Liberalism: Women’s Worst Enemy

Liberalism: Womens Worst Enemy

It seems that Democratic rhetoric is overly complicit in Wars. They advocate for pulling out of “Republican Wars”. They want to end the Republican War on Economics, War on Art, War on Gays, and even War on Science. But the most preposterous of all is the alleged War on Women.

As it started out in feminist ranks, the War on Women has now become the aegis of liberal “counter-policy”. They generally compose the war as regulations on Planned Parenthood, abortion and resistance to forcing religious institutions to provide contraceptives to female employees.

A recent example is the opposition apparent in liberal online petitions. One progressive site,, listed 10 attacks on the war on women. A blatant example of the logical fallacies complicit in this rhetoric was sub-point number 4 which states that Republicans want to cut billions of federal aid to women and single mothers­.1 Not only is this a hideous example of Democratic straw-man propaganda, binding entitlement cuts with “sexism”, it also is an example of a phenomenon not so often discussed: left-wing sexism.

Feminism has become a prominent issue in this campaign. Because 52 per cent of voters are women, “wooing” women to one’s side is consider vital. Unfortunately, this is often accomplished with brutal partisan politics.

A recent example of this discourse is a new flashy campaign web application on Obama’s website titled “The Life of Julia.” This little web box features an interactive slideshow that demonstrates Julia, a fictional American woman, and her life, demonstrating how a modern-day woman depends on social programs at every stage of her life, and it also shows how Romney’s election would demolish these programs through Paul Ryan’s “Road to Prosperity” FY 2013 budget.

The coverage is extensive. It ranges from her having access to birth control to sending her son to Head-Start (though that is ludicrous and relies on the assumption that she is poor, another logical fallacy I will address later). It also demonstrates how Julia’s academic success was due to Obama’s “Race to the Top” program, the Democratic Party’s answer to Bush’s 2001 “No Child Left Behind” Act.

However, this assertion relies on much weakly-linked logic and outdated information. For the remainder of this article, I will demonstrate how this portrayal of reality is not only ludicrous, but that it poses a danger to women’s freedoms in modern day society.

Outdated Information

Typical Americans would see this slideshow and, when seeing Paul Ryan’s budget mentioned, that the budget mentioned is the current bill being pushed by the House of Representatives. Unfortunately, this is simply not true. Obama’s campaign committee is correct on citing this evidence as based on Ryan’s budget. Nevertheless, it is not based on his “Road to Prosperity” FY 2013 budget (the one endorsed by Mitt Romney and being debated by Congress), but his FY 2011 budget. This leaves many shortcomings.

For example, one of the slides dictates that Julia would be left without health insurance under Ryan. Actually, his FY 2013 budget would allow Julia to choose between traditional Medicare and federally funded privatized insurance, ensuring more freedom and market regulation.2

Additionally, when Obama says that Julia may lose her Social Security, he neglects to admit that he has allowed Social Security to get a 25 per cent budget cut automatically. Also, many of her benefits would be covered by mandates enacted by 37 states.


Obama romanticizes many programs as vital and essential when in fact they are pathetic and ineffective. Head start is a prime example. Though the program costs $7 billion a year, it has had less than stellar results.

A report released by the Obama administration began in 1988 showed that 4-year olds that attended Head Start were not that much better by first grade than other 4-year olds.4 In addition, the HHS uses very lax standards. With such a large population, using the P < .10 was unjustified. They should have used P<.05, which would have made the results state that Head Start made no difference whatsoever. That’s $7 billion a year going down the drainpipe.

Not a big amount of money in the scope of federal spending, but all these ludicrous programs cumulatively increase the deficit greatly.

Hypocritical Dialogue

Do not be mistaken that the Democratic Party has no deliberate sexism embedded in it; is has not only in the almost-extinct Ku Klux Klan wing but in the whole party.

A recent example is Kristine Svinicki, nominated head of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in 2008. Mrs. Svinicki attempted to protect female staffers by ratting out Jaczko, Harry Reid’s pet in the nuclear facility. For this, Harry Reid has waged unrelenting war on this one woman.3

Mr. Jaczko was extremely corrupt. He pushed Harry Reid’s agenda and contradicted pretty much everyone else on the NRC. He was also loud and abusive to Mrs. Svinicki. Jaczko was constantly abusive to all the other high-achieving women working on the in the field, reducing many of them to tears and one to perpetual shaking. These women were not “softies” either.

It might then be expected that the Democratic women, triumphs of the feminist cause, might leap to Svinicki’s defense. Instead, Sen. Barbara Boxer, the one advocated for women using contraceptives, sided with Jaczko and called all staff at the NRC incompetent. It seemed that if there was a hardworking, self-sufficient women not dependent on the government for help managing her own life, the Democrats hated her with the same passion they accused the Republicans of conducting.

One would have expected the same amount of fury directed at Rush Limbaugh for bashing women’s rights to contraceptives. Instead, nothing was done against Mr. Jaczko and Harry Reid personally lambasted Mrs. Svinicki, the only woman on the NRC. Sure, according to the Democratic Party, women deserve to have free contraceptives from the government but no, they should not be allowed to economically pull themselves up by the britches, just as the historical martyrs did, to reach the economic status of men.

Summing it all up

My last point leads me to my conclusion. The Life of Julia is not simply a bash on Mitt Romney containing illicit and false information, but it promotes a more sinister message. In a town like Ashland where women (fortunately) are esteemed and encouraged to speak out, feminists should reevaluate themselves.

It was in the 1940s when feminism had its “hay-day”, made sense, and was effective. Posters of Rosie the Riveter encouraged women to find a job, be self-sufficient, and not rely on a man. Now, it is precisely opposite.

What many neglect to speak of is the bashing of women in The Life of Julia. It seems to say, “Sure, men have survived without government assistance for thousands of years, but now that we’re starting to get women wanting to be independent, which is cute, we need to step in and protect them so nothing bad happens.” (Quote is fictional) It neglects the fact that a paternal government is also patriarchal and they are simply replacing a women’s husband and family with a government to marry.

  1. “ Political Action: Top 10 Shocking Attacks from the GOP’s War on Women.” Web. 04 June 2012. <>.
  2. “‘The Life of Julia,’™ Corrected.” Fact Check, 8 May 2012. Web. 04 June 2012. <>.
  3. Strassel, Kimberly A. “The Democratic War on One Woman.” Wall Street Journal., 19 Apr. 2012. Web. 4 June 2012. <>.
  4. Burke, Lindsey. “Long Overdue Head Start Evaluation Shows No Lasting Benefit for Children.” The Foundry: Conservative Policy News Blog from The Heritage Foundation. Heritage, 14 Jan. 2010. Web. 04 June 2012. <>.