Libs Admit Pandering To Emotions In Latest “War On Women” Farce

The so-called war on women came into existence via the Democratic Party; let’s make that perfectly clear. There was no war on women until Democrats created it, or at least created the illusion of it. Any protests against the notion of there being a war on women was, they claimed, further evidence that the war was real, a lose-lose situation for Republicans: accept it and be a sexist for doing so, or deny it and be a sexist for doing so. It was a remarkably effective strategy of the Democrats in solidifying President Obama’s support among women for his reelection campaign. And here I’d like to point out that the effectiveness of the strategy only helps solidify the notion that, generally, women are more emotional thinkers than men, allowing their emotions to effect their decisions—I’d like to point this out, but I won’t.

Well, now that Obama has reached a new low in his approval ratings—45 percent, according to a CNN/ORC poll—Democrats are hoping to inject an extra dose of emotionalism into the mix to give female voters the vim to vote for Democrats in the 2014 midterm elections. That’s right—they’re resuscitating the War on Women.

This time it’s not the faux-travesty that birth-control products aren’t delivered free of charge to the doorstep of every female over the age of 10 that has Democrats in a faux-outrage, but rather the issue of equal pay and paid sick leave.

The Huffington Post explains without shame the Democrats’ goal “to make opposition to…paid sick days or a higher minimum wage seem not merely callous but also sexist….”

Two-thirds of people who earn the minimum wage are women, according to HuffPo. This is a hate-fact and warrants raising the minimum wage, notwithstanding the fact that those women chose to accept those wages when they took those jobs. Unless, of course, they were forced against their will to work there, in which case there are matters at hand more pressing than what demographic makes up the majority of minimum-wage earners.

On the subject of sick leave HuffPo writes that although unpaid sick leave affects men as well, “the issue has a greater resonance when cast in terms of working mothers: Why should a woman have to choose between caring for a sick child and earning a day’s pay?”

A simple question from a simple mind. Why should adult women have to choose between one and the other? Because they’re adults and adults must make difficult choices, how about that? One such decision an adult woman must make is whether or not to apply for a job with or accept a job offer from a company that she knows before she takes the job does not offer paid sick leave. The choice to take that job is hers and hers alone, and, being a mature adult in the workforce, she also knows full-well that taking such a job would mean that, should she choose to engage in behavior that risks resulting in pregnancy and she indeed becomes pregnant, she will one day have to choose between a paycheck or taking care of her infant.

Usually if businesses don’t offer paid leave (payment for not doing one’s job) it is because they can’t afford it. If they can afford it but simply don’t offer it because they’re skinflints, people don’t have to work for them. Businesses don’t have an obligation to hire you, you don’t have the right to do work for someone else and to force him to pay you, and you don’t have the right to stop working for an extended period but to force your employer to pay you regardless.

I don’t care if I’m called a sexist, because that’s not an argument. There is no war on women; there is only a “war” on logic, on personal accountability, and on objective thinking. Oh, and the second non-congressionally sanctioned (i.e., illegal) war Obama has gotten us into.