War on Women

                The Democrats continue to claim that Republicans are waging a war on women.  Even with the Democrat lies, no one would consider Republican words and actions as a war on women if they knew more about the real thing.  Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a global advocate for women’s rights, knows and continues to warn Americans about how women are treated in Muslim countries and other people involved in mainstream Islam.  

                Hirsi Ali was born in Somalia and was subjected to female genital mutilation when she was five years old.  Her father opposed the traditional practice and was in prison when the mutilation took place.  When her father escaped from prison, he moved his family to Saudi Arabia, then to Ethiopia, and finally to Kenya.  By that time, Hirsi Ali was 11 years old.  She grew up as a Muslim woman; she read and accepted the Quran and its teachings.  She fled to the Netherlands when her family tried to force her into an arranged marriage.  She then became a translator for Somali women seeking asylum. 

                When Hirsi Ali learned of the many women in the Netherlands who continued to suffer under Islam, she became a politician to bring attention to the problem.  She was elected to the Dutch parliament in 2003.  She gained the attention of Theo van Gogh, a Dutch filmmaker.  She wrote and narrated a film “Submission” about oppressed women.  The film outraged Muslims in the Netherlands.  As a result, van Gogh was shot and stabbed to death in Amsterdam on November 2, 2004, as he rode his bicycle to work.  The killer used a knife to pin a letter to the body of van Gogh; the letter contained a death threat against Hirsi Ali.  She resigned from parliament and moved to the United States in 2006, but she continues to be accompanied by a security detail wherever she goes.

                Hirsi Ali continues to be a “fearless critic of Islam” and often speaks out about the treatment of Muslim women.  She was slated to receive an honorary degree from Brandeis University last April, but the university reversed its decision under pressure from student activists and the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR).  A CAIR spokesman called her “one of the worst of the worst of the Islam-haters in America.”

                Hirsi Ali is not the only person speaking out against the harsh treatment of women.  Ashe Schow gave seven examples with pictures of this real war on women.  His examples are (1) Malala Yousufzai who was shot in the head by the Taliban for promoting education for women; (2) Fakhra Younus who left her abusive husband and was attacked with acid for her actions; (3) Jyoti Singh Pandey who was gang raped and murdered; (4) Afghan Senator Roh Gul Khairzad who was shot while traveling home; (5) Noor Faleh Almaleki who was murdered in an “honor killing” for being too “westernized;” (6) Amena Jan who was poisoned for attending school, and

(7) Gendercide – “the practice of aborting a child based on its gender.”

                Ashe Schow wrote another article about the war on women; she referenced a New York Post writer who listed “5 places women shouldn’t spend their travel dollars.  The article listed four countries that keep women down:  Turkey, Indonesia, El Salvador, and Saudi Arabia.  The fifth place on the list is Utah.  The author of the article apparently thinks Utah treats women as badly as the four nations named above!

                “The reason?  Women in the Beehive State earn less than men by a wider gap than the other 49 U.S. states.  Citing the Global Gender Gap Index – which lists the U.S. as 20^th out of 142 countries in terms of gender parity – the Post piece makes its case that Utah is horrible for women….”

                The first two articles show the blindness of people who claim Republicans are waging war on women; the third article shows the stupidity of a reporter who apparently looked at statistics and did not take other facts into consideration in making her judgment.  With all the horrible treatment of women in the world, how can anyone think Republicans are warring against women?

War on Women

                The liberty principle for this Freedom Friday is the simple fact that there is no “war on women.”  Democrats try to convince women that Republicans hate them and even abuse them, but it is Democrats who use women for political purposes.

                Debbie Wasserman Schultz, congresswomen from Florida and Democratic National Committee chair, recently accused Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker of abusing women.  In speaking to a group of women at the Milwaukee Athletic Club, Ms. Wasserman Schultz said:

                “Scott Walker has given women the back of his hand.  I know that is stark.  I know that is direct.  But that is reality.”  She continued with further insults:  “What Republican tea party extremists like Scott Walker are doing is they are grabbing us by the hair and pulling us back.  It is not going to happen on our watch.”

                Ms. Genevieve Wood at The Daily Signal  apparently believes that Ms. Wasserman Schultz not only insult Governor Walker but all women.  In addition, she claims that the insult to Governor Walker “makes light of the real issue of domestic abuse” by using the same words to describe actual physical abuse and political policies. She continued with her description of how Democrats, not Republicans, wage a “war on women.”

                “The truth is, Wasserman Schultz and all her left-wing pals marching in the `war on women’ parade are the ones who continue to pull women back.  They are the ones who want to deny women the freedom of choosing their own doctor or the school that is best for their child.  They are the ones who want to keep women in the dark about the health risks of abortion.  They are the ones who have promoted economic policies resulting in more Americans being on food stamps than ever before.  It is under their leadership that fewer Americans either have or are looking for job today than at any point since 1978.  And they are the ones that continue to keep women’s confidence down with false rhetoric and numbers about equal pay.

                “Unfortunately, there is plenty of evidence that rhetoric often trumps reality….

                “The Left uses the `war on women’ mantra not because it’s real but because, to date, it has worked.  They don’t care about women as individuals; they care about them as a monolithic voting bloc.  The only potential positive outcome of Wasserman Schultz’s comments is that perhaps American women will finally see her and other `war on women’ shills for what they really are:  outrageous.”

                Nia-Malika Henderson of the Washington Post believes the Democrats continue to speak about the “war on women” because this theme has helped Democrats to win past elections.  This time, however, Ms. Wasserman Schultz went too far, and Democrats are circling the wagons around her.

                I am insulted at the idea that women might actually believe the Democrats when they make their claims.  Are women really so confused and unthinking?  Can they not see that they are being used as pawns for political purposes?  I agree that Democrats are not interested in women as individuals and only care about them as a voting bloc.  I hope women open their eyes and see things as they really are and not as Democrats try to paint them.

Women Voters

                    An analysis of the results of the 2012 election shows that the majority of women voted for Barack Obama.  I am more than a little dismayed that so many members of my sex - my sisters - supported a man who uses them for his own gain.  It is obvious that many of them drank the Obama kool-ade!  I cannot help wondering if my sisters sold their votes for food stamps and Obama phones or $9.00 per month worth of contraceptives in order that they can be used by other men for other purposes.

                    Obama's "war on women" blinded my sisters to the fact that conservative principles strengthen both men and women.  Conservative principles are based on Judeo-Christian principles, which come from God.  In the beginning, God created male and female and placed them in the relationship of marriage to work together - to help and serve each other - for the benefit of their entire family.    Heavenly Father wants His daughters to be as strong and capable as he desires His sons to be, and He expects men and women to work together as equal partners for the good of mankind. 

I know this because I know how men and women work together within The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

The Church is governed by men who hold the priesthood of God, and members of the priesthood function in conjunction with the women of the Church.  In fact, the priesthood looks to the Relief Society for counsel as well as support in blessing all members of the Church. 

All adult women belong to the Relief Society, one of the oldest and largest organizations for women in the world.  The Relief Society on the general level is led by a woman Relief Society president who guides the activities of the adult female members of the Church all over the world.  Other women serve under her direction on the general level, on the stake level, and on the ward level.  Members of the Relief Society have the responsibility to bring tenderness and charity into the lives and homes of the members.

The Church does not accept the idea that women have to act and look like men in order to be effective.  Women do not have to be like men because men and women are given different tasks.  Women are to be leaders among the women, young women, and children and to be joint leaders in their homes. Men are charged with the responsibility to be administers of the Church organizations and to preside or lead in their homes, to protect their wives and children, and to provide temporal support for the family.  The main responsibility for women is to nurture their children and to develop a safe and happy environment in the home. 

We believe and act on the principle that the man is not without the woman, nor is the woman without the man in the Lord (see 1 Corinthians 11:11).  Man and woman who follow God compliment each other rather than compete with each other. The woman "completes" the man, and the man "completes" the woman - and both are better for the relationship.

 

Priesthood leaders rely on counsel from the Relief Society, especially in the areas concerning women and girls, and husbands rely on the counsel of their wives as they counsel together for the good of the family.  When men and women work together for the good of the organization - whether it be the Church or the family - it becomes a righteous balance that helps our Church organizations and our homes to be successful.

                    As women, we can choose the type of relationship that we have with men.  We can either allow men to disrespect us and use us for their own selfish reasons, or we can develop complimentary relationships with men wherein we all benefit.  I hope that my sisters will understand how much we are all loved by our Heavenly Father and will choose to work with the sons of God in making our world a better place rather than being slaves to men who desire to use them for their own selfish needs.

                    

End the War on Women

                    The liberty principle for this Freedom Friday comes from an essay written by Daniel Burton, a contributor at ksl.com entitled "Lessons learned from political `War on Women.'"   That principle is:  The war on women would quickly end if men, women, and political leaders would recognize the power and influence of women and treat them fairly and equally.

                    The essay eloquently describes the many ways that women bring blessings to their homes and communities.  Burton wrote, "When we come down to it, this is about how we - men, the government, and CNN pundits - get out of the way and let women make the choices themselves.  Whether it's a husband, father, or government, women don't need men to tell them what is right or what is wrong, how to spend their money or whether they should be working or not.  They know what is best for their families and they are perfectly adept at figuring it out without Uncle Sam telling them how.  They just need to be treated like their decisions - whether to stay-at-home and raise their children or to share the responsibility of providing with dad or even to not have children at all - matter and are respected."

                    This man values the women in his life.  This fact is obvious from his essay - for which I am grateful.  I encourage you to read it and learn the lessons that he gained.  He ended his essay with this statement:

                    "It's tough to be a mother, and no one should try to tell them that one political party or the other knows what's best for them.  They know best for themselves.

                    "What do women want?  They want to be treated equally and fairly in whatever choice they make.  They are smart, they understand the effects of their choices, and they move the economy.  Whether they choose to be in the workforce or at home, it's time we treat them like they are the equals that they are."

Stay at Home Moms

                    Stay at home mothers leaped to the top of the news when Hilary Rosen criticized Ann Romney for "never working a day in her life."  Rosen's comment angered many women, especially those women who choose to stay home with their children.  Numerous professional women have written in support of Mrs. Romney, and their essays can be found here, here, and here. For an interesting look at the war on women from a man who wants to sit out the war, click here.  This author wants to make love not war - and he doesn't mean sex.

Many people think that Rosen - a woman who handles public relations professionally - made a giant mistake when she criticized mothers, and I was one of the foolish ones who believed she goofed.  Even though Rosen made "inappropriate, insensitive, politically incorrect comments," I now believe that she made a "calculated" strike in the war on women. 

Margaret Pearson wrote a blog entry entitled "Hilary Rosen's Class WarfareTactic" that enlarges on this idea.  Pearson suggested that Rosen might have "volunteered to become a scapegoat or villain so that Obama could rush to the defense of stay at home moms" in an effort to further divide working women from stay-at-home moms.  She suggested that we ask the question:  "why was this planted?"

"Behind all this talk … is the simple fact that most women work outside the home now.  Regardless of circumstances … more women are earning paychecks … than ever before.

"In fact, the more educated you are and the more affluent you are, as a woman, the more likely you are to have a `career.'"

                 Pearson suggests that politicians know they can win votes from women in poverty simply by "assuring continued and increasing benefits" but they may not know "how to appeal to all those working women."  She believes that the Obama campaign is appealing to the working women by appealing "to their true, yet unspoken, opinions."

                    Pearson claims that "Mothers that stay home and forego careers to raise their children have long been disdained by working women.  Working women are often simmering with disdain for the women that opt out.  As any stay-at-home mom can attest, there is a thin veil of superiority working women wield as they inquire, `just what exactly do you do all day?'"

                    According to Pearson, we should not jump to the conclusion that a mistake was made but assume that it was a calculated move to divide women and bring the larger portion of women to vote for Obama. 

                    Even though I know many stay-at-home mothers, facts seem to prove that there is a larger percentage of working mothers than those who stay at home.  Rose M. Kreider and Diana B. Elliott of the Fertility and Family Statistics Branch of the US Census Bureau, presented a report entitled "Historical Changes in Stay-at-Home Mothers:  1969 to 2009" at the American Sociological Association 2010 annual meetings in Atlanta, Georgia.  The authors introduced their report with the following statement.

                    "For decades, the `stay-at-home mother' has been a recognized phenomenon.  The stay-at-home mother has often been held up as the epitome of motherhood - staying out of the formal labor force to raise her children while her husband worked full time to support the family.  As women with children joined the formal labor force in greater numbers throughout the mid 20th century, the proportion of mothers who were out of the labor force caring for their children while their husbands were in the labor force decreased.  As this behavior became less normative, did the composition of this group change?  In this paper, we explore the decrease in the proportion of married mothers with children under 15 in married couple households who stayed home, and whether the demographic characteristics of this increasingly select group of women also changed."

                    The report explains how the amount of education and pay for working influences whether or not women have careers.  Women without a high school diploma are more likely to stay home than women with a diploma; more women with college degrees are in the work force than women with just a high school diploma.   Some people have wondered why black women are not standing up in defense of Ann Romney and other stay-at-home mothers, and I believe the answer can be found in this report.

                    "This is not to say, however, that the stay-at-home mother of the 1950s and early 1960s was a universal experience.  There is evidence that married black women have always been employed outside of the home in large numbers (Landry 2000).  Even black mothers with young children were in the work force following World War II (Thistle 2006), when many of their white counterparts had withdrawn from the labor force.  The post-World War II boom in stay-at-home mothers may have also been a class-based phenomenon, because not all families had the luxury of having a mother who was able to stay at home (Thistle 2006).  Regardless of class background, the mass-marketing of household appliances following World War II enabled more women to enter the work force because less time had to be devoted to housework (Thistle 2006).  Such evidence suggests that even during the apparent apex of stay-at-home motherhood, it was not as universal an experience as historical anecdotes suggest."

                    Knowing that most black mothers are in the working class as well as well-educated women, I can see better that Rosen's criticism of Ann Romney was a calculated move to divide women.  Even though conservative, stay-at-home mothers will probably vote for Romney, black women and "affluent" women will probably vote for Obama.

                    It is becoming more and more obvious that Obama is using class warfare to divide our nation.  He has worked since day one to divide the races, and now he is trying to start a war between groups of women.  I hope that my sisters will see through the mists of darkness being thrown up by liberals and progressives and that they will understand the damage that is being done to our nation by Obama and his minions.  I want my sisters to set their emotions aside and consider seriously the following questions.  Are you better off today than you were four years ago?  Is our country better off than it was four years ago?  Do you really want to continue down the path that our government leaders are taking us?

                    Rosen's attack on Ann Romney was an attack on all women.  Are you willing to excuse the attack or will you join me in ousting this President and his hordes?

War on Women

                    The liberty principle for this Freedom Friday concerns the worth of women and girls.  Since women comprise approximately fifty percent of registered voters, both political parties are anxious to obtain the vote of women.  I am concerned that my sisters will be deceived by the Democrat lies and re-elect the worst President who has ever sat in the Oval Office.  Women must be careful and listen to the truth because there truly is a war on women, but it is not the one being presented by our lame-stream media.

I believe that there is a war on women, but it is being waged by liberals/progressives.  A good example of this war comes from the White House itself in the salaries of its employees.  If Barack Obama thinks so highly of women, why do the female employees in the White House make less money than their male colleagues?

                    "According to the 2011 annual report on White House staff, female employees earned a median annual salary of $60,000, which was about 18 percent less than the median salary for male employees ($71,000).

            Ken Blackwell and Bob Morrison wrote an article entitled "Mr. Obama's Own War on Women".  The article states:  There's a real war on women, however.  And it's been going on for decades.  Our friend Steven Mosher first discovered this war on women in China three decades ago. Steven was a Stanford University Ph.D. student doing graduate research in rural China.  He was then not a Christian believer, and he was even mildly pro-choice.  What he discovered was that Chinese women got no choice.  If they had a second child - an `illegal' child - these women could be rounded up, thrown in the back of a two-ton truck, and carted off to the local infirmary.  There, they could even be held down, their children forcibly aborted.  Many of these unfortunate women were in their last trimester of pregnancy."

                    The authors explained that if the child survived the abortion attempt, the government workers would simply drown the baby.  "With such brutal policies in effect limiting Chinese couples to only one child, the rural Chinese felt further pressure to make sure that the child was a boy.  That's because sons are the only social `safety net' for hundreds of millions of Chinese."

                    The authors continued their article by explaining that President Obama is not being honest when he claims that the Republicans are conducting a war on women.  In fact, "he is the one who made sure that China's monstrous population effort would be fully supported by the U.N. Fund for Population Activities (UNFPA).  Two days after assuming power, President Obama revoked the Reagan-era Mexico City Policy of the previous administration.  He forces us to fund international Planned Barrenhood.

                    "That means that the worldwide war on baby girls will go forward, with U.S. taxpayers footing part of the bill….

                    "Hundreds of millions of baby girls have been killed…."

                    The killing of baby girls before birth or as infants is not the only war on women that leftists are supporting.  Liberals/progressive apparently turn a blind eye to the Muslim treatment of women.  Terry Davidson wrote an article entitled "Book tells Muslim men howto beat and control their wives".   This article discusses a 160-page book that appears to be flying off the shelves of bookstores.  "In the book's opening pages, it is written that `it might be necessary to restrain her with strength or even to threaten her" but later pages advise `the husband should treat the wife with kindness and love, even if she tends to be stupid and slow sometimes."  Other pages contain the rights of the husband, which include controlling when and if the wife can leave the house and that the wife "must `fulfil his desires'".  It is quite obvious to me that Muslim men are guilty of waging a war on their women and girls, and we are allowing them to do so.

                    Mary Nicholas wrote an article entitled "Women as Property of the State".   This article gives a short history of the treatment of women under communism.  "History is illustrative here.  Karl Marx had a female slave who was a child of 8, eventually using her as his mistress.  Uncle Joe's wife committed suicide, although there are mysteries surrounding that death, as the gun was found on one side of the bed and she was shot on the opposite side of the head….

                    "Disconcerting evidence of the left's view of women is available from the beginning of the Bolshevik revolution.  You can find the facts in the 1918 edition of the New York Times - so it must be true.  `Soviets Make Girls Property of the State.'  Correct.  That was the actual headline.  In certain Bolshevist Soviets, Russian `maidens,' when they reached the age of 18, were compelled to register at a government `Bureau of Free Love' (Vladimir Soviet of Workers' and Soldiers' Deputies).  The Bolsheviks nationalized women - just like nationalizing GM and Chrysler.  They were treated as objects - commodities of the state.

                    "Under the decree, a woman `had the right to choose from among men between 19 and 50 a cohabitant husband.'  The consent of the man was not necessary, the man chosen having no right to make any protest."

                    In yet another article about how the leftist principles are waging war on women, Michael S. Iachetta wrote "Cause of Death:  No Father."  "Most children born to American women under thirty are now born out of wedlock, even though studies show that their children are more likely to experience poverty and other negative consequences as a result.  Studies also indicate that children raised in non-traditional homes are more likely to commit crimes and suffer abuse than children raised in traditional homes.  A series of incidents over the last few weeks illustrate this sad fact, and suggest that such children may also be more vulnerable to violence outside the home."

                    After describing several instances of how having no father in the home hurt both girls and boys, the author continued, "Many children who grow up in non-traditional homes will not suffer violence, and children who grow up in non-traditional homes are not the only ones who commit violent crimes.  Yet non-traditional home life increases the likelihood that children will suffer and inflict crimes like these, and a caring society must do everything it can to restrain and protect them.

                    "It is unlikely, though, that society will ever be able to replace the essential role of men as fathers who protect, love, and discipline their children.  Our only hope lies in returning to the norm of intact, traditional homes…."

                    The real war on women begins in the womb when baby girls - and boys - are aborted.  It continues when governments allow men to abuse girls and women, force women and/or girls into "legal" prostitution, or follow policies that destroy families.  All of these areas of "war" are exactly opposite the desires of God for his daughters.

                    The Young Women's theme begins, "We are daughters of our Heavenly Father who loves us and we love Him."  Heavenly Father truly does love His daughters, and wise daughters love him.  Heavenly Father knows and values each of His children - girls and boys, men and women.  He has a plan for each of His children, and that plan includes coming to earth to obtain a body and to learn to choose good over evil.  We honor our Heavenly Father when we make good choices and choose to keep His commandments. 

                    We as women and girls must acknowledge our relationship to Heavenly Father and our identity as His daughters.  Relief Society, like Young Women's, helps us to remember our divine heritage.

                    The Prophet Joseph Smith told the Relief Society sisters on April 28, 1842:  "You are now placed in a situation in which you can act according to those sympathies which God has planted in [you]….  If you live up to your privileges, the angels cannot be restrained from being your associates."

                    Sister Julie B. Beck, Relief Society general president, said:  "As daughters of God, you are preparing for eternal designations, and each of you has a female identity, nature, and responsibility.  The success of families, communities, this Church, and the precious plan of salvation is dependent on your faithfulness.  … [Our Heavenly Father] intended Relief Society to help build His people and prepare them for the blessings of the temple.  He established [Relief Society] to align His daughters with His work and to enlist their help in building His kingdom and strengthening the homes of Zion."

                    Heavenly Father gave specific work to His daughters to help build His kingdom.  In addition, He has given us the necessary spiritual gifts to help us accomplish our specific responsibilities.  As members of Relief Society, we receive many opportunities to use these spiritual gifts as we strive to strengthen families, help those in need, and learn how to live as disciples of Jesus Christ.

                    President Dieter F. Uchtdorf, Second Counselor in the First Presidency, spoke of discipleship:  "By patiently walking in the path of discipleship, we demonstrate to ourselves the measure of our faith and our willingness to accept God's will rather than ours."

                    Relief Society has a power to serve others and to help individuals increase in faith.  Zina D. H. Young, third Relief Society general president, recognized this power and promised the sisters in 1893, "If you will dig in the depths of your own hearts you will find, with the aid of the Spirit of the Lord, the pearl of great price, the testimony of this work."

                    We are daughters of God, and He has entrusted us with great responsibilities.  It is vital that we remember that we are His daughters and do our best to live as He would have us live.  As we strive to fulfill our divinely delegated responsibilities, we will help to build God's kingdom here on earth and become worthy to return to His presence to live with Him for eternity.

                    We as girls and women can put an end to the "war on women" when we refuse to be treated as "door mats" and prostitutes.  The demands for employer/government paid birth control are simply a "blind" to hide the desire for more and more open and free sex in order to further destroy our society.  Heavenly Father desires his daughters to be loved and protected by men who love them enough to marry them and provide for them.  Heavenly Father's plan for His sons and daughters is for them to be born to parents who love each other and who are legally married before the pregnancy takes place.  When we understand the value that God places on His daughters, we will gain the necessary self-esteem to demand to be treated as daughters of God should be treated.  We are daughters of a Heavenly King and deserve to be treated with love and respect.  We are daughters of Heavenly Father who loves us, and we love Him!