Democrats and the Obama Administration have created some amusing propaganda recently – the GOP’s ‘War on Women’. Many people believe there is no war on women (there isn’t in the form that Obama is peddling) but in reality there has been a war waged against women for many years – by Democrats. Let’s start with a little stroll back through history.
It was Democrats who didn’t want women to get the right to vote nationally: From the New York Times
Sunday, February 15, 1920
Booms Mrs. Catt for Presidency
Minnesota Delegate's Suggestion Rouses Furor in Suffrage Convention
Praise Hays and Cummings
League Takes the Place of Old Association That Won the Fight
CHICAGO, Feb. 14 - The National American Woman's Suffrage Association today came to the defense of Will Hays, Chairman of the Republican National Committee, who has been attacked by anti-suffragists for aid rendered to the suffrage cause, and congratulated the Republican Party "for having a Chairman who is astute enough to recognize the certain trend of public affairs and to lead his party in step with the inevitable march of human progress."
It was under Democrat President Wilson that women (suffragettes) who were protesting for their right to vote outside of the White House were arrested and confined to prison.
The Democrats’ ‘War on Poverty’ has done nothing to ease poverty but has increased the number of women IN poverty and dependent on the government.
What was the message of the social programs that came out of LBJ's Great Society?
One of the most devastating to the family was that if an unwed woman became pregnant, moved out of the home of her parents, did not name or know who the father was, then Big Daddy in Washington would provide for all her essential needs. Ergo she no longer needed a husband or the support of her family. In fact, the more children she had out of wedlock, the more money she would receive from the government.
The 'Great Society' hurt black women and families the most and still does to this day:
…That's the deal that the Great Society struck with low-income black women in the 1970s. The result: the marginalization of black men, an explosion of single-parent households, and the institutionalization of a near-permanent under-class.
Forty years ago, social scientists devised a clever euphemism to sum up the effects of a government program that picks taxpayers' wallets, weakens the family, and turns women into wards of the state: the feminization of poverty.
And then we have the feminist movement of the 60s and 70s:
The social and political changes effected by the early women's movement thus were in the service of a sex-neutral model of society. In this, each individual would be afforded an equal opportunity to shape her or his own life regardless of sex. The notion of gender difference was deemphasized by a movement focused on equality, as women sought to gain the right to fully participate in all aspects of society. Differences between women and men, which had consistently been a central ideological and behavioral component of limiting women to a separate stereotyped "feminine" sphere, came under attack. The personal fact of one's sex became an arena of political struggle, as increasing numbers of feminists challenged the prevailing ideology that sex and gender were legitimate constraints on the right to self-determination. Political justice demanded that gender make no difference. Expectations were high that women would achieve the freedom they had been denied and that sexism would be defeated.
With the new financial regulation law, the federal government is moving from outlawing discrimination to setting up a system of quotas. Ultimately, the only way that financial firms doing business with the government would be able to comply with the law is by showing that a certain percentage of their workforce is female or minority.
Apparently Democrats do not believe in gender equality in 2012 and believe that businesses should be forced to hire women based on their body parts rather than their job qualifications. Thanks but no thanks. Women have worked hard for decades to prove themselves in the workforce. Forcing quotas on businesses is essentially saying ‘we know women are inferior so we are going to force you to hire them’.
Feminists of the 60s wanted gender equality yet those same women are whining to have someone else – Big Daddy Government, Big Mommy Taxpayer or Big Evil Insurance Company provide them with free contraceptives. How pathetic was Sandra Fluke to whine in front of the male dominated Congress that she had so much sex ($3,000 worth of birth control... you go girl!) she cannot afford to pay for her own contraceptives but wanted to depend on someone else to pay for it (not her partner(s) but an entity). What happened to the sexual revolution where women were in control of and responsible for their sexuality and their bodies? Is it ironic or moronic that Democrats scream ‘Hands off my Uterus’ yet want the government to be directly involved in their uterus when it comes to providing free abortion on demand and birth control?
The Obama Administration held a ‘women’s conference’ today at the White House. It is an election year after all. Even though Obama only plays golf with women when forced to, he has to pretend he cares about Women’s issues because that is what all good Liberal Democrats do – pretend - while putting policies into place that hurt women of all color, sexual orientation and economic class. Obama has been waging a war on the entire country with his failed economic, energy and jobs policies. To now use women in his political propaganda game is not only repulsive but extremely chauvinistic and anti-women on the Democrats’ part but as we’ve seen, we should expect no less from the 'War on Women' that Democrats have been waging for decades.