[One]

Just wondering yalls thoughts on this...
MoveOn.org Political Action: Top 10 Shocking Attacks from the GOP's War on Women
yes, MoveOn is on the left of the political spectrum, but they do supply links supporting the info compiled there, so anyone reading can check and make up their own mind...

On a sidenote: I support the womens' movement whole hartedly because i understand women regulate society to let cooler heads prevail and counteract the dangerous effect testosterone has on peace and tranquility. thats how nature intended it, Jing and Jang.

[mike in idaho]

Interesting the way they twist the facts around and spin everything to make their point. Do people actually believe this crap?

[GMAN]

I would not believe anything that moveon.org published. They have their own agenda. If there is a war on women, it has been waged by the Democrats from the beginning. From the start of the so called "women's movement" they have set out to destroy the family. They have been very successful. While I believe that performance should be rewarded, men and women often have different abilities. Women are better at some things than men and men are better at some things than women. Some women started working out of necessity. The losers were the children. When women stayed at home to raise the children we had fewer divorces and gang violence was virtually non existant. Men should be working and bringing home money to support the families. That may not be a popular position these days, but things were much better in this country when men and women had very defined roles in society. Men have been floundering and trying to find their way ever since the women's movement began. The most important job in society is that of a mother. Our society is a direct result of how they were raised by their mothers. Don't get me wrong. Fathers also play a role. If more children could look to their fathers as the breadwinner you would have fewer gangs and society would be much more gentele.

Women who want to stay home and raise their children are often ostrocized by those who want to push their agenda of dividing the family. It is not the responsibility of society or government to provide child care, food or housing for those who are unwilling to provide for themselves. Women and men who have children should be willing to be responsible for them. If you cannot afford to support those whom you bring into this world, then don't do it. People need to work to provide for themselves and their families. Parents should not allow the government to come in and provide for their children. Doing so has turned control of our children over to the government. From where I sit, they have not done such a good job.

The democrats have been very effective at spinning their lies and twisting the truth. I am amazed at how many still believe their lies.

[LogBook]

Gman you just put the USA problems at the feet of women and the Dem's, if the woman stayed home and did there job conceiving children and raising them so the man can be the breadwinner our children would look up to there fathers and be better citizens.i was going to ask if you had a wife and children(girls) but i did see your wife is ill so my prays to the both of you......this is just my take on what you said

please don't take offense to this last statement but are you a citizen or raised in a different culture ,IE..chines,Muslim,ect.......this is to only understand better were your coming from. different culture have different beliefs. dose not make one right or wrong.

I'm a Dem as well a father i do believe in helping those that need help but i rather that comes from the community and Churches. minable government. welfare should be a short time help as well a disgrace to help urge familys to want off as fast as they can and would help urge new generation to avoid starting something thy cant afford,and better plan long term relationships.

[GMAN]

I appreciate your thoughts and prayers for my wife. I think that much of the problems we see can be directly related to the women's movement and the continuing "war on poverty" that the democrats have waged since the 1960's. We have seen a general decay in our morals and society in general. This started a breakdown in marriages and the family unit. When I grew up families usually ate meals together. Many leisure activities were built around the family. I remember few times when we did not have to deal with a war, but there was always one constant....the family.

We have allowed the government to exercise more and more control over our lives. At one time, the Democrats were considered the party of the family. Most people in the South considered themselves Democrats during those years. Everything was centered around God and family. In elementary school we studied the Bible, said the Lord's Prayer and the Pledge of Allegiance to the U.S. Flag. Southern Democrats have always been conservative until recent years. Most mothers would be home waiting on the children to arrive or pick them up at school and bring them home, fix a snack and discuss the child's day before going outside to play. It was usually the mother that was always available. She made sure that the children had what they needed and was often the disciplinarian in the family. Dad might have been the head of the household, but mother turned the head. Men and women had clearly defined responsibilities, although both parents did share in the child rearing. Families stuck together no matter what. Divorce was rare until the 1970's or 1980's. The family abided by Biblical teachings.

I was born and raised in this country. Some of my family came over on the Mayflower so we have been here a very long time. You sound more like those Democrats that I grew up around. Most Democrats that I have met in recent years seem to think much differently than you. I would prefer to think that those Democrats that pushed for programs such as LBJ's
"new deal" put forth those programs with the intention of helping the poor. Rather than helping it has greatly harmed those it was supposedly designed to help. People need to work and provide for their families. It is not the responsibility of government to provide shelter, food and a livelihood to people. I do agree that we, as individuals, do have a responsibility to help our fellow man when they are down and out. We have an obligation to give them a hand UP, not a hand OUT. When you continue to provide housing, food and other assistance to those who are capable of helping themselves, you create a class of people who have a dependence on the government. Rather than working toward getting people to a point where they are self reliant, they want to expand those programs that have proven to be a failure.

One unintended consequence of the women's movement has been inflation. Higher incomes result in inflation and that means higher prices. It becomes a vicious cycle. I read an article earlier today that discussed the causes of poverty. The primary cause, according to the article, was due to the decay of the family unit. Women are having children out of wedlock with no intention of marring the father. The government has encouraged this behavior with some of the programs that I listed previously. It was a rather lengthly article but mentioned some of the points listed in my post. I believe that if we can put the family back together that most of the problems we deal with in this country would go away.

[Windwalker]

Originally Posted by GMAN

One unintended consequence of the women's movement has been inflation. Higher incomes result in inflation and that means higher prices. It becomes a vicious cycle. I read an article earlier today that discussed the causes of poverty. The primary cause, according to the article, was due to the decay of the family unit. Women are having children out of wedlock with no intention of marring the father. The government has encouraged this behavior with some of the programs that I listed previously. It was a rather lengthly article but mentioned some of the points listed in my post. I believe that if we can put the family back together that most of the problems we deal with in this country would go away.

While I do agree that higher income results in inflation, the past fifteen years also proves that holding income down is also very bad. Regardless what all the experts say (where "ex" means former, and "spert" is a drip under pressure), for the last fifteen years or so, income has been stagnant. As expenses have gone up, it meant less money that could be circulated in the economy, and that is at the bottom of the recent (?) recession. Most women I know began to join the workforce because a single income no longer supported a family. It required a double income to make ends meet.

But, I can't see where it's the fault of Dems or Reps, because it's INDUSTRY that has it's fingers on the controls of wages, and government either encourages or discourages what industry does. In the '70s and '80s, a single income was stretched to the point that it no longer was able to make ends meet. After 2000, even a double income no longer made ends meet. From what I can see, it's the tax codes that are obsolete and need to be re-written from top to bottom, and neither party is addressing that. If a single income had the ability to make ends meet, there would be more women (or "house-husbands") that would stay home and take care of the kids, and the family unit would be able to be restored.

[MichiganDriver]

Originally Posted by Windwalker

While I do agree that higher income results in inflation, the past fifteen years also proves that holding income down is also very bad. Regardless what all the experts say (where "ex" means former, and "spert" is a drip under pressure), for the last fifteen years or so, income has been stagnant. As expenses have gone up, it meant less money that could be circulated in the economy, and that is at the bottom of the recent (?) recession. Most women I know began to join the workforce because a single income no longer supported a family. It required a double income to make ends meet.

But, I can't see where it's the fault of Dems or Reps, because it's INDUSTRY that has it's fingers on the controls of wages, and government either encourages or discourages what industry does. In the '70s and '80s, a single income was stretched to the point that it no longer was able to make ends meet. After 2000, even a double income no longer made ends meet. From what I can see, it's the tax codes that are obsolete and need to be re-written from top to bottom, and neither party is addressing that. If a single income had the ability to make ends meet, there would be more women (or "house-husbands") that would stay home and take care of the kids, and the family unit would be able to be restored.

So true.

[LogBook]

GMAN Ty very much for your in site, i would enjoy a link to the article you read as i think i would enjoy reading it. you are right times were much better when we were young and the family was tight knitted as well mom was there to care-for as well protect things from dad. i do think every generation is teaching more of the newer generations to live off the government(are taxes) i agree a lot with the Republicans its just there religious base that i have a problem with. i don't thing one neighbor should tell the other how they should live.