NewsWithViews on Pinterest NewsWithViews on Google+

Additional Titles


The Difference Between Wealth and Profit









By Marilyn MacGruder Barnewall
October 18, 2015

As I look at women’s political involvement in America, it scares me to death. Why? Because women are drawn to government offers of security. “Just give government more and more power to run everything and we’ll keep you safe and secure. You want food stamps? Sure. Welfare? No problem. Cell phone? Here you go!”

Any woman (or man) who believes in promises of security from politicians has never read the history of the world. it’s altogether possible such people cannot read because if one takes a serious look at the state of the world where governments are supposed to be protecting people, one must be pretty dumb to believe that’s what governments do.

Fidel Castro has been protecting Cubans for many years now while Cubans build boats from trash to run from the communist/socialist shores of that island nation to big, bad America.

Anyone who hasn’t figured out that if an entity is powerful enough to give you something for nothing, it can also take it away when it chooses -- or when you do something it doesn‘t like. We should find some kind of test that demonstrates citizens learn that lesson before registering them to vote.

It doesn’t seem to matter that Lyndon Johnson’s promises to end the suffering of the poor via his War on Poverty were made more than 50 years (and several trillion dollars) ago. The lives of women have been, in my opinion, downgraded relative to security during that time frame. Our food stamp and welfare rolls which guarantee that recipients will languish in poverty have never been as large as they are today. So much for political promises.

Long ago, I wrote a series of sayings and put them on a poster to hang in my office. They were things I as an early feminist had learned and wanted to remember. Here is one of those sayings:

Women are equal to men because they are their opposites. Men are equal to women for the same reason.

In my view, only as long as we view male and female as opposite entities are men and women equal. When that element is removed from the equation of life, equality becomes a matter of survival of the fittest.

Throughout most human history, man was accepted as the family provider, the lender, the borrower, the business and property owner, the worker, the historian, the head of government, the physician and lawyer. He has been the philosopher of the human race. He has written the Bible and the Koran (Qur'an). He is the inventor who sailed (and mapped) the world.

It all started in the cave.

A long time ago, people lived in a mobile society. It was necessary to hunt, fight a hostile environment and be fast enough to either attack or retreat successfully. Then, people returned to the cave to cook the day's catch (once we figured out how to use fire).

It was obvious to both male and female that pregnancy was not particularly conducive to running a successful footrace with Mother Nature. Originally, it was common sense for the superior strength of the male to make him the dominant partner. It was a survival of the fittest life. Man became the risk manager. Woman became his opposite -- risk-averse. We survived and progressed.

Women have a logical reason for having a risk-averse nature – a need for security. We have had this link from the beginning and will have it until the end of time. It is an Alpha and Omega deal. We are the bearers and nurturers of progeny. We carry babies, we birth them, and we nurture and raise them. Well, we used to nurture them.

Women who nurture and raise children need one thing above all else: Security. Without it, children cannot develop properly. This simple, basic fact explains why women tend to support political candidates that promise them security.

Conservative political candidates do not understand this basic hormonal female need and, thus, don’t draw proper distinctions between political promises which are often lies and the truth about personal security for everyone -- male and female. Liberals appear to understand how to turn any social conflict into a crisis from which they can benefit politically. Regarding feminism, they have decided to promote the idea that conservatives are at war with women and their rights to equality. The public should be paying for college girl birth control -- and their abortions when they don't have the discipline to employ control of any kind.

The female need for security is basic and remains a strong internal drive until women learn that being protected by society or government often provides less security than they can provide for themselves. It often means abuse. And men did abuse the power they held over women for centuries. Surely women cannot think a government that demands their infants get loaded up with vaccines filled with preservatives laced with Mercury (which is what many scientists say is what causes autism) is interested in the well-being of their children! (Dr. Ben Carson was right when he said vaccines are safe; Donald Trump was right when he said vaccines cause autism; it’s not the vaccine... it’s the preservatives they contain.)

Men and women experience life. Men cannot have babies. Women cannot change history. Male domination and leadership throughout history has been vested in men. That is a historically accurate statement.

Only when people – men and women -- realize that security lies within the person and not within government are they capable of making honest personal choices about which kind of political system is best for humanity. It is because of this critical level of personal growth that Ben Franklin said “He who would trade liberty for some temporary security deserves neither.”

It is when people reach this point of personal growth that beliefs become based on choice rather than fear. Prior to that time, political and social decisions are based more on societal security needs than on realities that challenge all of us daily. The problem is, the government that promises to take care of security needs cannot (and will not) fulfill that promise.

Babies can’t find their own food source. It must be provided. Either the mother or father do it, or government does. Humans are unable to control their environment for at least a dozen years after birth. Thus, one prime objective of pre-adolescence is to learn to control childhood fears so we can control our adult lives. Almost all of us achieve this objective, to one degree or another.

Nature provided an environment – the family – to help children grow through their fears. Perhaps that’s one reason socialist and communist views of the world first destroy the family and then faith in God. They need fear to achieve those objectives. By removing the thing that helps both males and female overcome the natural fears of childhood, liberals maintain that deep-seeded fear that a monster is hiding under the bed. That’s why Hillary Clinton wrote the book “It Takes a Village” which explains why someone other than Mom and Dad should rear your child. Such ideas help destroy the family unit.

Communism and socialism remove the source to which we go when fears become intolerable: faith in God. Churches are given tax exempt status and give away their First Amendment Constitutional rights for something they already have – no taxes. The people lose access to the very source that should be stormily informing them about the evils of abortion and the selling of body parts from aborted babies... but if they do, they will lose their tax exempt status – possibly even their church. So the church as the primary path to God is lost as is faith.

When we overcome fear, we become independent people. Until the modern feminist movement, women were primarily the protectors of children. Because women are generally the physically weaker of the two sexes, men protected women. That provided a secure environment enabling women to protect children. Thanks to the feminist lie that women are equal to men in all things, we’ve lost that. In the good old days (just a few years ago), women could choose to stay home and raise their children or they could choose to work. Today, most families cannot survive without two incomes.

These are the things feminists find offensive about women who achieve at high levels. We compete effectively in a male dominated world without adopting male traits to be effective. We maintain the joy of being female – and we don’t for a minute think men need to get in touch with their feminine side. The person who started that movement to feminize American males should be forced to read aloud male magazines in the public square for 40 years. The tears shed so often by men like John Boehner give me little confidence that they are in touch with their strong male side (usually required in times of crisis and certainly a necessity when making decisions involving human life).

Feminists decided it was demeaning to women for men to protect them. In truth, men gave feminists a lot of ammunition. They lied, cheated and stole from their wives and children. They deserted them. They skipped out on child support payments. They became sperm donors rather than fathers. Women found themselves serving as both mother and father. Male lawmakers -- men – did little to help find fathers who deserted their families.

Subscribe to NewsWithViews Daily Email Alerts

*required field

The biggest lesson I learned from my own life’s experiences is how to face my fears. It gives you a wonderful sense of freedom. It makes you into a very positive person who is not afraid to have hopes and dreams or to pursue them with energetic vigor. I learned how to manage risk the moment I figured out that I was the best asset to provide security for me and my children. With God’s help, I could do it a lot better than government.

I also learned that the biggest mistake women can make in their attempts to declare themselves equal with men is to lose their unique sense of being male opposites. Contrary to what feminists today appear to believe, feminine traits are much needed elements for a successful society to progress.

Click here for part -----> 1, 2,

� 2015 Marilyn M. Barnewall - All Rights Reserved

Share This Article

Click Here For Mass E-mailing

Marilyn MacGruder Barnewall began her career in 1956 as a journalist with the Wyoming Eagle in Cheyenne. During her 20 years (plus) as a banker and bank consultant, she wrote extensively for The American Banker, Bank Marketing Magazine, Trust Marketing Magazine, was U.S. Consulting Editor for Private Banker International (London/Dublin), and other major banking industry publications. She has written seven non-fiction books about banking and taught private banking at Colorado University for the American Bankers Association. She has authored seven banking books, one dog book, and two works of fiction (about banking, of course). She has served on numerous Boards in her community.

Barnewall is the former editor of The National Peace Officer Magazine and as a journalist has written guest editorials for the Denver Post, Rocky Mountain News and Newsweek, among others. On the Internet, she has written for News With Views, World Net Daily, Canada Free Press, Christian Business Daily, Business Reform, and others. She has been quoted in Time, Forbes, Wall Street Journal and other national and international publications. She can be found in Who's Who in America, Who's Who of American Women, Who's Who in Finance and Business, and Who's Who in the World.

Web site:

E-Mail: [email protected]

E-Mail: [email protected]



Any woman (or man) who believes in promises of security from politicians has never read the history of the world. it’s altogether possible such people cannot read because if one takes a serious look at the state of the world where governments are supposed to be protecting people, one must be pretty dumb to believe that’s what governments do.