Posted by
Playful Walrus on Thursday, March 12, 2009 6:12:04 PM
Obama issued an executive order creating the White House Council on Women and Girls. Due to equal access and protection/nondiscrimination laws, shouldn't this necessitate a White House Council on Men and Boys?
"The purpose of this Council is to ensure that American women and girls are treated fairly in all matters of public policy," Obama said.
Great! So adult women who engage in sexual activity with underage boys will be prosecuted and sentenced just as if the sexes were reversed? So women who kill their partners or their children should expect the same treatment men get? So when a couple gets in a physical fight, she'll get taken away to jail, too? So we'll spend as much money on educating men how to respond to domestic violence as we do women? So we should expect federal prisons to have just as many women as men? So there will be just as much federal funding for diseases prevalent in men as there is for diseases prevalent in women? So women will have to register for Selective Service?
Oh, wait. He used the word "fairly", not "equally". That gives them wiggle room.
The new council will work to ensure each government agency is directly orientated to improving the economic status of women and to try to frame policies that establish a balance between work and family.
In other words – bigger government that micromanages more. How about government create as even a playing field as possible by prosecuting coercion and theft and otherwise getting out of the way? Outcomes are not going to be equal for everyone, but that's the nature of life.
It will also work with the vice president's office and the Justice Department to seek ways to halt violence against women in the United States and abroad, and work to improve women's healthcare.
But it is okay for men to get beat up and sick. "Violence against women" in the Left's parlance can mean anything from telling someone abortion is a bad idea to consensual heterosexual sex a woman later regrets - oh, and actual violence. But of course it doesn't include transferring an underage girl across state lines, without informing her parents, to undergo a late-term surgical abortion to cover up your crimes. Even if the abortion kills her, in addition to killing her child.
Why don't we, oh, I don't know, try to reduce unjust violence in general? I'm not anti-female. Fully half of my ancestors are female, after all. I married one. I'm a parent of one. I have sisters. But let's not pretend we're striving for gender equality when we are doing things like creating organizations that are concerned with improving things for women – but not men.
Unfortunately, unless we want a totalitarian government, we can't stop women from choosing to associate with, marry, or get pregnant by abusive, unreliable jerks. We can’t force them to choose different careers or make different professional decisions. We can't force them to make good decisions about family life. We have been told so many times that females don't need a daddy and don't need a man – but many of the same people say females need Big Brother. For some, that has been the goal all along – make women more dependent on the government, so that it will be easier to grow government. But to do that, the family had to be weakened, and self-discipline and self-reliance undermined.