I have been accused of being one-sided in my presentations of political issues, so I immediately turned to Fox News. Fox was not talking about women's reactions to the debate at all. Frank Luntz was talking to "undecided" voters in Nevada and all but one said that Romney was "substantive," "pleasantly surprising," and "believable." The man who didn't say something "nice" about Romney said he was "average." Luntz ignored that man and, with a gesture of an open hand, asked the seven or so voters who said positive things about Romney why they liked what they heard. They gave their reasons and Luntz listened with eye contact and head nodding. Luntz then turned to the man who had said what he had heard was "average," pointed with a finger, not an open face-up palm, at him, and said, "Now you didn't hear that. Why." It was hardly a question. Luntz turned away with his eyes on the floor and didn't respond to the voter's answer, which was, "I didn't hear anything new." Needless to say, Luntz's obvious disregard for a voter who isn't sure if Romney is our country's savior or not really turned me off.
In terms of what I heard on the news, as a woman, I appreciate that ABC actually talked about the women's opinions. I'm not sure if I agree with it, but at least they talked about it. Fox didn't. I actually went to foxnews.com to see if they had any women's reactions that maybe I had missed; they didn't have one story on women in regards to the debate.
In terms of what I saw in the debate last night, as a woman, I didn't see anything wrong with the candidates' demeanors at all. I like the fact that Obama pushed the envelope. He was aggressive. He did interrupt Romney to correct his statements that were blatant lies. I want a President and a Commander-in-Chief who is aggressive. It is hardwired in women to want someone who will protect us, and I think Obama will protect me and my rights.
As a woman, what offended me most last night was Romney still not saying whether he would have signed the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act or not. The fact that Romney will not say that women deserve to earn the same pay that men earn for doing the same job is extremely offensive to me. Why should I believe in someone who doesn't believe in my rights as a woman? Why should I vote for someone who doesn't necessarily think that men and I should have equal pay for equal work?
Come on, America. Let's support a candidate who supports our country's women. Women are 51% of this country's vote. How is it possible in the 21st century that a candidate who doesn't support over half of the country's voters, even has a shot at taking the White House? Let's have some pride.
"Be the change you wish to see in the world." --Gandhi
Young lady--Romney gave concrete, 'specific'(what people claim to want) evidence that he made a concerted effort to hire women for positions in his administration. He's not lying about that--my aunt was actually hired by him and saw evidence of this. My aunt was an Obama supporter in 2008. Also, Megan Kelly on Fox news was the first commentator after the debate was over and her very first comment was regarding the aggressiveness of the debators and she questioned how that "played" with women. Also, another women from the Daily Beast was on with Juan Williams and was talking about the same thing, as was Greta VanSustern. It's admirable that you went to Fox news at all--I appreciate that; stay a little longer next time. Ask Anita Dunn and Christina Roamer how they fared in an Obama Administration--The Washington Post and NY Times had stories on how they were treated, paid, etc. It was shocking. I would advise that you look at the NEUTRAL fact-checking sites to compare how these men did on the facts before you call just one of them a liar. One of the reasons women make less in the workforce is that, during childbearing years, they tend to work part-time or flex schedules--working less hours than men. Some men are doing this as well these days. Then after their children are grown, women come back into the workforce with less experience, time put into the job, etc. You need to dig into these stats instead of just taking them at face value and running with them. That's what we do these days--we don't want to 'think' or analyse or dig into the facts; we just want to make points that bolster what we already think. I know, I used to debate in college and I've done that very thing--especially when I knew my oponent would not have done his/her homework; I could get away with it. :)
ReplyDeleteAwesome points! Yes, neutral sites would be good to look at. I did check the facts on a neutral site and they both had some interesting half-truths the other night. Just because I support Obama doesn't mean I think he is 100% honest and I should just trust him implicitly.
DeleteI disagree with you in terms of your view on equal pay, however. Yes, women who work less get paid less money, just like men who work less get paid less money. The thing is, though, that's not what the Fair Pay Act was about. It was about women and men doing the exact same job getting paid different salaries.
It was about men and women doing the same exact job and getting paid different salaries...I agree. But the 'facts' and figures they used to promote this were based on women working as I described above--this is where I have the problem. Politicians are great at creating a 'crisis' situation using unequal stats and then basing and passing legislation on it. I have a major problem with that.
DeleteDoes Obama really care about your rights as a women and what women have gone through in the last 4 years? Until the election season, I didn't hear a word about women's issues.(Take that back--I heard lots of words, but no substantive action.) What about his policies that have condemmed the single mother to a life in poverty on welfare and food stamps? Look, big deal if he signs an act for equal pay, if the woman doesn't have a job--that's easy! We've spent more money to support Obama and his family of 5, mother-in-law included, than the British spend on the ENTIRE royal family. It's a darn shame! No we don't have to live like this anymore--America is better than this! I don't accept this!
ReplyDeleteWhat policy are you referring to that "condemned the single mother to a life in poverty on welfare and food stamps"?
DeleteHis entire economics program such as it was--NOT creating an environment where jobs are created. Massive EPA and HHS regulations that, unless you're a small business person (as I am), you wouldn't even know about. Also, advertising to any and all to sign up for food stamps--even advertising in Mexico to illegal immigrants. Taking years instead of months to get permits to drill when we are being held hostage by the middle east for our oil--whether we like it or not, our economy for the moment runs on oil. WE can and need to be energy independent. I could go on and on...all these things limit jobs created which require that more people are left on welfare.
DeleteFrankly, I find the whole "women's vote" thing demeaning. You and I are both women. We are even related. But, we think in very different ways and hold very different views. Which one of us is "representative"?
ReplyDeleteWhy do we expect the politicians to pander to a mythical "women's vote"? Wouldn't we laugh at them if they worried about the "men's vote"? Why do we assume there is a "Hispanic vote" when we don't assume there is a "white vote"? These are things I do not understand about politics.
While I find paying a woman less because she is female to be just as abhorrent as you do, I do think that employers need a little wiggle room in deciding what to pay whom. We must keep in mind that, while it is wrong to not pay a person what there work is worth, we would be kind to allow room for the employer to pay one *more* than they are worth.
Maybe I have 3 people in my firm doing the same job. One is paid more than the others, not because he/she is worth more, but simply because I know they are the sole breadwinner for their family. I am simply trying to be extra-charitable to someone who needs it. If this person is male and the other two are female, I look like a chauvinist pig. If this person is female and the other two are male, it doesn't look the as bad. If they're all the same sex, it becomes obvious that sex is not the guiding factor.
I want equal pay, yes. But I also want to give employers the freedom to be charitable.
Good point on the fact that women have a huge range of views! I totally agree! :) I think the "women's vote" matters so much because we are the majority of the voting base, but we still have a lot of inequalities. While I've been working on the campaign I actually have had a lot of guys say, "Where is the Straight White Males for Obama box to check?" If we are going to break the vote down, we should actually break it all the way down!
DeleteI can understand where you're coming from on saying that employers should have the opportunity to have wiggle room, but I don't agree with it. If I was a single mom doing the same job as a family man, I would not expect more money, nor would I be comfortable with receiving it. I want to be paid on merit. All paying someone based on what their family role would do, is lead to people lying about their situation because if you can make yourself sound like you're in more dire straits than your co-worker, then you get paid more. If people want to have an organization help them if they need help, go to a church or a non-profit charity. Those have the purpose of being charitable to whomever they feel like being charitable to. It shouldn't come down to the merit-based workplace to give charity.
A merit based workplace should not be forced to give charity - then it isn't charity. I simply think they shouldn't be forbidden.
ReplyDeleteIf a business acted quietly on an as-needed basis it would help cut down the lying. It also helps build morale and loyalty. I'm not talking about a fancy program. I'm talking about one boss saying to another, "Hey, So-and-so is trying to feed x number of people on this income. They're a good employee. Let's do what we can to make his/her life easier." Such a thing should be done very quietly and not advertised or it will lead to the kind of things you're talking about, particularly in a larger organization. I was also thinking more in terms of smaller businesses.
I know that Terry's work was incredible when our son had a brain tumor and we were gone for a week, quite suddenly, with no warning. We asked for nothing special except emergency time off, and we sure didn't deserve the help we got in that drastic situation. It wasn't merit-based, it was compassion-based. And I know that we are not the only ones they helped, and that not all of their help has been one-time. And I know that I don't know much of what they have or haven't done - just a few random stories I happen to have heard.
Make the law not prevent an employer from being good.
And, sorry about the typos in the first post. I was rather embarrassed to see them after it posted. Aaargh! I really do know when to use which kind of there/their/they're!
Fair enough! :) I think that's a good point.
ReplyDelete