Comments Subscribe to Personal Liberty News Feed Subscribe to Personal Liberty
 

The Collectivist War On Women And Everyone Else

April 23, 2012 by  

The Collectivist War On Women And Everyone Else
PHOTOS.COM
By creating the “war on women,” the political establishment has taken away focus from the fact that all Americans are losing rights to the elite.

Currently, the “war on women” and “war for women voters” memes are hot topics among the Nation’s news media as President Barack Obama and establishment-declared Republican front-runner Mitt Romney duke it out over women in America.

Obama and the Democratic Party often attempt to paint themselves as the women’s party, the minorities’ party and the protector of the underdog in the United States. At the same time, the party works to make the GOP appear to be the party of the affluent white male.

NPR pointed out last week that both Romney and Obama have distinct strategies for courting female voters: Obama’s focus remains heavily, and in traditional Democratic fashion, on “micro” issues — i.e., contraceptives or Republican disdain for Planned Parenthood — while Romney is focusing more broadly on the economy, jobs and how they affect American women.

Data from the Pew Research Center show that 66 percent of women aged 18 to 34 in the United States consider a fulfilling career high on their list of priorities in life, compared to 59 percent of men in the same age group. The data indicate what Pew describes as a shift in traditional male and female roles that has been occurring for decades.

Democratic strategist Hilary Rosen’s recent comment that Ann Romney, Mitt Romney’s wife and a mother of five, had not “worked a day in her life” reignited the debate about women’s roles in the United States. According to some people, the focus of the discussion has been misguided. Rather than acknowledging that men and women both frequently take equal part in earning money and child rearing, political opportunists on both sides have muddied the issues.

With Democrats ramping up their “war on women” rhetoric and accusing Republicans of wanting women to avoid careers and with Republicans similarly accusing Democrats of hating stay-at-home mothers, a complex issue that is nearly impossible to view on a collectivist level is overly simplified for sound-bite politics.

Here are some issues that are largely disregarded:

  • Sometimes, stay-at-home parents are men.
  • There are a large number of non-working, single parents who rely on welfare as a primary source of income. Legislation aimed at helping them rejoin the workforce has been described as harmful to women’s rights to stay home and offer their children the best care.
  • Contention between women who pursue careers and those who choose to stay at home has been created by politicians and hyped by media to further other agendas.
  • Many families simply can’t afford the child care costs incurred when both parents are away from the home each day.
  • Some of the women/men earnings discrepancies are statistical fallacies. Contrary to what politicians and media say, women do not always earn less than men.

Both Obama and Romney have joined in using collectivism and political campaign rhetoric to create media hype around nonissues to take focus away from a terrible economy and the near-constant destruction of civil liberties in the United States by the political class. Perhaps women, and all Americans, would find a better advocate outside of the two-party paradigm in a candidate focused on the rights of individuals rather than groups — a rare commodity in the political world.

Sam Rolley

Staff writer Sam Rolley began a career in journalism working for a small town newspaper while seeking a B.A. in English. After learning about many of the biases present in most modern newsrooms, Rolley became determined to find a position in journalism that would allow him to combat the unsavory image that the news industry has gained. He is dedicated to seeking the truth and exposing the lies disseminated by the mainstream media at the behest of their corporate masters, special interest groups and information gatekeepers.

Facebook Conversations

Join the Discussion:
View Comments to “The Collectivist War On Women And Everyone Else”

Comment Policy: We encourage an open discussion with a wide range of viewpoints, even extreme ones, but we will not tolerate racism, profanity or slanderous comments toward the author(s) or comment participants. Make your case passionately, but civilly. Please don't stoop to name calling. We use filters for spam protection. If your comment does not appear, it is likely because it violates the above policy or contains links or language typical of spam. We reserve the right to remove comments at our discretion.

Is there news related to personal liberty happening in your area? Contact us at newstips@personalliberty.com

  • FreedomFighter

    The communists must destroy the family. After you realize this the demonrat stratigy at work makes sense.

    Laus Deo
    Semper Fi

    • Sirian

      FF,
      Quite true, I agree totally with you. Isn’t it amazing how many people don’t have the slightest idea what sits within the Communist Manifesto let alone have read it? Sheeple are so easily lead about by the nose. :(

      • MAP

        I left this link at another comment and will leave it here as well. It is was delivered in the HoR in 1963 listing the 45 declared goals of the communists. It is amazing to read through the list and see how many are in operation today. None were in operation in 1963!

        http://www.rense.com/general32/americ.htm

      • Sirian

        Yes MAP, reference you listed is basically the same as the Communist Manifesto. That is unfortunately one thing that so many people are totally oblivious to. Then again, there are several in Congress that abide by it thoroughly – just lovely!! :(

    • Bert Cundle Sr.

      FREEDOM FIGHTER: ( Ambigious name / Title.) “Communist / Capitolest” = “UNION / Indipendance ~ Union Vs.Rank & File. ~ Union Vs.Association…
      At first: The UNION of Soviat Socialest Republic. = The unity of Wealthy Vs. Public! ( Works fine in the Slave, Master Sociaty.) Capitolism is when Money is the Determining Factor!

      • Bert Cundle Sr.

        Government Is: The Protecter… From “Thieves” by by Taking what thueves would take, in a smaller & Diversified forms!

  • cawmun cents

    Veni,Vidi,Vici……
    Working the subdivisions between one demographic and the other,pitting then against each other,so that when the disemmination of information is attained,there will be doubt in the minds of voters as to who can do the job to a proper level.
    Classic mindwarping strategy.
    Where confusion has reigned,division is engrained.
    -CC.

  • Vigilant

    Mr. Rolley, please re-link the phrase “women do not always earn less than men” to the correct URL. It’s inked to the same URL as the phrase “can’t afford the child care costs.”

  • OneDamnAngryAmerican

    I agree 100% that women should earn the same as men, who do the same type of work. In my analogy, that means that “all” supervisors should earn the same income. The female “supervisor” of the food service department of your local fast-food resteraunt (who lied about her educational achievements by stating that she earned her HS diploma, when in reality, she has never even received any type of primary-school education, AT ALL!) should therefore earn the same amount of money that the “male” “supervisor” of all of the “male and female)” Phd. holders do at your local nuclear power plant, BECAUSE they are both “supervisors!” Question answered! WOMAN ARE BEING CHEATED OUT OF THEIR FAIR DO & ARE THEREFORE NOT BEING PAID THE SAME AS MEN WHO DO THE SAME TYPE OF WORK (supervise)! Any other questions that you would like answered? (Like what the difference is between a “legal” immigrant and an “illegal” one?

    • Barbara52

      I hope you are NOT serious with that statement ! One would almost think that you are either a Iranian or a nut. To think that a uneducated burger thrower should make as much as someone in control of nuclear power plants.That is actually SCAREY !! Just MY opinion though.

      • Vigilant

        The one holding that screwball opinion (OneDamnAngryAmerican) is the scary one.

        Obviously a product of the self-esteem movement. It’s been so successful that any idiot can claim an opinion on anything and consider it acceptable.

      • Stuart Shepherd

        you’re scary, Barbara, but you probably mean to be!

    • OneDamnAngryAmerican

      I can’t stop laughing. My comment, above, was PURE sarcasm! Isn’t it amazing how the feds have brainwashed the idiots and morons (direct quotes of clintoon & oblama) with their teachings of “class warfare, and envy” that the average American, today is incapable of understanding reason, and also incapable of understanding the topic being discussed in any conversation? Yup, it sure is amazing. 45 sounds like he just discovered that BofA is “not” America’s Bank, as in Banco de Mexico. Every time one of you illegals makes a post, anywhere, in print, you point yourself out for what you are, an uneducated inbreed. In “our” culture, women are not and have never been slaves or incubators; which proves that 45 is probably the score you got on your last IQ test. Instead of buying that case of XX for your week-end enjoyment, I suggest you go to the local community college and take a course in American History. Refusing to pay somebody equal pay for equal work is a crime in “this” country. In other words, it is ILLEGAL! So, if you believe that your right to equal pay for equal work (which, I might inform you, is “not” mentioned in our Constitution, nor are any of the other non-isssues most of you have brought up, here), then why aren’t you pressing charges or filing civil actions against those who are doing “this” to you, instead of whining about it here? (If true, you will win your case in both criminal and civil court, by the way. Unless your case has “no” merit. Which is the reason why most of these cases never even make it to court. Know why? Because the loser always pays in the USA, and if you, the victim can’t pay, then no lawyer in the country will take your case. Kind of like one of them asking for money up-front, before they do your BK! HaHa!) The above story speaks of how the dem-wit party is using “political rhetoric” and “non-issues” to stir the pot in their desires to obtain public office, by dumping on the re-pukes with rhetoric and non-issues. By reading the responses posted here, anybody of limited intelligence can see with their own eyes that the dem-kraps are/have succeeded with this part of their political stratagy, i.e., the continual dumbing down of the American people. I would like to address each and every response posted here, except that I learned a long time ago, never try to have an intelligent conversation with an imbecile. So, you’ll have to figure it all out on your own. Another suggestion at educating yourself, is to read the Declaration of Independance (it is a “letter” of complaint to the King (know what “his” name was? {probably not}); the Constitution (so you can see what “your” rights are (don’t forget to read the part about how the feds promised to protect “your” state from invasion by a foreign country; how not doing so is a violation; how a boycot by and of any state, county or township, of another, is also a violation; how the refusal to protect those citizens is not only a violation, but also an “aidding-and-abetting” offense; and how white people and black people are not even mentioned in it.) And, while doing so, you will discover the common misinformed perception (lie) that black folks are not “full” people cannot even be found in the document (but, I will tell you now, there is a “race” mentioned; but, it is not white or black! So, you’ll have to read it. Obviously, you’re not intelligent enough to figure it out yourself! You might also want to read the Bill of Rights. It is only a seperate document, because they didn’t have pc’s and word-processors back then to correct errors or to make additions, etc., and the guy who actually wrote (the handwriting part) the document didn’t want to go back and re-write it. Know his name? Of course not! Silly me. Now, after you have read all of this stuff and you remember how oblama keeps telling everybody how he used to “teach” the Constitution, then you will see with your own eyes THAT YOU HAVE BEEN LIED TO! Wow! Goly-gee! Why would anybody do that, TO YOU!!?? Because they want your vote, silly! That’s why! Now, wanna get really pizzed-off? Read your own state’s Constitution. Between both, you will discover that “foreigners” have “zero” rights while in the USA, UNTIL THEY BECOME CITIZENS! Now, if that is so, then why is the gub’nant giving them $61,000.00 per year in welfare payments (Section 8 and Food Stamps) when only one of their children might be a citizen? That kid has no rights (especially the right to welfare, which is also NOT in the Constitution), even though he was born here. Know why? It is not 18 years old, yet! So, now that you gave birth to a kid while you are in this country, you must go to your local embassy, present your passport (from your home country), show them your USA visa, and explain to them not to hurt you as they handcuff you and arrest you for leaving your country without it’s permission (a passport). And, also don’t forget to go to any USA federal building, visit the SOS there, and tell them that you just had a kid bay’e while being in this country illegally (by jumping over a fence and killing a Border Patrol officer, probably, with a gun that our gub’nant gave to your cousin the drug-dealer) and, that they should not hurt you so hard as they handcuff you and arrest you, for being here without your passport and an American visa. Then, you find someone to take care of your kids, for free (called aiding-and-abetting, with or without any money), because you need to go home and get some more drugs that you can pony up north, again, so you can come back later, i.e., either after you get out of jail, or hop over the fence, again. So, as you can see, the story has nothing to do with women having to have babies, or for them to have to go and work for a living. I’d like to translate some more; but why should I. THE EQUALITY OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE seems to be something nobody here is aware of. What most of the responders here want, is SPECIAL RIGHTS. Sorry, folks, America was not formed as a country to give people “special” rights. So, if you’ve got a problem about how someone is treating you, either suck it up or go pursue the matter in a court of proper jurisdiction. Otherwise, STFU! Our soldiers, both men and women, are fighting for our rights under the Constitution, as American citizens. They are not fighting so you can get the folks across the street to pay for another of your abortions. If you need an abortion, pay for it yourself! And, if you don’t like the contents of my comments, go FO; and, don’t forget to vote for your hero in November — Pee-Wee Herman. A woman’s-man. Somebody who doesn’t NEED a lawyer, because he knows how to get-off by himself! YeeHaw!

  • Ellen

    I find this topic utterly stupid from a politcal standpoint. What can Democrats do to make life better for women? If Dems had any real answers to real problems, we wouldn’t have a 40% overall illegitimacy rate & 75% illegitimacy rate for blacks. We wouldn’t have failing schools and a 49% drop out rate for black & hispanic males. We wouldn’t have the largest prison population in the world (we’re only 5% of the world’s population). We wouldn’t have 40% of babies born into poverty each year. We wouldn’t have addiction problems. Ironically, Dem programs CONTRIBUTE to all of our biggest problems. I was a working mom and can say it is very difficult. The children of working moms get cheated out of normal choldhoods. They can’t go home and play outside after school because they are bussed to daycare. When they get home, everyone is tired from a long day so family interaction is limited. Kids are enrolled in tons of activities to keep them busy, but they lack downtime and creative play. I had no choice because of the expenses of life – a very basic life, not an expensive one with luxury cars or home. Democrats have no solution for this, in fact it was caused by ‘womens’ liberation’ – another Dem idea that seemed good but is a failure.

    • Dad

      You are right Ellen… it is just a policy… no one said anything about an effective one. Our re-engineered society hasn’t worked for decades… thus the current liberal mess. They ought to spend more time on history with our 5th graders rather that condoms.

    • carrobin

      Women’s liberation was a Democratic idea? It was a liberal idea, yes–which finally started to take root in the late 1800s. But I don’t think the Democratic Party had much to do with it.

  • FreedomFighter

    Why There Are No Jobs In America – Chuck Missler

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5b_7y4KmlA0

    Laus Deo
    Semper Fi

    • Bert Cundle Sr.

      No jobs in America? Blame the Robots, Electronic Replcement of personal, The invasion of foreigners, here undocumented,,, ( ILEGAL TRESSPASSERS ) YET… THERE ARE MANY JOPS OFFERED IN THE PAPERS… LABOR CAMPS Sponsered by our Government. (Union Busters… ) Remember Hoffa? / Remember J.F.K.?

  • Thinking About

    The war on women is being waged by those sponsoring bills to deny women of birth control, ultra sounds and invasive exams on women to just name a few. How are the Dems responsible for these bills? Romney states every mother with a child over 2 to have the dignity of work. It is facts women earns $.76 on $1 of mens salaries. Do women get a 25% discount everytime they shop? The sharia law bills are meant to do nothing more than males having control of females. If you want the vote of women, which BTW has the larger population then spend the time and effort into trying to make things equal and stop this degrading effort. Now Romney is trying to attract women and standing by this degrading actions, tell the sponsors of these bills to back off and women will vote for him.

    • jeepman1

      Welcome to Ameri-topia! A place where all your fantasies come true! You can get pregnant without consequence, and even make other people pay for it! Who cares if you cannot afford a child, this is Ameri-topia. “Free” ultra-sounds, “free” daycare, “free” housing and “free” food. Why because you “need” it, and it’s all “free”!

      All in the name of “freedom”. Speaking of “freedom”, Ameri-topia even offers “free” contraceptives. So, even if you cannot afford that child, no worries! Have sex on me! After all, you just can’t help yourself. Therefore, Thinking About will provide you with all the “free” stuff you need. Section eight housing to have sex in, free condoms to prevent prenancy and even free food are provided so you don’t have to work and cut into your sexcapades. All you have to do is be irresponsible, and vote for me! I’ll give you “freedom”.

      So, who is controlling who?

      • Thinking About

        Why do you become part of the problem? You provide further examples of the war on women.

      • carrobin

        Funny that it’s the conservatives who insist that fetuses rule and a pregnant woman has no right to contraception or abortion, but once the kid is born, it has no right to food or shelter. So I guess if you’re a woman whose household income is low, you have to send your husband to be celibate until he’s making a better salary. (And yet you’re not supposed to be homosexual either–can’t win, unless you’re rich.)

      • jeepman1

        All you utiopians miss the point…no child has to be conceived…period. And, if you choose (since you are all about choice) to conceive then be responsible. What part of this is foreign to you? What part of this do you not understand? How is it that it becomes my responsibility if you choose to have sex and get pregnant? Last time I checked there were no more immaculate coneptions. Be responsible. If you cannot afford it, don’t have it.

        You “fight” for womens rights, or so you say. The reality is that you want to control the outcome. By claiming “women’s rights” as your cause you are denying women the ultimate right. The right to be responsible for her actions. It is you who are denying women “rights”. And, doubly so. By supporting the welfare state you deny the right of others to choose (again, I thought you liked choice) where to place their own finances. As one who actually pays taxes you would steal my income and deny my own children thier right to it’s inheritence. All to deny the “right” of the welfare state to not be responsible and make the right choices.

        You all are hypocracy on display.

      • Thinking About

        What gives you the right to enact sharia law on anyone. You do not get the point, you can’t be against birth control and abortion and then be against caring for children who are born. You immediately went into a rant about welfare, etc and unless you would like laws against what you might as life liberty and the pursuit of happiness then stop with the sharia thoughts.

      • jeepman1

        Silly you! Thinking About, perhaps you should take a local class that deals with critical thinking. First, just because you accuse me of “enacting sharia law” does not make it so. Second, I never said I was either for or against birth control or abortion. In fact, it is up to each individual as to how they conduct themselves, you know, they are free to make choices. Just be prepared to pay for your choices. Follow me, I know this is difficult for you to understand, I simply advocated that the time to prevent unwanted or uncared for children was prior to conception, i.e. before deciding to have sex. Or, is that too much for your free love utopian mind to handle? And, “my rant” about welfare IS the heart of the problem. Noone is “denied” birth control or ultrasounds, you silly liberal. It is how they are paid for that is the problem. You expect others to pony up bucks, I expect the individual to pay for it. Do not talk about freedom, you do not understand freedom. My “rant” is a perfect description of your denying freedom to some in the name of “freedom” for others. Unfortunately, your brain is much too addled with liberal thought to understand that by buying freedom for one (such as, taxes to pay for your birth control) you are denying freedom to others. So, please, go somewhere else and spout your communist nonsense. Freedom is for all, or it is for none. You have chosen freedom for none.

  • Rebecca

    The destruction of the family began when women felt pressure to “do it all”. We are expected to raise children, keep a house AND have a career. My dream was to have a loving husband and raise some children and be the best at that job that I could be. I acheived that dream but was forced back into the work world by a greedy husband who felt he had to “Keep Up With The Jones”. Eventually, this destroyed my marriage and my health. Now, I am a single mother who has no choice. My advice to the young women of today…either have your career or your family and don’t try to do it all. If you want “it all” be prepared for their to be slack somewhere. You cannot do two jobs and be good at both of them. If you think you are you aren’t looking at the whole picture closely enough.

    • Nadzieja Batki

      So you will be voting for Obama again.

      • Rebecca

        Nope…didn’t vote for him in the first place.

      • Nickmcg

        Karl Marx wanted complete destruction of the family and complete destruction of any kind of inheritance by anyone you knew. He figured in one generation he could take all the wealth and give it to the “less fortunate”. Hillary Clinton’s book…It takes a village….not a family. The President believes in this 100%.

      • Rebecca

        Thank you Nick…that’s one reason I did not vote for him. Not sure I got Nadzieja’s point did you?

      • jeepman1

        Nadzieja, I think Rebecca has a good point that is worthy of further thought and is a good teaching point. I think you should re-read Rebecca’s post. She is saying that she (or, her ex) bought into the utopian dream and did not succeed. Her advice is to choose a life path that doesn’t try to accomplish the impossible.

    • 45caliber

      Rebecca:

      Before WWII, the women seldom worked outside of the home. Many men didn’t even think women could work like they could. But in WWII women had to work in factories while men went to fight. The government discovered that – and immediately started planning for it. TV programming began to show it (after the TV’s came about) and radios talked of it. Even after the men came home, many women continued to work. It really came to a head during the ’60s. Wages seemed to stall or at least not go up as fast as prices did, which resulted in more women being forced to go to work since one pay check wasn’t usually enough to support a family. I’ve always blamed the government for the problem. Today it is almost impossible for a new couple to be able to let the wife stay home. The Feminist Movement never helped either since they were very insistent upon the woman working. They still are. Most even insist that a woman should NOT remain home with kids and that a woman cannot have a happy life unless she does work.

      • Rebecca

        I know…and it’s such a shame. Things backfired on the women who were fighting for rights and choice. It seems now we have “no choice”.

    • http://gravatar.com/bychoosing Jay

      Actually, Rebecca, the destruction of the family began when men and women forgot their roles in each-other, and the fact that they were created in the image of the Trinity.

      If women and men are equal, I’m the Duke of Earl. We are complimentary, not “equal”. We are only fulfilled IN each other through complimentary aspects, not equal aspects.

      Eve was created because Adam needed a mate. She wasn’t created so Eve would have a scrapbooking partner, nor so Adam would have a friend to burp and drink beer with.

      They were to become one flesh. ONLY in this relationship can men and women be equal by fulfilling and being fulfilled in that which they lack, and together can create that which they are. A woman without a husband has to take on male attributes if she is a mother. A man without a wife has to learn femininity in certain regards, if he is a father.

  • http://www.facebook.com/tess.comments Tess Comments

    Obama and his family have become Elitist. Does that mean the now Obama is a White male and a Republican?

    A Mansion in Chicago purchased in 2005 for $1.5 million U.S. dollars.
    For 2011 Obama had a Reported Adjusted Gross Income of $789,674.
    March 19, 2012 – Obama daughter Malia spending spring break in Mexico with 25 Secret Service agents.
    March 29, 2012 – The Obamas have arrived in Las Vegas for a private family visit.
    Christmas in Hawaii
    Martha’s Vineyard in the Summer
    Plus, Plus, Plus

    MANY Paychecks from jobs that are paid for from Tax Payers Dollars.

  • 45caliber

    It would be really nice if a woman could stay at home and guide the kids while her husband earns enough to support the family. My wife was able to do that.

    But with the women in the work force during WWII, it was evident to the government that women can work. So they made the effort to insure the women DID work. After all, two incomes means more taxes to spend and it means the government gets a better chance to indoctrinate the kids without the parents teaching them otherwise.

    They can use the excuse that a child does better if a woman stays at home with them, but it only works if 1) the woman WANTS to take care of the kids (many don’t) and 2) they have enough income (which welfare doesnt’ really give).

    • Rebecca

      If women don’t want to take care of their children they should not do what it takes to get them here and if they are married they should take measures to prevent pregnancy. My ex-husband made plenty of money for us to live a modest but good life. He just got greedy and wanted boats, motorcycles, expensive vacations, larger homes, etc. So…at the expensive of my children he put me to work. I put up a fight at first because I did not want to leave my children for someone else to raise. Then I was accused of being “lazy” and wanting to “live off him” and “not contribute to the household”. He never came home a day in his life that his dinner was not ready, his breakfast and lunch packed for his workday, clothes clean and laid out for him. Our children were clean and fed and had plenty of nuturing from their own mother. If that isn’t contributing to the household I don’t know what is.

      I’m just saying that society expects way too much from women these days. We weren’t designed to “do it all”….God made us as a “helpmate” for man and a mother for his children. He didn’t design us to be Superwoman.

  • Patrick Henry

    I wouldn’t vote for Romney or anyone else in the Republicrat or Demigod parties. You see, you’ll be getting one in the same. They are the same. They all want to keep this country going toward total Communism, total control of the people and every day more and more abusive legislation is taking place and administered by the corrupt legal system and it’s paid off judges and lawyers. The only one talking about saving the country and reinstituting the Constitution is Ron Paul. But how do we get our vote counted when foreign entities own the g-damned voting machines and so much money is paid out to the corrupt politicians to go against the PEOPLE of the USA and bring in more abuse, more taxation without representation, more destructive wars, more poisoning, more groping and rape tactics of the TSA to instill a slave like mentality among the travelers of America. Why do we have to support these SOBs after they have left office??? Why? We have to make our own way, why don’t they? Let’s see how they are when 62.1 percent of their wages go for taxes on useless programs and depts in WA! Watch them! They want control of the utilities grids, keep you in your SECTOR – herd you into FEMA CAMPS that are already being staffed by more perverts from Bull Dyke Napolitano and Pistole. Devils from hell.

  • jopa

    We constantly told our girls when they were growing up to get a good education and never be financially dependant on their future husbands.Today they are all college educated, working and there marriages are all doing fine.If their marriages failed they would still be doing fine on their own income and work experiences.It usually boils down to parenting and wise choices throughout life for a persons success and a willingness to take some chances.

    • Rebecca

      I will be willing to be they have help with their households if their marriages are doing fine. Either the husbands are helping them, you are helping them or they have hired help.

      You are correct about being prepared for anything. Had I not acheived my education before I had my children I might have been in dire straits when my ex-husband decided he no longer wanted to be married.

  • jopa

    I was a little off topic in the above post.Yes it does seem as though there is a war on women by the so called Conservative party.Just recently the bills passed by Guvs Walker and Kasich that would provide equal pay for women was just the last slam against womens rights.Why would anyone think women don’t deserve equal pay for doing the same job as a male co worker is beyond my comprehension.I think in November the Republican party may be in for a rude awakening, the women of America are not as stupid as they think they are.

  • Donald York

    I think Mr. Romney would fair a lot better if he just ignores the ass party for trying to stir up women voters. I think most women know where they stand, and most don’t want free contraception. Stay cool Mitt, this is just Valerie Jarrett and Debbie Wasserman-schultz doing their dirty work for the Obama regime.

  • http://gravatar.com/bychoosing Jay

    To feminism, every man is the enemy. Men are, according to these people, predators and sexists, just because of their gender. Automatically guilty. Men are offensive to feminists just because they are men, and to put them in their place the feminists believe they must overpower, control, and be above men. If you disagree with that, you are automatically labeled the enemy, and it is assumed you support male rule over women.

    In this brave new world all a woman has to be is slightly offended by something, and the man is guilty. Hilary Rosen was offended that Romney would ask his wife an opinion, which you would think she would approve of – but you see, Romney, though not a very conservative one, is a Republican, so he must be guilty of something every time he has any interaction with women. . . including his wife.

    Feminism has created an environment that has made men afraid of being themselves. Men have to ask themselves before they do anything, or say anything, if the feminists will see it as sexist. And the feminists know it.

    They created this situation for the purpose of destroying the family unit, demasculating men, and ultimately making us one big homogeneous mass of government controlled automatons.

  • http://gravatar.com/bychoosing Jay

    They had jobs, but feminists weren’t satisfied; every other woman had to get one too. So they opened fire on homemakers with a savagery that still echoes throughout our culture. A housewife is a “parasite,” [Betty] Frieden writes; such women are “less than fully human” insofar as they “have never known a commitment to an idea.”

    David Gelernter, Drawing Life, Surviving the Unabomber, Free Press, 1997, p. 95

    Housewives, not men, were the prey in feminism’s sights when Kate Millett decreed in 1969 that the family must go. Feminists do not speak for traditional women.

    Men cannot know this, however, unless we tell them how we feel about them, our children, and our role in the home. Men must understand that our feelings towards them and our children are derided by feminists and have earned us their enmity.

    Whether or not this understanding garners men’s support, traditional women must defend ourselves because the feminist offensive is, most essentially, a breach of solidarity with us, a disavowel of the obligation to honor the Women’s Pact [that religious celibates, professional women, and homemakers respect each other] that women in the movement owed to us.

    F. Carolyn Graglia, Domestic Tranquility, A Brief Against Feminism, Spence Publishing Company, Dallas, 1998, p. 97

    “I am not the sort of woman who goes blonde,” writes novelist Jane Smiley, before explaining how she did just that and, in the process, what sort of woman she discovered herself to be.

    A feminist intellectual and practical Midwesterner, Smiley had always “abjured vanity.” She wore glasses and plain white cotton underwear, had a “short, masculine hairdo,” and never, ever shaved her legs or underarms. Her looks reflected her convictions. “If I dyed my hair,” she thought, “that would lead to makeup, and inevitably, to manicures, facials, panty hose, and the wholesale submission to the patriarchy.” But that reasoning itself reflected the stereotypes of an earlier era, the idea that women must choose between intelligence and beauty, mind and body, substance and surface.

    In her early forties, Smiley discovered that her studied indifference to her appearance was sending unwanted signals and hiding important aspects of her personality. The man she was interested in didn’t see her as a woman. She fretted to her therapist. The therapist sent her to his colorist. Thus began her new life of blonde hair and shaved armpits — of new pleasures and new meaning. “Sometimes I stand in front of the mirror and simply admire it,” she says of her caramel-colored hair. “It is a beautiful, layered, shimmering gold, soft and sparkly, a hair color that has no relation to me and no counterpart in the animal world. I would hate to give it up.”

    Virginia Postrel, The Substance of Style, How the Rise of Aesthetic Value is Remaking Commerce, Culture, and Consciousness [HarperCollins, 2003, pp.117-118]

    Between men there is by nature merely indifference; but between women there is already by nature hostility. This due to the fact that with men the odium figulinum [professional jealousy] is limited to their particular guild, whereas with women it embraces the whole sex since they all have only one line of business. Even when they meet in the street, they look at one another like Guelphs and Ghibellines. Moreover on first acquaintance, two women meet each other obviously with more stiffness and dissimulation than do two men in a similar situation.

    Arthur Schopenhauer, “On Women,” Parerge and Paralipomena, Volume 2, §369, Oxford, Calarendon Press, 1974, p.619

    I had always sensed strongly the furious, vindictive hatred of life implicit in that system of ideas and values; and sensed, too, that in order to be consistent with its premises a system of this sort was forced to abominate art.

    Friedrich Nietzsche, The Birth of Tragedy from the Spirit of Music [1872, The Birth of Tragedy and The Genealogy of Morals, translated by Francis Golffing, Doubleday Anchor Books, 1956, p.10]

    According to 2010 BLS [Bureau of Labor Statistics] data, the following jobs contain 1 percent female workers or less: boilermaking, brickmasonry, stonemasonry, septic tank servicing, sewer pipe cleaning and working with reinforcing iron and rebar. Maybe the reason female workers aren’t in these occupations is that too many are in other occupations. Females are 97 percent of preschool and kindergarten teachers, 80 percent of social workers, 82 percent of librarians and 92 percent of dietitians and nutritionists and registered nurses.

    Walter E. Williams, “Equality or Inequality,” 29 February 2012

    More than 90 percent of job-related deaths occur among men…

    Thomas Sowell, Intellectuals and Society, Basic Books, 2011, p.135

    For years, even decades, “progressive” criticism had characterized industrial labor as dehumanizing — constituting the use of persons as machines — and had dismissed white color managerial, clerical, or sales jobs as shallow careerism or exercises in pointless, empty, and meaningless commercial mummeries (e.g. Arthur Miller’s 1949 “Death of a Salesman”).

    Yet the disappearance of industrial jobs through increasing automation and the use of robots is greeted with horror; and, more significantly, feminism presented to women an ideology that their only true path of fulfillment was to enter the workforce precisely to fill the sort of mangerial, clerical, or sales jobs previously disparaged.

    To be sure, the feminists were probably thinking of “creative” jobs in art, journalism, academia, politics, etc. as meeting criteria of human fulfillment. But on the ground, the number of such jobs is very limited; and most women would find themselves on their feet or in a cubicle, doing things both repetitive and boring.

    Even F. Carolyn Graglia, cited above, who began a career as a lawyer, soon reflected that drawing up contracts for corporate clients, although pleasingly remunerative, held little attraction, or promise of it, in terms of personal fulfillment.

    http://www.friesian.com/feminism.htm

  • http://gravatar.com/bychoosing Jay

    Gloria Steinem sounded the war cry, “We don’t just want to destroy capitalism,” she said, “we want to tear down the whole f____ patriarchy.”

    As the women’s movement turned fanatical and ugly in the 1960s and 70s the focus began to shift from reform and equal opportunity. The feminist leaders – humorless, militant, pugnacious, and angry with their particular lot in life, launched programs that were anti-God, anti-capitalism, anti-family, anti-birth, anti-heterosexual and fostered a virulent hatred of anything having to do with males. They no longer wanted to equalize the status of women, but instead wanted to irreversibly alienate women from men and vice versa.

    “The fiction of fatherhood is a giant religion called Christianity.”
    – Jill Johnston in Lesbian Nation

    Home and traditional family values are no longer accepted answers to the questions, “Who am I?” and, “What am I here for?” The preeminent purpose for some women have become their careers, and they decided against the value of home and family.

    Taken over by radical leftists committed to adultery, lesbianism, and the perpetuation of “self” over motherhood and family, the women’s movement led by the National Organization of Women (NOW), became an adjunct of the Democratic party.

    The Democratic Party left millions of evangelicals and pro-family Christians when they lurched to the left under George McGovern and his successors. During the 1970s, the Democratic Party abandoned its centrist pro-family base and became captive to the special interest of the radical left, including the feminists, extreme environmentalists and gay rights activists.

    Radical feminists linked all the Marxist causes together by writing, “We want to destroy the three pillars of class and a caste society – the family, private property, and the state.”
    [Peter Collier and David horowith, Deconstructing the Left: From Vietnam to the Persian Gulf, 1991].

    The concerns at recent national conventions have been bashing the Christian men’s group Promise Keepers and pushing for the rights of “transgendered people,” which could be anything from hermaphrodites to people waiting for sex change operations.

    To accomplish their goals, terrorist organizations such as the National Organization for Women, Planned Parenthood, the National Education Association, and the People for the American Way, the Gay-Lesbian Caucus, and their ilk have arisen to champion unrestrained sex, homosexual rights, abortion on demand, while they attacked Christian beliefs, conservative organizations, and all the traditional family structures of America.

    Betty Friedan, founder of NOW, referred to traditional family life as a “comfortable concentration camp” from which women needed liberation.

    Sheila Cronan, one of the feminist movements most respected leaders and spokeswomen said, “Since marriage constitutes slavery for women, it is clear that the women’s movement must concentrate on attacking marriage.”

    Beginning in the 1960s and 1970s they launched an all-out assault on our nation’s time-honored laws protecting the marriage union. Divorce was presented as an easy way out for the frustrated, disappointed or adventuresome.

    Mel Krantzler, writing in Creative Divorce, stated: “To say goodbye is to say hello … hello to a new life – to a new, freer, more self-assured you. Hello to new ways of looking at the world and of relating to people. Your divorce can turn out to be the very best thing that ever happened to you.” That was a widely held professional opinion for almost a decade.

    Within a few years, they and their Radical Left allies succeeding in overturning all fifty of the nation’s “fault” divorce statutes and replacing them with what is called no-fault divorce. It was understood as an effort to secure for women the economic, political and social rights and protections that men have always enjoyed. A spate of pseudo-scientific studies assured parents that children were resilient and would revcover quickly from the effects of divorce.

    In their zeal they also stripped away from women, especially mothers with children, many of the economic and legal protections they had historically enjoyed in this nation, thus creating a whole new underclass in American society: the abandoned housewife.

    The number of displaced homemakers rose twenty-eight percent between 1975 and 1983 to more than three million women. Another twenty percent increase from 1983 to 1988 brought that number to more than four million. An astonishing sixty-one percent of those women suddenly left alone had children under the age of ten at home. Often without job skills and stranded without alimony or child support, as many as seventy percent of these women make less than ten thousand dollars a year, and fifty percent are employed at minimum wage or less. It is, thus, readily apparent why a full seventy-five percent of all Americans living below the poverty line in the United States are women and their children.
    [Sylvia Ann Hewlett, A Lesser Life: The Myth of Women's Liberation in America (New York: William Morrow, 1986)]

    A million men willing to put their wives and families first is very frightening to the National Organization of Women (NOW).

    The men of Promise Keepers promise to love their wives, their children, and their neighbors as themselves, in keeping with the teachings of Jesus Christ, according to the New Testament. Why that should be threatening to Ireland and others of her ilk is apparent. One only has to look at their lifestyles for the answer. Non-Christians have no understanding of God’s plan for our lives. What they DO have is a great deal of fear about the subject.

    In more recent years feminism has turned more to a fight for abortion rights, lesbian rights, environmentalism and witchcraft. Gone are concerns about equal pay, assertiveness, and expressing one’s individuality. In their place are women ensconced in bitterness, hatred, and resentment.

    It is frightening for Ireland, and for Karen Taggart of the Washington, DC Lesbian
    Avengers, who said about the Promise Keepers, ” we’ll show them that lesbians are everywhere. We’ll show them that lesbians have super powers” Taggart is truly afraid that the men of Promise Keepers have tapped into just such a super power that will render her message irrelevant to women.

    http://www.jeremiahproject.com/prophecy/feminist2.html

Bottom
close[X]

Sign Up For Personal Liberty Digest™!

PL Badge

Welcome to PersonalLiberty.com,
America's #1 Source for Libertarian News!

To join our group of freedom-loving individuals and to get alerts as well as late-breaking conservative news from Personal Liberty Digest™...

Privacy PolicyYou can opt out at any time. We protect your information like a mother hen. We will not sell or rent your email address to anyone for any reason.