Posted on 03/12/2014 3:58:04 AM PDT by Kaslin
You've probably heard that Democratic Party leaders decided that a way to win votes this November is to shout loudly that Republicans wage "war on women." Politico calls this a "proven, persuasive argument."
Give me a break. The idea of a conservative "war on women" is as silly as propaganda I was taught in college: Aside from sex organs, genders are exactly equal, said my leftist professors, and any admission of differences between men and women is oppressive.
I was taught that the only reason boys and girls behave differently is because we're raised differently. If society and parents were to treat genders the same, behavior differences would vanish. I believed it.
Then I had kids, and spent more time with kids, and learned what a fool I'd been.
Back in my ABC News days, I did a TV show about the differences. A typical mom said, "We gave them each trucks. She just wouldn't play with trucks. We wouldn't let him play with guns, so he pretended carrots were guns."
There were exceptions, of course. But it turns out that there's plenty of science documenting that men and women are just programmed differently.
Yet when I reported on that, feminist icon Gloria Steinem told me that gender differences shouldn't even be studied . She sneered, it's "anti-American, crazy thinking to do this kind of research."
At the time, fire departments had dropped strength tests to avoid being accused of sex discrimination. When I told Steinem that one of my interviewees complained that instead of being carried during a fire, now she would be dragged downstairs, with her head hitting each stair, Steinem retorted, "It's better to drag them out ... there's less smoke down there."
Such mindless egalitarianism appeals to politicians, so governments push more of it. President Barack Obama and his supporters brag that Obamacare forces health insurance companies to sell men and women health insurance for the exact same price. On my TV show this week, Democratic activist Jehmu Greene asks indignantly, "Do you want to live in a country where you charge women more than men?"
Well, yes, I do. Insurance should account for costs. Women go to doctors much more often. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention say, even if you exclude pregnancy visits, women are 33 percent more likely to visit a doctor. Insurance companies used to reflect that in prices. That isn't bigotry -- it's just math.
Insurance companies still charge men more for car and life insurance. A survey of car insurance companies found that the cheapest policy for a woman cost 39 percent less than for a man. A 60-year-old woman pays 20 percent less than a man for a 10-year life insurance policy. Seventy-year-old women pay half as much as men.
That's just math, too, because most women live longer than men and, despite the "woman-driver" stereotype, we men get into more car accidents.
I don't hear activists complaining about men paying too much. The "victim" propaganda works only when women pay more.
The sexes are simply different. Yet government demands that colleges have gender-equal sports participation. It's fine if dance and art groups are mostly women, but if athletic teams are too male, lawsuits follow.
Obama even cynically repeats the misleading claim that women make 77 cents for every dollar men make, although his own Department of Labor says the difference evaporates once you control for experience and other choices.
Government once even claimed that Hooters discriminates against men because it hires big-breasted female waiters. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission only dropped its complaint after Hooters ran a commercial showing a hairy male server wearing Hooters' skimpy uniform. Good for Hooters for mocking the bureaucrats; most companies just cringe and pay.
Liberal social engineers may dream of a society where genders are exactly equal, but that's nonsense. Men and women are different. We should celebrate that difference instead of claiming that women are victims.
Libs have been busy denying nature for more than a century. The sexes are different in more than just sexual apparatus. We do have hard-wired mental capabilities. Much societal wreckage has been done by libs in their denial of innate human assets.
Testosterone is also why guys think like guys. Even “effeminate” guys think more like guys than their sisters do.
Heh heh. Good for Hooters!
The “war on women” theme is very successful for Democrats; unfortunately it has wrought havoc on women themselves. How long can American women vote Democrat while facing childless futures, while their taxes subsidize a new generation of (mostly) non-American children? American women are voting themselves into extinction, and not enjoying “playing man” with the financial responsibilites that entails...
I don’t think financial responsibilities are confined to one sex. Even if a woman is married to a responsible, loyal husband and she stays home to raise the kids, she needs to be financially responsible. They need to be responsible as a couple, as well, and plan for the possibility that one of them dies. Would you want your wife to be financially unprotected and financially clueless if you died? Would you want your husband to be unprepared to raise the kids or take care of the house?
The points about subsidizing a generation of non-American children is excellent, but can’t be used by conservative politicians without accusations of racism.
Financial responsibility has always been an issue for married women with kids because of the stakes; now imagine what it is like for women in the rat race without the options of families. They’re working as men, and living the life of bachelors (fun when you’re twenty five, but they’re whining a lot when they’re thirty five). When they reach a certain age, many women seem to think it has been a pointless existence; they (and their ideas, issues) will go the way of the dodo, leaving nothing behind but a cat or dog. As much as I’d enjoy free college and the other benefits of affirmative action, I don’t envy these women; outside of the piltical arena, I pity them.
Well then that is why we will go extinct.
A society that cannot discuss the truth and refuses to stand up for its own survival doesn't deserve to live.
Mother’s Day is coming up.
Every Republican Candidate for Congress has a Mother.
Why not hold an Internet Contest to determine which Republican candidate, by age group, loves their Mother more?
Republican Candidates could submit, on line, statements and pictures to document how much they love their Mothers.
The Democrats’ “War” on Women would be easily defeated by the Republican Candidates Mothers statements on how much their sons or daughters love them.
The subliminal messages of this contest are as follows:
* “A Republican Candidate who loves his or her Mother cannot be a supporter of any War on Women;” and
* “The Democrats really do have a War on Women because they didn’t think of this contest first.”
“Mothers Against the Democrat’s War on Women” is my suggested title.
Winners, by age group would be announced on Mother’s Day, 2014.
You have the winning title!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.