Belle of Liberty

Letting Freedom Ring

Thursday, March 08, 2012

International Women's Day

Today is International Women’s Day.  Since Obama officially declared that Conservatives are waging a War on Women, the battle has been raging.  The center of this battle, the Progressive’s Joan of Arc (Jeanne de Arc), is Sandra Fluke.  Rush Limbaugh took a huge hit for calling her the “S” word.   Not advisable perhaps, but he was right in his point.  One of the definitions of the “S” word is an immoral woman.  Fluke may not be a prostitute but she’s certainly no lady.

There’s a reason men were always thought to be smarter than women and this War on Women is the proof.  Although men are our equals, with as many flaws, at least they’re aware of their defects.  Women make sure they’re aware of them.  Yet women have that proverbial, Biblical log in their eye.  There is a game afoot to transform the world and destroy freedom, and women have become the foot soldiers in that war.

The battle of the sexes is ages old, yet the Liberals have found ways to exploit it.  Women’s greatest weakness is probably their lust for gold.  Where men judge a future mate’s suitability by her looks, women judge the size – of a man’s wallet.  The more money the man makes, the more she can spend.   Going to work is even better, for then it’s truly her own money and she can spend it as she chooses.  The divorce laws favor the woman, who gets custody of the children and child support.  Of course, she has to go out to work then and must employ someone to care for the progeny, so she has all the advantages of having a family without any of the drudgery.

With the economy faltering, women are beginning to realize that they’ve been missing their children’s childhood.  If the unemployment numbers don’t reflect the reality of how many people are actually unemployed, that they don’t show the people who’ve given up, it’s because the people who’ve given up first are working mothers who now have the excuse to stay home and take care of their kids.  There’s something you’ll never learn from the Media.

People need to wake up about the Smart Growth/Sustainable Development/Agenda 21 plan.  It’s not all about the environment; it’s all about redistributing the wealth and reducing the populations of industrialized nations like the United States, which in the view of the Marxists, is the chief evil-doer.  They’ve targeted three of our weakest groups:  the young, the elderly, and the women.

The family is the enemy in their view.  Families that care for their own are a threat to the new socialist structure, where the government takes care of everyone.  The elderly are compartmentalized by Social Security, “disburdening” families from having to care for their senior relatives.  What a nuisance, after all.

The young are easily seduced by hormonally-induced rage and anger at their inability to achieve instant independence.  Independence without maturity and judgment is a volatile mix.  To bring about this goal, the Marxists have set about the task of the juvenilization of America.  Juvenilization is the method by which dog breeders take more aggressive breeds of dogs and mate them with more passive animals until they produce obedient, civilized, sociable dogs that won’t bite the hand that feeds them.  The hand that feeds them, in this case, are the drug dealers and the propagandists who teach them environmentalism and socialism.  Juveniles are taught that parental, authority figures are the enemy.

Finally, the other item on the Marxist agenda is population control.  This isn’t the 6th century so they can’t exactly rape and pillage their way to conquest.  Instead of bullets, their weapon is the birth control pill.  Reduce the population until it is no longer productive.  Marxists hate productivity and books like “Towards Sustainable Communities” go on at length about the evils of productivity.

So how do you convince a nation not to be productive?  Well, unionization is one method.  The more general, social tactic is to “emancipate” women from the rigors of childbirth and childrearing.  Not only does it help in reducing “productivity” but it puts the education of future generations square in the hands of the bureaucracy.

At about the same time environmentalists were hatching their global take-over plan in Rio de Janeiro, the U.N. was also drafting up the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC).  Here is a quote from the World Federation for Mental Health, in 1948:

“Studies of human development indicate the modifiability of human behavior throughout life, especially during infancy, childhood and adolescence…Social institutions such as family and school impose their imprint early….It is the men and women in whom these patterns of attitude and behavior have been incorporated who present the immediate resistance to social, economic and political changes.”

And who is the first influence in infancy and early childhood?  You guessed it – Mom.  Mine warned about this trend when I was a child.

The trick was separation anxiety.  Women don’t naturally want to be separated from their children.  A new mother will cling to her newborn baby most tenaciously in order to form the most important bond with her child.   So how do you separate mothers from their children?

First, you have to separate the mother from the father, so that the mother is dependent upon the government rather than her husband.  Get him out of the way and you’re halfway there to global tyranny.  Give women the money and the pill and the next tyrant will be in business.

That isn’t to say that women shouldn’t receive equal pay for equal work.  It isn’t even advisable that women should have no working skills at all.  If something happens to the husband that he dies or can’t work, women will be dependent on the government.  My own mother fought that battle for equal pay years ago, back in the Forties, when she learned she was receiving half the pay of a new, male reporter, for doing the same job.  She demanded, and got, the equal pay.

When Mom got married, that was it, though.  She had a perfect sense of her priorities.  Family, children came first, before career.  She not only cared for us, but for her mother, who was unable to drive and locked in a most unsuitable marriage.  When we asked her whether she regretted having us and missed her career and the money to buy nice things, she told us, “Been there, done that.  I wanted to try something new – motherhood.  You’re my career now.”
Women do need to get their priorities straight, though.  They need to ask themselves whether they’re pursuing a career because they have a particular skill, or whether they’re working to satisfy a lust for power and money, to compete rather than be partners with their husbands.

Most husbands don’t mind working wives at all.  They don’t even mind sharing household duties when their wives also work.  Dual careers are proving to be a problem in a bad economy; an unexpected one, as employee within my company have discovered.  In some cases, which would seem ideal, both husband and wife work for the company.  Yet one is transferred to another part of the Company, while the other is not.  For many couples, one spouse works for this company, and the other for some other company.  One of them will be out of work, one way or the other.

Even for those of us who are single, it’s not necessarily an easy choice.  The move will mean tearing up family roots, dissolving the family network.  It wasn’t option for me, nor for many others.  The company is not to blame; it was a combination of burdensome corporate taxes, onerous regulations that led to the company taking on unattractive customers, bad drivers, and flooded out homes.  They had to lay off members of my department in order to hire more staff to do the main work, which is, unfortunately, overflowing.

My company was careful in revealing its transition plans to the Media, lest it be transmogrified into yet another “evil, greedy corporation.”  The thing is done now.  Some employees refused the offer of a transfer; others accepted.  The numbers were greater on the refusal side.

Just what are my company’s employees to do?  In this company, you must be mobile.  That means that employees who want to move up in the company are better off renting than buying homes.  They’re well-compensated but it doesn’t do much for their family lives.

Big Brother got to stay where he is, but he paid the price in traveling.  Meanwhile, his ex-wife also worked (with his approval), leaving the Nephew with no one to care for him but his grandparents, who lived next door.  He was a latchkey child.  I watched many such children picked up at 7 and even 8 at night from the daycare provider across the street from my mother’s house.  All for what?  So Mom can buy a new pair of shoes?  So they can go to Disneyworld and pretend they’re a family for a week?

Most families say they must work in order to make ends meet.  What ends?  I do know some truly impoverished families.  Most could make do, with some savings, on one income, however.  Now, they have no choice.  This is what feminism has begotten.  Reproductive justice is the means to the Marxist end, the way to achieve population control in their favor.

Get women to hate bearing and raising children.  To look upon it as demeaning drudgery.  To appeal to their conceit and their competitive natures.  To lure them with the very materialism the Marxists denounce.  All led by a decidedly and avowedly promiscuous young woman who wants the taxpayers to foot the bill for her lifestyle choice and that of other misogamistic, barren young women whose only goal in life is political power.

Mothers and future mothers of America:  the choice is up to you, of course.  The government has no business interfering in your choices.  But consider the choices well before you surrender your role in the chain of life or surrender your children to the care of others.

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home