matter.

I am not really sure what Harper considers himself.

Have you ever been to Timmies? Unless it's drunks after the bar you don't really see much random conversation between strangers in line.

noahbody · August 28, 2007

The divide is likely between rational and emotional thinkers. With a number of emotional issues (afghanistan, sky is falling) it's not surprising he isn't appealing to those who get wrapped up in those issues.

Fortunata · August 28, 2007

Have you ever been to Timmies? Unless it's drunks after the bar you don't really see much random conversation between strangers in line.

Obviously you haven't been to my Timmies. In fact every Tim Horton's I have had to line up in someone is having a conversation. And I know that the Cons like to claim Tim's as their own, but other than maybe Alberta, it's pretty much everyone who goes there. Coffee has no partisanship.

geoffrey · August 28, 2007

Obviously you haven't been to my Timmies. In fact every Tim Horton's I have had to line up in someone is having a conversation. And I know that the Cons like to claim Tim's as their own, but other than maybe Alberta, it's pretty much everyone who goes there. Coffee has no partisanship.

I drink Starbucks and I voted CPC last election (though that's unlikely to be repeated). What does that mean? Will I sponateously combust because I violated the Alberta partisanship system? :lol:

Michael Bluth · August 28, 2007

Obviously you haven't been to my Timmies. In fact every Tim Horton's I have had to line up in someone is having a conversation. And I know that the Cons like to claim Tim's as their own, but other than maybe Alberta, it's pretty much everyone who goes there. Coffee has no partisanship.

Uhhh, you quoted me but missed the point.

To repeat:

you don't really see much random conversation between strangers in line

You'd be surprised at the correlation between people who drink Timmies and the issues that matter to them. Enough of those people connected with the Conservative message to elect them as our Government.

You've got a certain segment of society that wouldn't be caught dead in a Tim Horton's. Those people? Meh leave them to the Libs and Dippers to fight over.

August1991 · August 28, 2007

Harper does not consider himself a plain vanilla middle class meet you at Tim Horton's. He might try to present himself as such but it is quite plain to me that he would hate to have to stand in line for a coffee and actually have to make conversation with people around him (unless he is looking for votes). The way he talks in question period and to the press is very sarcastic and superior, suggesting that he either feels you or your questions are beneath him. Sad really.

Gilles Duceppe is the son of a famous actor and theatre director. Stephane Dion is the son of a famous political analyst and university professor. Jack Layton is the son of a federal cabinet minister and the grandson of a provincial cabinet minister. Stephen Harper is the son of a non-descript, unknown accountant. You tell me who is really middle class.

I agree with her about his clothes but once I see a politician projecting sincerity I can no, longer trust anything they say.

As George Burns said: the secret to success in life is sincerity and if you can fake that, you've got it made.

I'm going to stick with my earlier analysis. First, there are some Harper-voters who have generally decided and won't change their mind. Second, there are many others who pay little attention to politics and answer pollsters questions now without much thought. These soft-Liberal voters (many of them women) will likely swing to Harper during a campaign when they have to make a final decision. Why? Harper has become the status quo and he's a reliable, level-headed and trustworthy leader.

Edited August 28, 2007 by August1991

sharkman · August 28, 2007

As far as this gender thing goes, in one of Bush's last elections (I can't remember which one) he had a definite uptick in approval from women. And we know how troubled his terms have been, so to go on feelings and emotions as women tend to do when voting doesn't have the best results.

mikedavid00 · August 28, 2007

My wife is vocal about Harper. She doesn't pay much attention to politics but whenever he is on TV she comments about his looks and charisma. She says someone in his position should at least be able to go to Harry Rosen and get a suit that fits him properly. About his charisma she feels he doesn't project empathy or sincerity.
I agree with her about his clothes but once I see a politician projecting sincerity I can no, longer trust anything they say.

I think he needs to get a gastoric bypass surgery.

Harper when he was fit:

http://arcticmark.blogspirit.com/images/th...er_050927.2.jpg

http://www.warrenkinsella.com/images/starbucksharper.jpg

jdobbin · August 28, 2007

I could be wrong but I suspect that most women pay even less attention to politics on a daily basis than most men do. Current polls of women provide a better understanding of what they thought in the last election. If we were to have an election now or next year, I think many women would revise their opinion of Harper. He has been reliable and trustworthy. His values in fact are not that far from what many women would want.

It isn't just a question of his values. It will be a question of policies.

The PC campaign in Manitoba imploded according to pollsters because they overplayed their hand on the crime issue with an ad that was supposed to frighten women. And when they said they were going to bring the Winnipeg Jets back to Winnipeg, the response was a furious one with letters coming into the newspapers from women saying the PCs "didn't get it".

Harper's leadership style and policies on things that matter to women and families will have the greatest influence on his ability to win over that part of the electorate.

Michael Bluth · August 29, 2007

It isn't just a question of his values. It will be a question of policies.
The PC campaign in Manitoba imploded according to pollsters because they overplayed their hand on the crime issue with an ad that was supposed to frighten women. And when they said they were going to bring the Winnipeg Jets back to Winnipeg, the response was a furious one with letters coming into the newspapers from women saying the PCs "didn't get it".

Harper's leadership style and policies on things that matter to women and families will have the greatest influence on his ability to win over that part of the electorate.

By trying to link Harper to the policies of the Manitoba PCs are you saying there aren't enough Conservative Party of Canada policies women might take issue with?

Who here really doesn't "get it"?

sharkman · August 29, 2007

As far as this gender thing goes, in one of Bush's last elections (I can't remember which one) he had a definite uptick in approval from women. And we know how troubled his terms have been, so to go on feelings and emotions as women tend to do when voting doesn't have the best results.

Right here is a link showing how women's support of Bush in 2004 won him the election. Like I said, voting on feelings and emotions is pretty shallow, and can be easily manipulated.

Much like voting depending on someone's girth. Get over yourself.

Edited August 29, 2007 by sharkman

Michael Bluth · August 29, 2007

Much like voting depending on someone's girth. Get over yourself.

Interesting how leftists get in a snit when a Conservative says something 'offensive'. Yet when it is an offensive point about a Conservative they fall suddenly silent.

No partisanship at all. :rolleyes:

August1991 · October 30, 2008

Harper's post-election 2008 cabinet:

A large group of newly elected MPs – many of them women – are also expected to get positions, including Leona Aglukkaq of Nunavut, Lisa Raitt of Southern Ontario and Gail Shea of Prince Edward Island.
...

But the Prime Minister is also expected to add a number of secretaries of state to the cabinet to make room for new members, particularly women.

G&M

Maybe Harper is trying to imitate Charest who made his cabinet 50/50. Then again, maybe Harper is just pandering or patronizing. Secretary of State? Charest named women to Finance and Education and then let them do the job.

If Harper claims to be a pro surrounded by amateurs who need help, someone in the Tory caucus should have the courage to say: "Well, if you're so smart Mr Harper, why don't you have a majority?"

Riverwind · October 30, 2008

"Well, if you're so smart Mr Harper, why don't you have a majority?"

You really seem to want to dump on Harper because Quebequers demonstrated yet again that they will use any excuse to park their vote with the BQ. I don't think Harper deserves to be blamed for the fickle nature of Quebec voters. If anything, he is much better off without a majority due to additional Quebec seats because the last minute shift demonstrated that it is a waste of time for any federalist to try to court the soft nationalist vote.

August1991 · October 30, 2008

You really seem to want to dump on Harper because Quebequers demonstrated yet again that they will use any excuse to park their vote with the BQ.

Riverwind, who cares about the excuse.

As Ignatieff said to Dion, "You didn't get it done."

Someone should have the courage to say the same to Harper.

Riverwind · October 30, 2008

As Ignatieff said to Dion, "You didn't get it done."

Easy to say for someone on the sidelines. It comes down to whether a goal is achievable and I don't think winning seats a majority of seats in Quebec is achievable goal for any federalist at this time because of the self-obsessed nature of Quebec politics. Harper could have handled the culture issue better but my feeling is such a trivial gaff should not have had that big effect on the electorate. The fact that it did suggest the problem is with a fickle electorate rather than the political leadership.

tango · October 30, 2008

Easy to say for someone on the sidelines. It comes down to whether a goal is achievable and I don't think winning seats a majority of seats in Quebec is achievable goal for any federalist at this time because of the self-obsessed nature of Quebec politics. Harper could have handled the culture issue better but my feeling is such a trivial gaff should not have had that big effect on the electorate. The fact that it did suggest the problem is with a fickle electorate rather than the political leadership.

er ... the electorate is at fault? Oh puleeeeez! :rolleyes:

The electorate is never wrong.

Either Harper's 'cultureless' gaff was that important (and I believe it was), or he never had the numbers he claimed in Quebec.

And then his wife had to quickly cancel her attendance as the main attraction at an art gala fundraiser! :lol:

It was a dumb thing to say, and it alienated lots of people. He revealed that he has no idea what 'culture' is, and he has no class. Not good qualities in one who is also supposed to be an international statesman.

charter.rights · October 30, 2008

Easy to say for someone on the sidelines. It comes down to whether a goal is achievable and I don't think winning seats a majority of seats in Quebec is achievable goal for any federalist at this time because of the self-obsessed nature of Quebec politics. Harper could have handled the culture issue better but my feeling is such a trivial gaff should not have had that big effect on the electorate. The fact that it did suggest the problem is with a fickle electorate rather than the political leadership.

That's absurd. Quebec was winable. Harper blew the big one by cutting culture and then dismissing Quebecers opposition to it and threatening to throw their kids in prison for life. Trying to appeal to the west ended up offending Quebec.

There are two things Quebec holds sacrosanct - their kids and their language and culture - and it was on those things that Harper lost Quebec totally by himself.