Finally Explained! Why Democrats Are "Anti-Family" - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 09-27-2003, 10:56 AM   #1
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 24,974
Local Time: 03:37 PM
Finally Explained! Why Democrats Are "Anti-Family"

Um....I'm just a helpless female who needs protection from a man, or the govt And the racist overtones as well...

When women marry, Democrats lose
Dennis Prager


September 2003

It takes a particularly noble Democrat to promote marriage and family. The strengthening of these institutions is not in the Democratic Party's self-interest. The more people marry, and especially the more they have children after they marry, the more likely they are to hold conservative values and vote Republican.

That is why it is inaccurate to speak of a "gender gap" in Americans' voting. The gap is between married and unmarried women. Single women, especially single women with children, tend to vote Democratic, while married women, especially married women with children, tend to vote Republican.

Why is this?

There are two primary reasons.

One is that women's nature yearns for male protection. This is a heretical idea among the well educated whose education is largely devoted to denying the facts of life. But it is a fact of life that can easily be proven: Extremely wealthy women almost always seek to marry men who are even wealthier than they are. Actress Jane Fonda had more money than almost anyone in America, yet she married Ted Turner, a man who had even more money than she. Though fabulously wealthy and a feminist, Ms. Fonda nevertheless could not shed her female nature.

Given women's primal desire to be protected, if a woman has no man to provide it, she will seek security elsewhere -- and elsewhere today can only mean the government. In effect, the state becomes her husband. This phenomenon has frequently been commented on with regard to the breakdown of many black families. The welfare state simply rendered many black men unnecessary and therefore undesirable as spouses: Why marry when you can get more benefits from the state while remaining single (and get even more money if you have children while remaining single)?

Once a woman does marry, however, her need for the state not only diminishes, she now begins to view the state as inimical to her interests. For the married woman, especially if she has children, two primal urges work against her having a pro-big government attitude. Her urge to be protected, which is now fulfilled by her husband, and her primal urge to protect her nest are now endangered by the government, which as it grows, takes away more and more of her family's money.

Once a woman marries and has children, therefore, her deepest desires -- to be protected and to protect her family -- work as strongly on behalf of conservative values and voting Republican as they did on behalf of liberalism and the Democratic Party when she was single.

The other reason married women are less likely to be liberal and vote Democratic relates to maturity and wisdom.

Just about everyone -- a man as much as a woman -- is rendered more mature and wiser after marrying. This is not an insult to singles. It was as true of me as of anyone else. If you're single, ask any married person -- happily or unhappily married -- whether or not marriage has matured them.

The single biggest change induced by marriage is that you can no longer think only about yourself. "I" becomes "we." Narcissism becomes far less possible in marriage than in the single state. And just as marriage decreases narcissism, it increases wisdom. Having to relate to another human being (especially of the opposite sex) to whom you have made a lifelong commitment (even if it ends in divorce) vastly increases your wisdom. And if you have children, your wisdom increases exponentially. Again, ask any parent if they are wiser since becoming a parent.

Am I implying that increasing one's maturity and wisdom works in favor of the Republicans and against liberalism and the Democrats? Absolutely. Wisdom and contemporary liberalism are in conflict. That is why the vast majority of people who change their politics as they get older (and presumably wiser) change them from liberal to conservative.

For all these reasons, the Democrats know how important it is for them to expand dependency on government and to promote "alternative families" rather than the family that consists of a married man and woman with children.

The Democrats know where their votes are.


Here's his web site

http://www.dennisprager.com/
__________________

__________________
MrsSpringsteen is offline  
Old 09-27-2003, 11:30 AM   #2
New Yorker
 
Sherry Darling's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Virginia
Posts: 2,857
Local Time: 04:37 PM
LOL--just wait till Martha sees this.

sd

(edited cause I can't type)
__________________

__________________
Sherry Darling is offline  
Old 09-27-2003, 11:49 AM   #3
Blue Crack Addict
 
verte76's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: hoping for changes
Posts: 23,331
Local Time: 08:37 PM
What nonsense. Yeah, right, I vote Democratic because I'm not married.
__________________
verte76 is offline  
Old 09-27-2003, 03:27 PM   #4
ONE
love, blood, life
 
FizzingWhizzbees's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: the choirgirl hotel
Posts: 12,614
Local Time: 08:37 PM
"A woman's nature yearns for male protection" LMFAO. Looking for protection from men, more like!!! I notice the article's written by a man so I'm kinda curious about how he knows so much about women's "nature." I'd also be interested to know if he makes such generalisations about men's "nature" or whether he has more of an understanding that people are complex individuals and aren't solely defined by their gender.
__________________
FizzingWhizzbees is offline  
Old 09-27-2003, 07:03 PM   #5
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
Bono's shades's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: The back of beyond
Posts: 5,038
Local Time: 03:37 PM
WTF? There are still people who think like this?
__________________
Bono's shades is offline  
Old 09-27-2003, 08:56 PM   #6
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,276
Local Time: 03:37 PM
Ah, yes, another man who presumes to tell me what I yearn for.
__________________
anitram is online now  
Old 09-28-2003, 12:47 AM   #7
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 03:37 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by anitram
Ah, yes, another man who presumes to tell me what I yearn for.
Someone to sing for you????

Maybe a little Fernando.....

Darling you look marvelous!!!

__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 09-28-2003, 09:44 AM   #8
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 03:37 PM
Dennis Prager...is he still around? I remember his TV show from the early 1990s. If you look at SNL parodies of MTV's TRL, in the background, you can spot an old billboard from his TV show...lol.

What Prager forgets is that, despite all of his pseudophilosophy, heterosexual couples don't need to prove a damn thing when they get married. Heterosexual couples can get married for all the right reasons or all the wrong reasons; the state doesn't discriminate. Needless to say, not only are homosexual couples put to different standards, but they are put to standards that not even heterosexual couples can attain, for the most part.

What Prager ignorantly forgets is that the definition of "liberal" and "conservative" vastly changes. As we get older, we become more "conservative" merely because the values that we are brought up with become "conservative values." What is "liberal" 50 years ago is not so "liberal" now, for the most part.

Needless to say, Prager's rant is about as reactionary as it gets; a throwback to 19th century pseudoscience, with presumptions of female weakness. Of course, the 19th century also believed that non-white races were inherently degenerate, as well. I'd be curious to see if Prager believes that.

I find such writings to be frightening, perhaps a hint towards postmodernism's "prophesy" that, upon its demise, we would gradually negate all of the philosophy of the 20th century and return to 19th century romanticism and realism. Reading such backwards statements as these makes me wonder if postmodernism might have it correct after all.

Melon
__________________
melon is offline  
Old 09-28-2003, 10:30 AM   #9
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,276
Local Time: 03:37 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Dreadsox


Someone to sing for you????

Maybe a little Fernando.....

Darling you look marvelous!!!

What can I say, you're a God among men.
__________________
anitram is online now  
Old 09-28-2003, 10:33 AM   #10
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Basstrap's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 10,726
Local Time: 06:07 PM
exactly

people who voted liberal 50 years ago would probably vote conservative these days if they were still around.

Liberalism is the dominant trend in life. Things naturally tend towards change, further equality, and freedoms; what is generally thought of as "conservative" cannot meet these needs, because it relies too much on tradition. 50 years down the road those "conservative" will be more Liberal then "liberal" is now!! ...er...if that makes sense.

for example...no matter how you may fight it, in 50 years I find it hard to think gay marriage will still not be recognized in america
__________________
Basstrap is offline  
Old 09-28-2003, 02:58 PM   #11
New Yorker
 
Scarletwine's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Outside it's Amerika
Posts: 2,746
Local Time: 03:37 PM
LOL, I can't believe this type of crap is still around. I must be the exception - married w/children and still liberal
__________________
Scarletwine is offline  
Old 09-28-2003, 03:46 PM   #12
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
sue4u2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: hatching some plot, scheming some scheme
Posts: 6,628
Local Time: 03:37 PM
Re: Finally Explained! Why Democrats Are "Anti-Family"

This is funny. I don't know much about this guy and can understand why. If I've ever read anything he's written I dismissed him so fast that I don't remember what it was. I would find it amusing to hear him explain how Jane or any other woman could "shed her female ways". What kind of statement is that? It's official, He's just ignorant.
__________________
sue4u2 is offline  
Old 09-28-2003, 05:35 PM   #13
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 24,974
Local Time: 03:37 PM

If only I could marry GWB...I'd be protected by a man who is also in the govt (double bonus points!), and I'd finally see the error of my ways and become a Republican

__________________
MrsSpringsteen is offline  
Old 09-28-2003, 06:36 PM   #14
ONE
love, blood, life
 
FizzingWhizzbees's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: the choirgirl hotel
Posts: 12,614
Local Time: 08:37 PM
If there's anything that would put me off being a Republican more than seeing their politics in action, it's marrying GWB.
__________________
FizzingWhizzbees is offline  
Old 09-29-2003, 11:41 AM   #15
Jesus Online
 
Angela Harlem's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1969
Location: a glass castle
Posts: 30,163
Local Time: 07:37 AM
Hmm. I'm a bit liberal and a bit conservative. Perhaps I should have stayed defacto.
Or perhaps its just a load of bullshit.
__________________

__________________
<a href=http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v196/angelaharlem/thPaul_Roos28.jpg target=_blank>http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v1...aul_Roos28.jpg</a>
Angela Harlem is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:37 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com