This Women-for-Trump Group Isn’t for Me

July 18th, 2019 Posted by Susan's Musings 45 comments

For years, mainstream media has pretended that women make up a monolithic, liberal group. A number of years back, one could expect most articles concerning women to include a quote from a NOW (National Organization for Women) spokeswoman despite the fact that it represented its members only, not the totality of women. Conservative women’s groups, no matter how large, were routinely ignored. Today there is still a pretense that abortion rights are a united liberal “woman’s issue” even though the majority of women are not in favor of the radical abortion policies the Left is increasingly espousing.

Portraying President Trump as an enemy of women is part of this media lie. As a female supporter of the president, I would like to add my voice to those women brave enough to make their stand public, despite the bullying that often follows. I eagerly clicked on this article: Women for Trump -There’s No Conceding the ‘Women’s Vote’ to Liberals in 2020.

Unfortunately, I can’t march in this particular parade. As one of their “selling points,” this group mentions President Trump’s support for paid family leave. While it doesn’t diminish my support for the president’s other policies, one of my biggest concerns is how to make sure that the president and members of Congress know how many women think this legislation would be a terrible idea. I certainly do.

How many times do we have to face dire ‘unintended consequences’ before recognizing that when the government imposes social engineering, it usually leads to damaging and expensive costs? If every government program had only its promised and intended result we would be living in Nirvana. We aren’t. In fact, many studies seem to show that, as a population, we are less happy than we used to be.

Yes, women are in the workforce and yes, it is difficult to meld working with having a family. However, no single prototype represents “the working mother.” The government can help by lowering taxes, reducing regulation and encouraging freedom, thereby reducing the cost of living so that everyone can make his or her own free choice. The government promoting one way of life by subsidizing it is the wrong way to go.

I know many young women who wish they could spend their days building their homes, nurturing their marriages, raising their children (and having more children) and being involved in neighborhood and community organizations. They are working because they and their husbands do not see how they can make ends meet on only one salary. Many of these women are accomplished professionals. They enjoy their work and it is valuable. But in a world restricted to 7 days in the week and 24 hours in the day, they cannot have everything. No one can.

These women, of course, are in a different category from women who work in a low-paying jobs, often struggling to support themselves and their children. The government is already responsible for misguided programs that encouraged women to have children outside of marriage. These women would benefit more from education and improving their skills than from being subsidized for having more children. We all make good and bad choices throughout our lives as well as having to live with the hands we are dealt. As a society, living with the consequences of the decisions we make spurs making better decisions. Breaking the link between action and consequence leads us in the wrong direction.

Imagine a couple who marry in their twenties and have a few children. They choose to live on a tight budget so that the wife can be home. Why should they help support someone who chose to emphasize her career during those same years and have her children, let’s say, in her mid-thirties? Did the career woman share her vacations, restaurant meals and fashionable clothing with the stay-at-home mom?

How about individuals who choose not to marry and not to have children? Do they owe something to those who make other choices? As a mother, I have tons of hugs, kisses and priceless moments. I have a family support group as I age. My husband and I (and our community) received many benefits from my not being pulled in two by an outside career. Does that give me the right to demand payment from someone who receives accolades and a substantial paycheck from a career that was her focus? What of the woman who raises her family and then, in her forties, builds a business or enters professional school. Why is her choice deemed second place? 

When companies such as Google or Amazon provide employees with campuses rather than office buildings, it isn’t a selfless gesture of goodwill. If workers can exercise, eat, send their clothing to the dry cleaner and take care of all their other needs at the campus, they will put in more hours at work. As private companies this may be very smart management. But people have the option of working there or not. By contrast, when the government sets a policy, citizens don’t have any choice.

Paid family leave is slyly misnamed. It actually puts a premium on work, not family. As a private decision, that is one individuals can make. It is not the government’s place to lay their heavy hand on the scale. Someone has to pay for paid family leave. Whether that is companies who then raise their prices to compensate for higher expenses or taxpayers who pay more, everyone is forced to support the government’s chosen ‘preferred’ category of people—working (out of the home) woman. Guess what? A lot of women would rather prioritize raising the next generation over working in an office. Do we really want to penalize them?

I do support President Trump’s re-election. I do not support family leave legislation. I also guarantee you that if Republicans offer X amount of weeks of leave, the Democrats will offer 2X or 5X or 100X. The end result will be further intrusion into the lives of individuals and the diminishing and  demeaning of families. As women who support President Trump, let us acknowledge that we can have different viewpoints on specific policy issues while sharing a love for our country and a belief that, at this time, this is the right man in the right place.

Tags: , , ,

45 comments

Art Carnrick says:

Very wise reflections on this situation. Keep publishing your thoughts on these problems we face in today’s society.

Susan Lapin says:

I love the idea of discussion, Art.

Char Worden says:

I agree with Susan. Ivanka Trump appears to be spearheading this effort. I’d like for her to read Susan’s comments.

Susan Lapin says:

Me too, Char!

Debbie Evans says:

I couldn’t agree more! Thank you, Susan, you and your lovely family are truly blessed.

Susan Lapin says:

What’s disturbing about this, Debbie, is that it is being presented as something that all women (all decent people, actually) support. That both Republicans and Democrats are thinking this is a good idea should be a warning sign in and of itself.

Cheryl L Hinkle says:

What excellent points, Susan. I hadn’t given this a thought. Government intervention in our lives reduces individual freedom.

Susan Lapin says:

You made my day, Cheryl, if I gave you something to think about. You sentence just about sums up what I was saying in a very succinct way.

jean fasano says:

Totally agree and enjoy the depth of understanding that is brought to light.

Susan Lapin says:

Thank you, Jean. It’s one of these things, to my mind, that is both a minor and major issue right now.

Gus says:

Right on Susan, you are absolutely correct.
I think Trump would agree with you; I think he see’s that something may need to be done but not real sure exactly what. That’s a big area to cover. From one guys view.
Gus

Susan Lapin says:

I do think his daughter is spearheading this which makes me worried that the President won’t be exposed to opposing views.

Gus says:

Susan, you do know that Trump is getting many view’s on most situations. He has asked several Judeo-Christian Ministers to the WH for consultation on many topics. I have written him an email and did get a return. It took several months but to my surprise I did get an email back. Of course not sure if it actually was read by Trump, I did hear one time where he liked reading the emails.
It would not hurt to send him for instance this topic and any others and in fact I would go so far as to say he would probably start reading your blogs and make commits well maybe we want go that far.
Gus

Susan Lapin says:

It never would have crossed my mind to send an email to the President, Gus. What an interesting idea.

Priscilla says:

Please, please, do, Mrs. Lapin! I am willing to sign my name to your letter, if it would help. I know many other women who would as well. At one time, a majority of American women had no desire to vote. They just rolled their eyes at the feminists marching in the streets, nursed their babies, ran their households, and influenced their communities. Only to look up in shock to realize that Congress had actually passed the 19th Amendment. So now, added to their already busy schedules, they had to research candidates, campaign, watch voting schedules, etc. And now there was even less time to run their homes. If only they had spoken out when they had the chance!

Debbie Evans says:

I agree, too. President of a country as fragmented and searching as ours has become it would be a huge undertaking. I don’t envy him but do admire him. Susan’s so insightful and I appreciate her input’s. Her and her husband teach me so much and I for one am very thankful.

Patricia Germain says:

I didn’t think of it that way. When I was younger and I saw some people having huge families (I have 2 boys) and I notice we all paid the same for healthcare. That was a subsidy too…We have to get back to personal choices and personal responsibility…I’d say we are nearing the 50/50 point on this topic in the US.

Mike C says:

I am always hesitant to challenge a world view which I perceive from short comments. If my view is incorrect, I apologize in advance. From your comment you seem to be equating the private decisions between employers and employees and the impositions with which government burdens all employers and employees who could have bargained for the benefits they most prefer, like family leave. A far better comparison would be between the amount of social security benefits which you receive when you retire and those benefits received by the parents of the large families you describe. Hypothetically, if you and the parents of the large family had the same lifetime earnings history you would receive the same pension benefits although they bore the greater expense of raising their larger family and it is very likely that there are more children of that larger family paying into the social security pension system from which you are equally benefiting because that larger family bore the expense of raising more children/workers/SS taxpayers. The point is clear, there’s an important difference between person to person bargaining and a ‘one size fits all’ governmental arbitrary scheme.
As I said, if I misunderstood the moral equivalence argument I thought you were making, I apologize.

Susan Lapin says:

I don’t know what health care you had Patricia, but we paid our way for our family.

Debbie Evans says:

Before insurance, most did or didn’t receive any health care. I remember that time and later on the perilous path it became.

Mike C says:

Good column. You missed one other unintended consequence. Employers may be somewhat less likely to hire and promote talented women if they risk more dislocation and expense by having to subsidize them when they take advantage of this entitlement. And this is to say nothing of the potential for this valuable woman deciding after the “bonding period” yearning to extend the “leave” indefinitely, even when it may be altogether unpaid.

Susan Lapin says:

Mike, I think employment law is a mess partially because of all the discussions that are illegal to have. When we pretend that not asking questions is the same a as closing our eyes all sorts of problems occur. We are not facing facts as a country of the financial and social cost of insisting that men and women are the same including in the area of career.

Debbie Evans says:

Honest reply, hear, hear!

Michele McFie says:

Beautifully said! As a mother of many my husband and I chose for me to stay home with our children. I worked in our home…not for an income, but to make the most of my husband’s income. We would never have wanted others to subsidize our living. What follows government subsidy? More government regulations! Think China and their one child law and the devastation that is costing not only their country, but the world. No, let the government stay out of our private affairs.

Susan Lapin says:

Amen, Michele. Suggesting that we “help” women when they have babies so that it interferes less with their “serious and real” work is terribly insulting to motherhood.

Debbie Evans says:

Both comments are so valuable, thank you.

Lyna says:

Ronald Reagan, “Government’s first duty is to protect the people, not run their lives.”
I do not know the date or context of that statement, but it is much better than, “I’m from the government and here to help you!”

Susan Lapin says:

How far we have come from that, Lyna.

Kevin B. says:

I liked your reflections. I read the other link provided as well and was not excited. Call me old fashioned, but I see more women in the workforce as a negative consequence of two things: 1. The breakdown of the family. Single mothers are prolific compared to days gone by and have to work to provide, while deadbeat dads move on. 2. Many women work as you stated because of economic necessity. Families can hardly make it on one income today and live the lifestyle afforded our grandparents on just one income. Both of my grandfather’s retired at 55. One was a farmer and the other was an iron worker in Chicago. He labored on high rise buildings and was a blue collar employee, yet provided for a wife and three boys (one was my dad) without a struggle. He owned his own home and traded in for a new car every two years. That’s nearly impossible today in my opinion. My wife and I sacrificed tremendously for her to stay home, at least compared to our peers, but we thought it too important to let just anyone raise our children in daycare. No. No way! Times have changed and some in not so good ways. I applaud women who have decided to become professionals and share their gifts with the world, but the choice to be a wife, mother, and homemaker is a wonderful gift to the family and nearly impossible today. I hate that.

Gladys Marie says:

I am in total agreement with you, Susan. Bless You. Totally.

Susan Lapin says:

Gladys, I find this is such a difficult point to get across to young women who think, “Well, yes, of course businesses have to make it easier for me.”

T May says:

I hope you shared your writing with the Women – for – Trump group.

Another possible unintended consequence could be businesses closing and people losing their jobs which is what happened from the $15 an hour law. A percentage of workers lost their jobs, the number changes based on the affluence of the city, and some restaurants went to automated AI type solutions, burger flipping machines, or tables where you can input your order into a pad on the table. People cut back on eating at restaurants when the prices rise, since businesses pass on the increase of their expenses by raising prices. Fewer businesses open. There are fewer entry level positions for unskilled workers.

Also since the government wants to be gender neutral, everyone would get the benefits which means the cost would be higher than just giving it to women. Also in some families it is the grandparent(s) who raise the grandchildren, so all ages would partake. Businesses can’t always afford extra expenses. Since government gets free money, government forgets that someone has to make the money.

I remember a politician (not related to me) in a public speech who said “I like to raise taxes so that I have a bigger pie to spend money out of.” Most people clapped. I didn’t.

Susan Lapin says:

I wanted to respond to the article, but when I went to leave a comment it started with having to sign up and give them access to my info etc. I didn’t have time to try other channels. Maybe someone who reads the Musings can pass it on.
Your point is right that “family” leave means it needs to apply to fathers as well. That is a whole ‘nother area of problems.
We don’t like having links in comments, so I deleted yours but there are many, many articles of businesses closing because of the rise in minimum wage and, as you accurately say, that cuts off lots of first-job opportunities for people who then aren’t able to step on the ladder towards success.

I agree wholeheartedly!!! says:

I agree wholeheartedly!!!

Susan Lapin says:

Perhaps you can share it with someone who hasn’t thought that there could possibly be two sides to this issue?

Donna S. says:

I agree with you Susan. Growing up I heard about the efforts to destroy the “nuclear family.” Our progressive leaders have moved our society in that direction to perfection. The saddest consequence is the loss of our children to government and the “helpful” agencies put in place to take the place of loving and caring parents; parents who are being literally forced into the workplace and ultimately the servitude of the state.

Susan Lapin says:

Donna, I don’t think most people involved in promoting this share in the nefarious agenda you state, but there are definitely those who do understand that the more the government gets control of the children the more entrenched their power becomes. That is classic socialist and communist thinking.

T May says:

Without the link:
“Businesses fail all the time for all kinds of reasons. But when Restaurants Unlimited filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection last week, people noticed. The company owns 35 upscale restaurants located primarily on the West Coast, including seven in Seattle.” They had restaurants in Washington, Oregon and California. They found that they could not pass on the expenses to the customers. People could eat at home.

Susan Lapin says:

Thank you, T May.

Al Hoffman says:

With misuse of help funds, then really disabled peoples will be destitute. Like buying chairs for the lazy, or meals for money saving, to give alcoholism support.

Kristyn says:

Susan, you wrote, “…The government can help by lowering taxes, reducing regulation and encouraging freedom, thereby reducing the cost of living so that everyone can make his or her own free choice. The government promoting one way of life by subsidizing it is the wrong way to go…” This is such excellent reasoning. Government subsidies such as we’ve seen since the Depression always cause ling term harm. Excellent article here!

Susan Lapin says:

I hope that people will share this, Kristyn. It is not on the “most important” list for our country, though I do think that if it is enacted, years down the road we will point to it as a major deviation from freedom and tradition.

Kristin Grose says:

Brilliant…you and I are certainly soul sisters, Susan. Some used to call your thoughts and perspective common sense! Thanks for assuring me I’m not the only woman swimming agaiinst the current tide of social sentiment. God bless.

Susan Lapin says:

Kristin, I think you and I actually belong to quite a large group.

We would love to hear your thoughts. Please leave a comment.

Comments will be posted after approval by our moderator, so you will not see your comment immediately.

Leave a Reply to Mike C Cancel Reply

Your email address will not be published.This is a required field!

You may use these HTML tags and attributes:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

Search Musings

Yes! I would like to receive FREE weekly teachings

Sign Up Now!

X