THE WOMAN and her abilities (and the sexism against her)

The woman was designed for the man. Fact. However, the man was designed for the woman also. Despite the triumphs that the woman made in the Feminist Movement of the mid 20th Century, sexism is still prevalent today. How exactly is this? The woman has conformed to the traditional image of the woman which is based off of biased statistics, the media-given image, and, of course, tradition. Woman was built to be nurturing, caring, and compassionate. YES!!! Man was built to be protective, brave, and strong. YES!!! BUT each was also built with a certain level of adaptability. A man can be nurturing.He can be caring. He can be compassionate. Yes! Yes! Yes!. Can a woman be protective? Yes. Can a woman be brave? Yes. Can a woman be strong? Yes--except with limitations according to statistics (which are often biased).

Women themselves are actually the downfall of true feminism. True Feminism is not about getting a woman to be as equal to the man in every position on earth. It is not about becoming better than the man either. It is about demanding an equality in respect despite any task that the woman may be doing. Wait! So how exactly is a woman the downfall to true feminism?

How many times do you hear a woman say "I can't lift his!", "I can't open this!", or "I can't do this!" and then she goes in search for a man to do the job? This can be seen in countless situations. She is giving up--and not just on the task at hand. She is giving up on herself and she is giving up on her fellow women. How much effort has she actually given to the task? Five, ten, fifteen seconds? Has she yet to feel any real tension in her body from her efforts? Probably not. Any tension that she will fill, if she continues though, is a part of the pathway of becoming stronger which is also the pathway of individuality and independence. Without making a real attempt, the woman gives up her right to accomplishment.

Example: There are two boxes laying on the ground. Both contain the same type of objects in side of them. One is larger and the other is smaller. When a man and a woman are working together, the man will typically grab for the bigger box (based off of experience). However, what happens if the woman grabs for the biggest box? The man will usually offer to take over that task in a gentlemanly way. If the woman rejects his offer than the man will go for the smaller box. No big deal. The man's efforts were appreciated and the woman is simply being independent. Now rewind the story.If the woman grabs for the bigger box and another person rejects the woman grabbing the bigger box and downgrades her to the smaller box, then that is sexism. Pure and simple. A sane person would not do anything willingly without knowing his or her abilities. This type of action against the woman is telling her that she is too stupid to know her abilities and her strengths. When someone eyes an object to lift it they calculate everything--"how big is it?" and "how much should it weight?" (based on radius, diameter, and other multiplication factors which end up into a fair estimation). A negative action, such as the stated one, also tells the woman that she is weak, that her efforts are unappreciated, and that she should go to man for everything.

Woman, you are strong! Woman, you are able! Woman, you can be independent! Woman, you are an individual! This is, nevertheless, saying that a woman has no need of a man. A man and a woman, together, are meant for each other. They are meant to love and to help each other. They are meant to experience the world together and to learn from one another. However, a woman and her strengths should never be put down, depreciated, or given maljudgement by any man or, even, another woman.

The woman needs to stand up for herself and for her kind. She needs to seek and encourage complete individuality. She needs to attempt everything before seeking the help of another--man or woman. She needs to know her abilities. If she is strong, and if she is confident in a task, then nothing should keep her from completing said task. Strength is in the mind. Physicality is only a small portion of it. A woman who honestly knows her abilities and her limitations should not be barred from her work, her charity, or her abilities. She should be trusted in her self-knowledge of her abilities.  By being strong, a woman is not being manly. She is going beyond the statistics and the labels that society has given her. She is tearing those up and becoming an individual, not conforming to society and its statistics, labels, or judgments.

The Welfare State

To Abolish it or to not?
There are many people out there who use and abuse the system, believing that they can stay on government aid forever. This is, basically, stealing money from taxpayers.

Also, there are many people out there who rely on and need welfare.

What should happen?
Excluding those who are disabled, the too elderly, and those of other related circumstances, the following should happen for those who are work-able and do not have jobs

1. Every person on welfare should be required to attend a career guidance counselor at least two times per month. STATE ISSUED. There, the progress of each person on welfare can be tracked, evaluated, etc. The soul goal of this will be to employ the unemployed.
1. Based on amount of education, current financial system, medical situation, and family circumstance a deadline should be set for when the individual is required to have a job by before welfare is subsidized or cancelled.
2. Every welfare individual should attend a seminar once a month. This will be an opportunity for them to learn of their opportunities and to become further educated on them. Also, this could act as a sort of job fair--where local hiring places of employment can come to recruit. Special training sessions could be given to increase individuals' hiring ability: computer skills, culinary skills, etc.
2. Children with the need for welfare should not be held responsible for the situations that they were born in or the situations brought upon their family. Children should have access to free clinics, free meal programs with their schools, extra tutoring (if their parents cannot help them with school), English classes (if it is their second language and their family cannot help them learn the language sufficiently.
1. Mentor Programs. With poverty, comes crime. Children should be given good mentors who can help them with their homework, teach them certain values, and just be apart of their lives in one way or another. This does not, however, say that parents are not good mentors. Parents are the best mentors, but often society is not. This is, simply, an opportunity and should not be required. The mentors should be University-graduates, involved in the community, and maintaining clean records. The goal: to help children see the light out of their circumstances and to realize their goals. 
3. Three strikes and you're out!!! This sounds a lot like California's lock up program. In this case, if the welfare individual gets three strikes against them then they cannot receive welfare for five years while outside of the "joint". A misdemeanor is one strike. A felony is two strikes. This does not include minor traffic violations.
4. Food stamps, cards, etc--everything should be on a type of credit card that is racked up with points. Parents who are on welfare often feed their kids the cheap frozen bulk food--chicken nuggets, pizza bites, etc. This is unhealthy. A special sticker or insignia should be on the types of food that welfare individuals may purchase through the card. The foods would be varied to ensure that the individual would have the opportunity to maintain a healthy diet. The foods would have to have a limited amount of calories, cholesterol, and sugars--no trans-fats. The point of this is to encourage a healthy society. 
5. Medical care would probably vary state to state and ought to be a state issue depending on the wealth of the state--once Obamacare is revoked (so I am hoping) then this issue can be face.
6. Community Service--I believe that when one receives, one should give back. This does not exclude welfare participants. I believe that those who receive welfare ought to have a mandated amount of community service hours. I am NOT talking orange jackets at the side of the road picking up trash just like those who have received misdemeanors or something. I am talking about community service that would benefit the community and the participant (by helping them build up their resume). I am talking about volunteering with animal shelters, YMCAs, etc.
7. I BELIEVE IN REFORM--our country needs it. Give to those who deserve and who do not take advantage of it. 
8. Illegal Immigrants--Yes, some pay taxes; however, certain benefits ought to be only afforded to legal immigrants, visa holders, citizens, and the like

There are many issues concerning Welfare. Readers, please comment to tell me some of the other issues and I will post a future issue about it. 

Illegal Immigration

What is the point of calling a nation a nation when it has no borders--no protected borders? It might as well be called the "open range". America is not an open range. It is ours. It must be protected, respected, and not treated as an open range.

I am, in no way, saying that we should not let in anyone or to get rid of all of the illegals. That would not be for our benefit. Casting out all illegals would also cost our country a lot of money.

So what do I think is the solution?

Here are the reforms that I would put in place if I were president:
(all viewers please understand that these are not promises if I were to ever enter politics in the future. These are thoughts that I have now and what I would do now based on the information that I have attained and  the beliefs that I currently hold)

1. Enforce Border Security 
Pretty much every nation has some border protection measures. It is not only a country's right, but it is a country's duty to its citizens.

Border Patrol is not enough. It tackles some people but it cannot tackle all the problems. Our country should consider placing military units all along the south border. The military exists to protect our great country. It is doing so abroad, supposedly, but should it not also protect us from the inside? We are criticized for having our military abroad. We are criticized for protecting our borders. Is our country supposed to just sit back and let the inevitable happen? Let anyone do what they want to us and to other countries (allies or possible allies)? Let anyone walk into our country? If so, who and what should we protect? Nobody? No!

2. Amnesty? 
This is where presidential candidate Ron Paul and I differ. Saying no to all amnesty would cost our country a lot in immigrant tracking, deportation, etc.


Amnesty: the pardoning of those convicted of political offense. This does not have to include giving citizenship to such people necessarily.

I say that a date should be set. No amnesty beyond that point, but we need to deal with the illegal immigrants currently in-country. All illegals caught coming in from now until then should be apprehended and sent back.

All current illegals in-country should be given the opportunity to become visa holders (with multiple options for work and school). The visa should hold for four years as long as the immigrant is kept clean of drugs (based on random drug tests) and any other criminal activity except for minor traffic violations. To gain/maintain this "special visa", all immigrants who turn themselves in should be drug-tested and given background checks. If there is an issue then the immigrant should be sent back to their country of origin or to a country of their choice that would freely accept them. A fee of an appropriate amount should be set for the cost of the visa. Also, all who gain this "special" visa should be made to do some form of community service for at least two hours a week until their visa expires. Exceptions can be made for documented illness and family emergencies. All illegal immigrant children (age 18 and under) ought to have the right to their family and may stay in-country until their parents' special visa is expired. All children should have the opportunity to attend public schools and those who are age 14 and up, if they choose to do so, may work as long as they are also going to school and maintain at least a 3.0 GPA (out of 4.0) and have a minimum of 80% attendance.

On renewal of this visa one must leave the country for a period of three months before expiration. Children are excluded from this and if the parents decide to do so they can alternate in order to keep the children in-country. They may also be allowed, if leaving their job on a good-standing, to come back to their jobs with the same pay, benefits, and position as previously held in order to ensure that every three to four years the family would not have to restart.

3. Welfare State
This is where I agree with Ron Paul. Abolish it. No welfare incentive for illegals. One must have a visa or citizenship. This is an unnecessary cost.

(see also my future post on welfare reform that includes welfare having a time-limit and certain "community-service" related aspects)

4. Birthright Citizenship
 I believe this is where our country has gone wrong. At least one parent should be a citizen for the born child to be also a citizen. A child to two visa-holding parents should be issued a visa that expires when the parents' expire. This does not protect the visa-holding or illegal parent from expiration or deportation. This prevents children from being for the soul manipulative reason of avoiding deportation and the legal process.

5. Gaining Citizenship
A person on the special visa may attain citizenship through the normal legal way or through several other ways. They can join the military and serve for a full four years (excluding honorable discharge, dishonorable discharge would result in either prison time, revocation of citizenship and deportation to country of origin, or put on visa status--the decision would be made by the court martial that gave him/her the dishonorable discharge--note: the possibility of prison time is not much different than it is for citizens when it comes to dishonorable discharge.)

Exemplary Schollar Award--All visa-holding students who attend high school for four years in America may attain citizenship if they have maintained a 95% attendance rate, at least a 3.9 GPA, scored at least a 30 on the ACT and its equivalent on the SAT, and, of course, received their diploma. This is not all--the student would then receive an extension on their visa, have to be enrolled in a university of their choice, and graduate with a bachelors with at least a 3.0 (out of 4.0 GPA). The reason for this?--It would be a shame for us to let go of those who could intellectually benefit our society.

Note--this last one may be seen as a liberal view. Perhaps it is. This is just a very demanding but second chance opportunity for the young who it may not have been their choice in the first place to come illegally. This idea comes from the realization that parents can drag their children through certain circumstances.

6. State Rights
States are obligated to protect their citizens if the national government fails to do so and may make any precautions that get passed by their legislation concerning illegal immigration and other such issues. Well, actually that is a real deal but it is often disrespected by the national government. Ex. Arizona. This decision is to be made by the state legal system--with or without consultation of the national government.