Thank you for referring to 'women' as 'women' in stead of
"However, when I see how many of my fellow women will vote to make the
government their "Sugar Daddy," instead of ordering their lives so that
they can take care of themselves, I sometimes wonder."I would
love to get more detail on exactly what you mean here. How are women voting to
make government their "Sugar Daddy"?
I guess it is a good thing that we have the vote. However, when I see how many
of my fellow women will vote to make the government their "Sugar Daddy,"
instead of ordering their lives so that they can take care of themselves, I
I can't believe that Deseret News published an article portraying
women's progress in a positive light. Most articles are just about how
women's progress is just hindering men. It really must be election time.
I had an uncle who I loved dearly, was a good man, a staunch conservative, and a
man of deep faith. But one of the things that always surprised me was his
attitude about educating women. His wife was an educator herself. In one
conversation we were talking about his assistance to his kids and grandkids. He
made the comment that he didn't want to waste the money on sending his
female prodigy to nice colleges because it would be a waste of money, while the
male side should attend the best schools available. While he was a great man,
it was sad that he would short change his girls this way, because he felt all
they really needed to do was get married and become good wives. While there is absolutely nothing wrong with stay at home mothers, the idea
they should be entitled to a lessor education was a puzzle for me. Women
through out the world, and even the US are still viewed as simple helpmeets to
their husbands. Thankfully my grandfather saw it differently, and made sure his
daughters were well educated, and one becoming a professor at the U.
Sexual attraction is a significant way in which the sexes relate to andview each other. Especially men towards women. A significantproportion
of men's thoughts through the day is related to womenand sexual
attraction towards them. This is sometimes referred toas objectification
and unless biology changes neither will this.Its a shallow man who
doesn't see and relate to women's otheraspects. Most men
aren't that shallow. Also while most womenwomen want to be
appreciated for all their qualities, almost allwomen want to be attractive
to men. Its the way God designedhuman beings.
@ Owl, the Deseret News is a surrogate campaign organ for Romney. Much more
blatantly than the NYT. There is an ongoing debate within the NYT as to whether
it leans in an ideological direction. With this paper, they are clear and
obvious about it and don't hide it.
The truth, don't forget that the "right" also wants to grow the
government and regulate everyone's life and business, they just want to do
it in different ways:examples:drug testing for welfare recepients
grows govt, increases costs)Voter ID laws: grows govt. by requiring
everyone who wants to vote to get a govt. issued ID card.Abortion laws:
now, the republican party wants no exceptions, anytime. Does that make mormons,
where the official position is it is up to the individual to make a decision in
cases of rape, health, etc, all of a sudden pro choice?War on drugs
The Amendment did NOT "give" women the right to vote, it
GUARANTEED women the right to vote.Before amendments about voting
were passed it was left up to the states who would be permittted to vote, women
voted in some places like wyoming and utah. Some may say this is a
fine distinction but it is an important distinction,constitutionally
all rights belong to people and the states.It's unfortunate
because of abuse of power and the natural tyrannical nature of government that
we must "guarantee" rights,and the left wants to make the
government bigger and more powerful, regulating everyone life and business!
Thanks DN for this article. While most of the nation's newspapers are
surrogate Obama campaigners, starting with the New York Times, you have
presented issues more fairly than most. It seems that anyone who is not
blatantly for Obama is labeled as part of the radical right wing. In comparison
you are a model of objectivity.
What are you talking about? ?With a vote of 52 to 47, today,
Republicans in the Senate succesfully blocked a Democratic-backed bill that
called for equal pay for women.? Equal pay for women is not a
reality. So women, you can be hired for a job, and a man can be hired for a job
that requires identical work. And legally, you can be paid less, just because
you are a woman. Does that not upset you?
For almost all others, including wealthy commercial families, women had a duty
to help manage the household (the ie). This meant not only keeping house and
rearing children but also enforcing frugality, engaging in farming and industry,
and building prosperity. Indeed, this primary task involved everyone, from
husband (and maybe husband's mother) to little children. Of course the
content of the task varied with social status and family income, but this common
cause, which blended with the goal of national prosperity and greatness, gave
women much more influence than a simplistic view of etiquette would lead one to
think.(Pages 418-419)Not until after World War II did Japanese
women get the vote--no different in that respect from French women and quicker
than the Swiss.(Page 419)David S. Landes, The Wealth and
Poverty of Nations: Why Some Are So Rich and Some So Poor (New York: W. W.
Norton & Company, 1998).
In general, the best clue to a nation's growth and development potential is
the status and role of women.(Page 413)The boys learn that
they can hit their sisters, older and younger, with impunity--as I have seen one
do, in public, before the eyes of his unprotesting mother. The sister did not
even defend herself. Bad for the girls, but just as bad for the boys.(Page
413)David S. Landes, The Wealth and Poverty of Nations: Why Some Are
So Rich and Some So Poor (New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 1998).
The result: greater literacy and a larger pool of candidates for advanced
schooling; also greater assurance of continuity of literacy from generation to
generation. Literate mothers matter.(Page 178)The high social
costs of British industrialization reflect the shock of unpreparedness and the
strange notion that wages and conditions of labor came from a voluntary
agreement between free agents. Not until the British got over these illusions,
in regard first to children, then to women, did they intervene in the workplace
and introduce protective labor legislation.(Page 382). . . a
family that brutalizes its women does not make men of virtue and gratitude.(Page 388)The economic implications of gender discrimination are
most serious. To deny women is to deprive a country of labor and talent,
but--even worse--to undermine the drive to achievement of boys and men. One
cannot rear young people in such wise that half of them think themselves
superior by biology, without dulling ambition and devaluing accomplishment.(Pages 412-413)David S. Landes, The Wealth and Poverty of Nations:
Why Some Are So Rich and Some So Poor (New York: W. W. Norton & Company,
Nationally, more women than men enroll in, and graduate from, college. Women
make up half the workforce. QUOTEJust consider the
statement above.If the article favored a simplistic gender
"equality", which it really seems to, how is having more women than men
enrolled in college an accomplishment for gender equality. Doesn't that
perhaps betray just a new inequality and a new bias?Again "Women
make up half of the workforce" - a statement presented as a great
achievement. How can women make up half of the workforce if the still cherished
ideal of women as cef nurturer of children and homemaker was being practiced
which, as we all know, it isn't. Is "equality" only gender
sameness? Again apparently so in the mind(s) of the editorialist.How about the other side of the argument which, in this article, is
non-existent: Iseem to notice that women rule the divorce courts with often
disastrous consequences for families. That's not "equal" according
to your simplist view of "equality". Then what about sexist women
judges? Or is that another great achievement? I wish this
newspaper would grow up or quit pretending to represent either justice or mercy.
While I agree in principle, I am astounded that the editorial policy of this
paper is so tightly connected with the Romney campaign. Trying to appeal more to
women, a group where Romney does poorly, is a major theme for the convention.
You won't even have to bother with your formal endorsement just before the
election. You are a campaign publication.
It's an unfortunate thing that we still have large areas of the world in
which women are still regarded as less than human. Vote? Own anything?
Healthcare? The right to not be attacked for leaving the home? Not in some
areas of the world.