The Real ‘War on Women’

Pages: 1 2

Among the people who are disappointed with President Obama, none has more reason to be disappointed than those who thought he was going to be “a uniter, rather than a divider” and that he would “bring us all together.”

It was a noble hope, but one with no factual foundation. Barack Obama had been a divider all his adult life, especially as a community organizer, and he had repeatedly sought out and allied himself with other dividers, the most blatant of whom was the man whose church he attend for 20 years, Jeremiah Wright.

Now, with his presidency on the line and the polls looking dicey, President Obama’s re-election campaign has become more openly divisive than ever.

He has embraced the strident “Occupy Wall Street” movement, with its ridiculous claim of representing the 99 percent against the 1 percent. Obama’s Department of Justice has been spreading the hysteria that states requiring photo identification for voting are trying to keep minorities from voting, and using the prevention of voter fraud as a pretext.

But anyone who doubts the existence of voter fraud should read John Fund’s book “Stealing Elections” or J. Christian Adams’s book, “Injustice,” which deals specifically with the Obama Justice Department’s overlooking voter fraud when those involved are black Democrats.

Not content with dividing classes and races, the Obama campaign is now seeking to divide the sexes by declaring that women are being paid less than men, as part of a “war on women” conducted by villains, from whom Obama and company will protect the women — and, not incidentally, expect to receive their votes this November.

The old — and repeatedly discredited — game of citing women’s incomes as some percentage of men’s incomes is being played once again, as part of the “war on women” theme.

Since women average fewer hours of work per year, and fewer years of consecutive full-time employment than men, among other differences, comparisons of male and female annual earnings are comparisons of apples and oranges, as various female economists have pointed out.

Read Diana Furchtgott-Roth of the Hudson Institute or Professor Claudia Goldin of Harvard, for example.

Pages: 1 2

  • Alex Kovnat

    Maybe already-born-and-grown up women like the idea of aborting female infants, because if you have a world where there's more men than women, the women can afford to be more choosy about whom they marry, and can pick the most qualified men. Much like when you're a business owner and are seeking good workers to hire, if unemployment is high you can afford to be more choosy about whom you hire.

    • reader


      Ever wonder why your mother was not more choosy – whatever sex you are?

    • Sound&Fury

      As it happens in China, more infant girls are aborted because of their one-child policy. As a result, there is now of shortage of young women for Chinese men seeking marriage.

      So, Alex, your reasoning comes up short. Better not let your boss know that, or he's likely to abort you.

  • sedoanman

    Re: "The whole point of this political exercise is to get Republicans on record voting against 'fairness' for women…"

    Fairness for women can never happen because men cannot legislate them each a penis.

    • Jeamar

      What planet have you been living on? In the 60s I worked full time while my husband worked part time and got a college and professional degree. We served four years in the military and had two children. I also went to university while my children were in school and started working full time the day the first one went off to college. My daughter, when first married was going to college and holding down three part-time jobs also. Both my mother and her two sisters worked full time all their adult lives. There hasn't been an full-time stay-at-home mom in my family since my grandmother who was born in 1888.

  • wctaqiyya

    War on women? I don't know, can't we just put them back where they belong and call it a day? Why does everything anybody ever does, have to be called a war? Ever think about that? Or, in this case, anything nobody is doing very much at all about. Nope, I don't think we should shoot em. At least, not all of em. However, I do think if they want to be in charge, I want to be paid to sit at home, I want doors opened for me and I never pick up the check. Nor will I be expected to defend anything, catch mice, fix the roof, change tires, grill steaks, plant, prune or do any lawn care. In short, I will be a lazy b**ch playing cards with my b**ch friends and talking s**t about my no-good mate. So there, now go out and vote, get killed in combat, work hard so you can feed, clothe and house me until I get sick of you and dump your sorry butt. Then, keep paying me to live in the house you bought. I'll take that arrangement thank you very much and you can keep your wars.

  • Jeamar

    My post is a reply to wctaqiyya and I should have put it under his post.

    • wctaqiyya

      Honey, this post isn't about planets, it's about the so-called, 'war on women'. Do you have a constructive answer to my questions or a coherent opinion about the 'war'? If so, please contribute. If not, your personal details are not pertinent. As you may have learned in the army, your broken fingernail doesn't matter. And, since you brought it up, this planet doesn't revolve around you and your pretty little life. Nor does the issue raised by the author of this post. Rather, it is a societal issue. Which means it involves many people. Many is lots more than one. It's great that you work, as I indicated above, all women should work since being in charge means paying the bills. Tell all of your friends. But, is it too much to ask why a bunch of whining women is called a war? Thanks in advance for your scintillating answer.