The "Weaker" Sex, Indeed

If I were the type of woman given to taking "offense" at perceived manifestations of sexism, I'd be spitting with outrage over this "Julia" junk.  Apparently, women are in special need of handouts provided by other taxpayers . . . and the President finds it inconceivable that I -- and millions of other women -- can somehow make our way through life without the guiding hand of Big Daddy Government.

Somehow, let it be noted, millions of women manage to follow the three big rules for staying out of poverty, according to a comprehensive study conducted by the Brookings Institute:

1. Graduating from high school

2. Waiting to get married until after 21 and not having children til after marriage (nb: It doesn't appear that "Julia" paid attention to this one . . .)

3. Having a full-time job. 

If one does all three, there's only a 2% chance of falling into poverty, and a 74% chance of being in the middle class -- even, presumably, without the tender ministrations of the federal government.  And that's true across racial and other demographic lines.

Why, one might ask, is the Obama administration targeting "Julia" instead of "John"?  Of course, we know . . . that's where the votes are -- but shouldn't women be just a little appalled at the campaign's overt implication that women are in particular need of government help?  The "weaker" sex, indeed.