See my posts above. With ever increasing out-of-wedlock births and declining marriage rates, single women, many of them mothers, have for many years, and increasingly so, turned to government for the support men won't give them and many of their families can't. If it's a choice between survival for they and their children or no survival at all, they'll choose the party who promises to help provide for them and to some extent does, quite the logical choice, btw.
Without the sexual revolution and the welfare state, the disparity among male and female voting patterns would barely exist, if at all, as evidenced by the fact that far fewer married women vote for the democrats.
And that’s a result of men abdicating their responsibility as breadwinners and protectors of their families.
Sure, you can blame women for getting pregnant out of wedlock, but last I heard, getting pregnant is not a solo enterprise.
Abandoning the mother of your child(ren) is not the manly thing to do.
Women left to their own resources are no doubt going to vote for provision, but that isn’t necessarily an emotional response as much as a practical one. When the choice is going without vs voting for someone who will provide, guess what’s going to happen. Nobody likes to go hungry, but again, that’s not an emotional response. Just watch a man when dinner is not on time......
If the men in their lives won’t take care of them, who can blame them for looking for someone who will?