Hypocricans vs Women

by Ruth A. Sheets

The Hypocricans are now getting more serious about their attacks against women.  Why?  What has changed? 

Women have changed. 

Hypocricans harken back to a time when “men were men,” which, of course, meant, in charge, dominant, forceful, and all those other manly terms.  The men didn’t really have to grow up.  Their wives simply stepped into the place their mothers had held. 

Women bought into this structure for society because the Bible said that was how it was supposed to be. Occasional volunteering kept women’s yearning for something more at bay.

After each of America’s wars, when women were coaxed back to the home, more and more women refused to accept the prescribed roles.  In the wartime jobs, they had functioned at least as well as their male counterparts and learned a thing or two about propaganda.  While the men were marching off to glory, the women were operating the machinery that provided everything from ships to planes to tanks to ammunition. 

When the men came marching home, women were told how patriotic it would be for them to go home and give their jobs back to the men. Those who didn’t leave voluntarily were fired and sent home to take care of their hero husbands.  Women were encouraged to produce as many kids as possible. After WWII, they gave birth to the baby boomers.  Women fell into the oblivion of housewifery.  The problem for the men was that these women kept with them the memories of a life of skilled work, appreciation for their efforts, and independence.  It was hard to go back under a man’s thumb. Through propaganda men tried to damp down the restlessness.

Men, particularly white men, naturally want to go back to those days.  They may not have much power on the job, but by God, they had it in the home. 

Women have come quite a distance from those days, but there is a strong movement among the Hypocricans to bring those days back.  They have created a scism among women, e.g., stay-at-home-moms vs. working moms.  There isn’t that much of a gap between these groups, but the stays have been propagandized to believe that everyone is against them for doing God’s will or for caring more about their children, or some other nonsense.  Most working mothers don’t think much about the stays either way.

Men have jumped on the issue of abortion.  It really has nothing to do with them directly, but they want to outlaw it and the women who choose it.  Why is that?  Abortion represents women having power over their own bodies and their lives and what happens to them.  Men can’t stand that because it represents female independence.

However, men want to keep contraception from women as well.  If women have the means to keep from getting pregnant unless they want a child, it is harder to make them feel dirty, slutty, and shameful.  Bearing children too young or in difficult living situations helps to keep women’s self-esteem low.  When women have control, their self-esteem rises.  That can lead to getting involved in other things, like politics, business, law, medicine, ministry, all formerly bastions of male dominance.

Now, women are being blamed for the “terrible state of our society.”  Accourding to Hypocricans, Our nation is in decline toward mediocrity because so many of our women are working and are not taking proper care of our children.  This has been stated by some prominent SWG’s (Scared White Guys).  They are hoping that guilt will make women pull back and resume bowing and scraping to them.

The Hypocricans have a good share of women who seem to like the “inferior” role in society.  They and their Hypocrican brothers  hate everything about science until they want to use it to prove that the males of all species are dominant over the females.  Their lack of knowledge of science is showing, though.  In many species the female is dominant or at least equal.  In some, the female consumes the male to provide energy for the young. 

Like so much of the Hypocrican propaganda, their view of live is imperfect.  It shows more ignorance than proof of the correctness of their anti-woman position.  But, men’s voices have until now been louder and stronger than those of women. 

What can women do?  We can stop coddling men and stop giving weight to their outdated, misogynistic comments and beliefs.  We can vote the Hypocricans out of office at all levels.  We can stay vigilant and call Hypocrican men and women on  their lies, half-truths, and manufactured science.  When they show up on our television screens, we can change the channel.  The one thing we cannot do is ignore them.  That’s how women’s rights have been nibbled away during these past few years.

Overwhelmed

by Ruth A. Sheets

I just checked back and saw that this is near the anniversary of the founding of the leastheardfrom blog.  I also noted that I have not made a contribution to the blog for a few months. That is really pathetic. It is not that I have nothing to say. There is a lot going on that screams for comment.

I realized as I sat down this evening that I am overwhelmed by the avalanche of dislike and disdain that some elements of America have aimed at the vast majority of Americans. 

I had hoped that with the victory of President Obama in November that some civility would seep into the work and rhetoric of Republicans. I  thought they would notice that the country is crying for some degree of unity.  Boy, was I naive!  If anything, the anti-Obama talk and the smear tactics Republicans crafted for 2012 are still in force.  The Republicans are still in “oppose everything” mode.

Sensible gun regulation should be a no-brainer, after the mass killings and the ongoing gun violence.  However, Republicans, along with their NRA handlers are doing their best to see that no changes in gun laws happen.  Well, not exactly, they want more people to own and carry guns, even in our schools.

Immigration reform should have been at the top of the Republican agenda since they received fewer than 30 percent of the Hispanic vote in November.  Nearly four months after being sworn in, this congress still has not even begun to seriously look at the topic. They want more and bigger fences before they do anything for the people involved.

Republicans whine that they are not perpetrating a “war on women.”  They even send their squad of token women out for interviews on shows that claim to present a balanced  view of the issue.  While these women gush that they have everything they need, Republican legislatures are significantly limiting women’s reproductive choice and equal pay. Men in the military are allowed to dismiss cases against convicted rapists, just "because."   

Our Republican “friends” are determined to limit Social Security and Medicare because it supports the folks they refer to as “The Takers” while of course, the Republicans are “The Givers.”  Even President Obama is caving and willing to stop cost of living increases for seniors to placate Republicans who have no intention of allowing the rich to pay their fair share.

The Republican assault on education continues. Vouchers, charter schools, funding cuts all undermine our real public schools. Then, in Atlanta, the teachers who cheated on the state tests so their kids could get more funding and resources were imprisoned with bails that murderers and rapists rarely see.  Isn’t it nice we don’t have to seriously look at the relationship between low scores and poverty?  It’s teachers who are to blame for all that.

Our Supreme Court talks of “racial entitlements” and complains that same-sex marriage is just too new to be ruled on effectively.  They didn’t seem to have any trouble giving the money-soaked corporations opportunities to influence our elections anonymously, calling these corporate players,  “persons.”  What about the real persons who just want their relationships to be recognized?

So, possibly like you, I am overwhelmed.  I am appalled that we taxpayers support Republicans in congress who are not working for us.  They can’t give up cherished biases for the good of the country.  In fact, I suspect that most elected Republicans have no idea what “the common good” is.  The sad part is that I am not sure how much more aware Democrats are.  They too have their handlers for whom they must perform. 

Where does that leave those of us who do know what “the Common Good” means?

 

WOOING WOMEN WITH A WOMAN WHO IS OUT OF TOUCH

by Ruth A. Sheets

Mitt Romney’s campaign is having trouble wooing women.  The things he has declared as part of his platform are not exactly supportive of women.  So, Romney is bringing out his wife Anne to improve his chances with “the fair sex.”

A Democratic aide made a comment that Ms. Romney had not worked a day in her life, and the responses came flooding in, predominantly screaming that this was an insult to stay-at-home moms.

It seems to me this is not an insult to stay-at-home moms, but an emphasis on the fact that most women cannot make the choice to stay at home, but must work, sometimes two or three jobs to support their kids.  When Anne Romney “works,” it is by choice, not by necessity.

Ms. Romney raised five kids and of course, that is challenging.  She also has MS, which provides daily struggles.  Clearly she has worked over the years at both.

However, that is not what the aide, Ms. Rosen meant.  Ms. Romney did not face these challenges without help to handle them.  Her financial situation made the decision to stay home with her kids a no-brainer, a non-decision.  She had sufficient health care and support that she could navigate the difficulties of MS far better than her non-financially gifted sisters.

One would think that someone who experienced real struggle would appreciate the struggles of others.  She would want to see that her “neighbors” had the same level of support she was given.  But, if her husband’s positions on current issues are any indication, there is little or no empathy for people who have less than she has.

We haven’t heard Ms. Romney’s positions on the important issues for women, but my guess is she would favor many of the bills moving through Republican-run state legislatures.  None of this anti-woman push will directly touch her now since she is past child-bearing, and she has only sons. 

She, like her husband, is attractive and she is even more articulate, but is that enough?  Don’t we want someone in the White House with her president husband who can at least slightly relate to the needs of the majority of women?  I hope so.  Well, that would not be Anne Romney.