Phyllis Schlafly: 'Democrats Try to Lock Up Their Base'

Submitted by anthony on Tue, 2010-04-27 05:58

Article here. Excerpt:

'Indeed, the Democrats and their feminist allies have decided on one of their major goals. It is to increase the number of single moms by increasing the flow of taxpayer-paid incentives that subsidize the non-marriage lifestyle.

The plan also includes locking in this group's dependence on government and allegiance to the Democratic Party. The plan is conveniently set forth in a 60-page document called "Advancing the Economic Security of Unmarried Women" just published by John Podesta's left-wing think tank called Center for American Progress.

The Democrats know that 70 percent of unmarried women voted for Barack Obama in the 2008 election. It's obviously part their political game plan to reward that group and keep it in the Obama column.

The feminists, who have always been anti-marriage and very anti-full-time-homemaker, consider it progress that women are now half the workforce and are major breadwinners for their children. As chief feminist Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote in her 1977 tax-funded book "Sex Bias in the U.S. Code," the concept of breadwinning husband and homemaking wife "must be eliminated."

When the husband-breadwinner is eliminated, single moms look to Big Brother Government as provider. Democrats are glad to claim credit for facilitating the taxpayer subsidies.'

Like0 Dislike0

Comments

I like you, Phyllis, but you are just too in the Old World for me in terms of gender roles. There is nothing wrong with woman-as-breadwinner. The problem is woman-as-ward-of-the-state, which is what a lifetime of dependency on Big Brother payouts produces. Same is true for men on the dole for long periods of time.

Our society cannot survive if so many people are all on the taking end, and exclusively so, in terms of money and resources. We all have to contribute or else the payout end of the equation must of necessity fail. THAT is the problem. So in that, I agree with you. But to suggest that men need to be shoehorned back into The Provider role while women need to be likewise shoehorned back into The Housewife role is regressive. I believe MRAs and feminists have one thing, generally in common, in their beliefs: they both want more options and justice (as they see it) for their own sex. Shoehorning either or both classes of person back into "traditional roles" - REQUIRED - does not meet those goals.

Like0 Dislike0
Submitted by Matt on Tue, 2010-04-27 14:41