Who is More Dependable for Support of Women and Their Children?

Sandra Lucas is again on the stump. She came to fame on TV through her forceful announcements that government (the taxpayers) should pay for her birth-control expenses. 

She has had considerable support from women, and this also resulted in probable significant support for Pres. Obama, in the forthcoming Presidential election. The intention of this essay is to point out ramifications of this development, particularly with respect to the future livelihood of women.

Through its programs, the Obama Administration has effectively reduced and continues to further reduce the significance of the cultural financial, and political aspects of the family.
 
Families have been traditionally made up of a father, a mother, and in most cases children. Since women are by nature more nurturing than men, they previously filled the role of caregivers in the family, while the men handled the financial support. Effectively, women were dependent on men for financial stability in the family, which many women considered as a personal slight to their freedom. With the advent of the Second World War and the departure of most men to the military, women were forced to assume financial responsibility for the family by taking jobs. This also occurred in the Soviet Union and was perceived by the American government is a favorable development to increase productivity. With further development, it was perceived by the US government that the withdrawal of men as breadwinners from the family would be favorable to women's dependence on the federal government for support, and thereby result in greater power for the government.
 
The difficulty with that attitude and development is that the role of men is solely reduced to supplying sexual satisfaction to women.and allowing men to discard their responsibilities for family support. Since men then learn to have no responsibility for financial matters, they also become wards of the federal government.
 
Since we now have many women and some men dependent on government to maintain their existence, we have an increased burden on any income tax payers who have maintained a sense of financial responsibility. Such responsible taxpayers are continually being reduced in number and in turn also become dependent on the federal government for financial support.
 
While the above may sound somewhat irrelevant in the context of present time, the system develops into more and more people becoming receivers of financial support, while fewer contribute to the system. This is analogous to a leaking pail. Payments to non-producers are leaking through the holes, which are becoming larger. Efforts to maintain the level by additions from producers are becoming smaller. Eventually, the federal government runs out of money to pay benefits, in the same way that the leaking pail will eventually become empty.
 
As women trek to the polls for November voting, they should have the foresight to consider whether they want to cast their votes for the leaking pail or return to the now more difficult task of re-acclimating men to financial responsibilities for their wives and the children they bear.