Obama says, "We also need to change a system that is stacked against women. Forty percent of working women do not have a single paid sick day. More and more women are denied jobs or promotions because they've got kids at home. As the son of a single mother, that is not the America that I believe in. I'll be a president who stands up for working parents. We'll require employers to provide seven paid sick days each year. We'll enforce laws that prohibit caregiver discrimination. And we'll encourage flexible work schedules to better balance work and parenting for mothers and fathers. That's the change that working families need."
Is our system really stacked against women? More women than men attend college. Does this sound like a stacked system? Obama's real beef is a beef that many feminist seem to have. They fight the laws of nature by acting as if childbearing and childrearing should not be a detriment to a woman's working career even if it means she must take more time off of work than a man. Women have babies and must take a substantial amount of time off of work. Men do not have to do this. Men do not get pregnant. When women have children, they must take time off of work. They lose valuable work experience. They fall behind their male counterparts who generally do not need to take time off. If we penalize men by giving special favors to women who have babies and must take time off, then we only hurt the overall productivity of the economy. Women who do not have babies and do not take time off of work make just as much as men. Contrary to popular political distortion, there is no blatant, systemic discrimination of women. It is simply a popular political myth used for political gain to make women feel like they are victims of some broader conspiracy, when they are just victims of nature. Women have babies. Men do not.
WHAT OBAMA SAYS: For every $1.00 earned by a man, the average woman receives only 77 cents. A recent study estimates it will take another 47 years for women to close the wage gap with men at Fortune 500 corporate offices.
WHAT HE MEANS: This is true on the surface, but as they say, "the devil is in the details." Just because something is true does not mean there is a sinister reason behind it. Do you really believe that America systematically works to keep women down, that businesses would punish a woman for being a woman? If you do, then the world must be a hopeless and dark place. If women cannot get a fair shot in America, then the world is truly a dark, dark place. It is true that women on average make 77 cents on the dollar overall. This is true for several reasons, none of them sinister.
First, women have children. They take time off work, interrupting their careers to take care of their children. This is both admirable and necessary for their children. Taking time off work means fewer promotions and less pay when compared to a man who takes no such time off. Second, many women work jobs to provide a secondary income for their families. These jobs are not necessarily career jobs. They might be jobs at Walmart part-time, or teaching aerobics at 24-Hour Fitness. These jobs do not require a lot of commitment and allow for greater flexibility than full-time career jobs.
Isolated cases of discrimination exist. Those will always exist. Women make less than men on average because they, as a whole, do not work the same number of years as men in an uninterrupted manner. By applying sinister reasons to this disparity, Barack, like many liberals, seeks to use the government to remedy a problem that does not exist at the expense of men.
Who do you think will benefit from programs that give women unequal advantages? Women benefit. Who will pay for it? Men will pay. When men and women with similar uninterrupted work experiences and educational experiences are compared, the differences in salary disappear. In some cases, women make more. In today's world, women make up a majority of the college students. Can a country which awards more seats for college to women, instead of men, really be a discriminatory nation?
In a way, as I read Obama's plan for women, I am reminded of the method that the Communists used to take control of Russia. The Communists held approximately 25% of the seats in the Russian Congress. In order to gain more support, the Communists promised the peasants, which were the masses, land for their votes. This trick worked. The Communists came to power with the backing of the peasants. A few short years later, the Communists, flush with the power of a police state, confiscated the food from the peasants. Millions of those who brought the Communists into power were killed by the Communists.
Obama is not a communist, but his plan works along those same lines. He promises working mothers things like more child care, more tax credits, more sick leave, and so on. And he will deliver some of these things. But what actually happens is the amount of goodies that the people get are always less than the share the government takes. The people give up their freedoms for a few government goodies. The government builds a system that can control the people through bureaucracies, if able, and through force, if necessary. Both systems require more money than they ever give out in goodies. So in the end, women will find it harder to make ends meet and will have less freedom and not quite understand why it is so. Barack's plan is nothing more than wasteful government spending after wasteful government spending. The government already intrudes heavily in our lives. Do we really want them to step in any further? Obama's plan offer women more intrusion in the form of government goodies if you will only vote for him.