Women, the Romneys and Hilary Rosen

"Try creating attractive policies". That's the problem. To the average woman voter, an "attractive policy" is anything that forces the taxpayer or their employers to pay for their personal decisions.

I'm not talking only about contraception, there are more issues. If you think that it's only thing that's turning away woman away from the GOP, you need to do some research: women have prefered the Dems in big numbers since the end of Reagan area. It's everything: from policies to attitude, I wasn't against the GOP on contraception, until they did that all-men discussion. Sometimes it seems the republicans don't even try, the attitude matters too, it's like discussing race policy without any minority in the room. I'm sure there are many religious women who could have testified for them, but they even tried searching for whatever the reason. The GOP is too blame for all this, a gaffe from a democratic- related commentator, who's not even directly connected to the party won't erase the perceptions women have of the GOO. And WE are 53% of the electorate,we're majority, soon will be 55% and the educated single woman group will grow, WE have our interests, like it or not. In an election we are an important group of buyers and to sell themselves, the candidates will have to create "attractive policies" to us, the candidate with the more attractive policy wins the group, and perhaps the election, if some can't live with that, they should move to a Muslim country.
Please note that contraception is not only a single-educated-feminist-working-woman issue, married homeworkers use it too, in most cases even more, because many working women are too busy to find a boyfriend.
.

People usually use personal attacks on a discussion when they are angry and have nothing right to say. Like in politics, when a candidate can't disqualify an opponents policy, they try to destroy their character, their reputation. I could also call you many names, it's easy, but I can't bring myself to do such a grotesque thing.

Please re-read my first comment and think about the real meaning of it. If after that you still think it's about you... then it certainly IS! Case closed!

The answer is yes. If it is a "women's issue" then any attempt by men to interject is considered misogynistic or paternalistic. Never mind the fact that men also live in society and end up impacted and responsible for the economic, moral, and social consequences of women's choices, even when they are not the father. God forbid an adult with reason actually step in and remind women that their right to bring children in this world is still subject to the laws of fiscal and economic sanity. And don't even try to interject morality into the discussion, or Narcissis will have your head.

I think the morality of this discussion was gone when you used personal attacks of the lowest level( "are you human", was that necessary?) to disqualify me instead of my argument. At least you stopped that which shows that you agree that I was right.
I wrote "man who comment much, ( shouldn't have forgotten the TOO before the MUCH) with senseless, anger-filled-chauvinism, I was referring to them, I'm sure you know who I'm talking about, and not to men who comment on political grounds. You focused on one sentence, simply ignored the rest, and gave your own interpretation to that one sentence to your convenience, that's what the media always do, it's called "taking someone out of context". And just like happened to Rosen, the real meaning that really matters to women was completely ignored, because everybody was distracted with different interpretations of part of the whole comment.
You're playing the political-media games: forget the whole context, find one word or sentence that you can give a convenient interpretation and use against the enemy ( in your case, any woman with an opinion).

However, I kinda have an impression that you might have internal reasons to think that the "anger-filled-chauvinistic-men" term actually apply to you.
Dear, we are 53% of the electorate, soon will be 55%, and "feminist-women" is a broad group that's bigger than you imagine and is growing. We have interests, elections are kind of a business in which candidates sell their products, the most attractive product ( policies, attitudes,aproaches) sells. From now on, to win an election, candidates will have to pander a lot women, get over it or move to a Muslim theocracy. Attacking the "feminists" won't help you because you don't even know exactly what and who the feminists are, every woman who's not ultra-religious is a feminist to some extent, even homemakers and mothers.

So what do you suggest, that if they are rich and can afford a nanny (pay someone that can also make a living) that they dont because it would be "priviledge"?

The fact of the matter, is that there will always be people richer, more talented, smarter, etc than others, no matter the country, political/economical system, etc. That's life.

PS: In fact, even the so-called "disadvantaged" groups in America, are in a much better positions that their counterpart in other parts of the world. Think Illegal Immigration.

"Are serious or just being hypocritical?"
Yes Im serious.

"Is it even possible?"
No. But it is possible to have more people living well (assuming they make the effort) and more willing to pander their options.

"Don't understand everything is relative?"
Of course it is, but it is fine if it's result of owns abilities.
Tell you what. I come from a 3rd world country, where even the "low middle class" (equivalent to the poorest in the US) had maids (excuseme...modern slaves). In the US most people dont have maids (they have washer,dryers, dishwashing machines, etc) but there are Maids Companies in the US. They still clean houses but their job is viewed as business oriented skills, not as subhuman. That's not bad, that's good.
The same people that professionally clean houses, do plumbing, carpentry, etc, are also owners of homes, high living standards, flat tvs and latest cell phones, etc; Ok they own no yatchs or private jets, but they still have a good life.

(Americans need to travel more and see more).

"If there WERE more riches and privilege around, how would the true riches differentiate themselves from other riches?"

There are always ways (intellect, extreme luxuries, size of their charities, etc).

People dwell too much on that. I think the US is great and overall a classless society (not perfect, but in general). I've travelled all over the US, and (at least before this 1 vs 99% stupidity), I never met Americans that complained about the super rich. They admired them, but didnt give much thought on their daily lives.

And how would they afford to hire other riches to be their nannies and housekeepers?

Indeed, tryworkingforaliving, everyone knows that all Democrats are unemployed and live off the government dole, which is why their main political goal is to keep the welfare checks coming so that they can continue to live off the sweat of Republicans.

forsize, i'm bored to tears with your meaningless drivel. why can't you say something interesting like michelle and sasha and melia were in newsweek magazine because they went on a shopping trip to spain? and the daily beast didn't think "michelle obama’s trip with her daughter as terribly blasphemous" because a first-lady is something like a vice-president? nobody i've ever heard is "tone-deaf to the economic suffering on the home front by taking a lavish foreign vacation."

http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/blogs/the-gaggle/2010/08/06/the-fa...

Nice strawmen! What is your real name, Karl Rove?

No one attacked a 60 year old mother, and there was certainly nothing vicious. She was 48 when her last child left the nest. I realize she did not have a financial reason to work, but she could have at least spent a part of that 12 years doing some volunteer work - and maybe she did.

Since you do not know my class you probably shouldn't be casting aspersions on me based on incorrect assumptions.

I didn't make an assumption, some wealthy people love to stoke the class warfare fires. I only commented on what you're actually doing.

Why is this relevant? We know he is beyond rich. He is the candidate, not her. Voters need to vote for the candidate, not the spouse.

"But was Mrs. Romney a housewife? Or was her job telling the nannies when to change the diapers, mop the floors, etc. or "

And that is your problem or mine because...? Oh Yeah. It is not our problem how she conducted activities in her OWN home.

Have we ever asked Michelle Obama or Hil Clinon or Laura Bush how did they went about their own homes or changed diapers?

This whole thing is past stage of controversial or annoyance...it's now in the comical stage!

Are you aware that Mrs. Romney has had breast cancer and suffers from multiple sclerosis?

Speaking as someone who has 30-something old kids, I can say that you are never done! Their economic concerns are shared by you. Even if you have brought them up to act independently, and to insist on fighting their own financial battles, as a parent you are always feeling their pain and concern. Yes, Mrs Romney may not be directly impacted by the fragile economy, but if her children are......by default, she is!

Good point. I cant understand people who talks like if the Parent-Child relationship ends at 18 y/o because the law absorves a parent from it; how about college, how about their own problems (financial, addictions, etc) - Parents are there forever.

When Ann Romney mentioned her personal "struggle", she was referring to her fight with breast cancer and her lifelong battle with multiple sclerosis.

Many Americans, rich and poor and in-between, can relate to this type of struggle.

Well what about the droves of wives/mothers who have children, a chronic disease and who must work along with her husband to make ends meet? They can't afford all the help Mitt could hire for her, or let her hire.

No Mrs Romeny didn't have to worry about losing health care and the means to pay rent or put food on the table and then their jobs and eventually their lives.

200,000 Americans lose their lives each year because of lack of acess to health care and one of the leading causes of bankruptcy are medical bills even -after- insurance.

It is interesting that you bring up lack of health care in your criticism of Ann Romney, as Mitt Romney is the only governor, Democrat or Republican, to sign a universal health insurance bill into law. The 200,000 Americans without health insurance that you cite would be covered if they lived in Massachusetts, due to "Romneycare". So, the implication that the Romneys are tone-deaf to and unaware of the struggles of Americans to obtain health insurance falls a little short.
Yes, of course, Ann Romney's medical situation would be even more strenuous if she was poor. But as a woman who grew up in a lower middle class household, I would gladly choose the financial struggles of my life over the struggle of dealing with breast cancer and multiple sclerosis simultaneously. While money is important, it is not the only important thing in life.

All true, but it misses my point. Mrs Romney doesn't have to grapple with juggling a job, kids and illness while living paycheck to paycheck. They can buy maids to deal with the house cleaning.

Unfortunately, Romney is also running on repealing the health care legislation recently passed (not that i am a fanf it) and instead is backing Ryan's sell out. I care about what they are signing up to do and with whom they are aligning with politically.

You mean bringing up 5 boys was not a struggle to the Romney family particularly Ann Romney? Don't be so close-minded!

There used to be a societal expectation that if you got someone pregnant, you would marry them. In the very least, you should be paying child support. That was different than the other only somewhat real expectation that people would get married before they had sex. That there are a lot of deadbeat dads can't be blamed on women, although it would be nice if people were discerning enough to not hang around likely-to-be-deadbeat-dad-men.

I don't think all the societal changes, which had many benefits, but some costs, can be blamed on "the feminists". I think it's unfair to assume that we men didn't play a part, it's like you're completely ignoring our contribution to the breakdown of the family. In the end, blame doesn't need to be divided up by gender. It basically takes a twosome of idiots to make these kind of mistakes, so just blame the twosome. Whether or not there's wedlock, we could at least link them together by treating them as a single unit when apportioning blame.

A great deal of justice, tempered with mercy, in what you wrote and, so, thank you!

Still, it is the person jumping out of the plane that wears the parachute, the diver who wears the scuba tanks and the person behind the wheel, not the pedestrian, who lashes the seatbelt. These examples, and others, may suggest why it is incumbent on the females, and not males, to consider the implications of random sex.

We men DID play our part -- as you rightly say -- in causing familial breakdown. In fact, we ALWAYS wanted to "play our part." However, it was only recently that women were dumb enough to let us do it regardless of whether we married them!

And, anyway, the law (Roe) says society cannot require a woman to assume the responsibilities of motherhood so why should the male be expected to assume the responsibilities of fatherhood? The deadbeat Dad may, indeed, be a deadbeat -- but, at least, he isn't a killer.

Remember. . . . Dad was told by mother/ you can't have one without the other. Turns out, in fact, that you can! It just tends to create a lot of unhappy people (especially kids), that's all.

Peace.

We don't always play our part. I've never fathered an out of wedlock child and then skipped out on child support. I see no problem with telling both men and women to take more responsibility. It doesn't have to be only one.

It's not like we have no control over having kids or not. Women aren't succubi sperm stealers- if you got a girl pregnant it's probably because you chose to have sex and didn't wear a raincoat. If you wanted to be sure you wouldn't be a father, you should figure out her position on abortion before you chance it. There are options. As for how Roe gives women the right, well that's just how it is. On the other hand, a lot of women who chose to have abortions got pregnant without choosing to have sex- men are more rape-ish than women.

I think you are making some of the assumptions that I am critical of in the pro-choice movement. The right here in question works both ways- it's not just that you have the right to not have a child if you don't want, but also you have the right to have one if you do. The same principle is at work that prohibits the government from forcing someone to be sterilized or have an abortion (which it has done).

Also, the idea here is that the decision of whether a fetus is a child rests with the mother- it's not that Roe says fetuses aren't children, only that it isn't the governments place to decide. If she believes it is, then she has the right to have it treated that way which includes demanding support. For example, if you believe in the right to choose, you also have to support the right of a woman who say loses her baby after being assaulted to have that person charged with murder. She decides whether it is a person or not.

While someone is pregnant the law is uncertain as to whether it is a child or not, but I think it is indisputable that after someone is born they are a person and the parents, both the father AND the mother, are legally required to care for him or her. There are dead-beat-moms too, and that is wrong as well.

I think you should also worry about the implications of not requiring fathers to support their kids, because that would seem to increase the number of abortions. If a woman can't count on support for having a child, she is less likely to go through with the pregnancy.

Ok, I realize you don't support Roe so an argument that comes from it doesn't really work. I do think you probably support the right of a woman TO have a kid though.

By the way, respect to your response as well.

are you saying that, because they don't get pregnant, male teenagers are wiser than female teenagers, therefore it's fair that they have better opportunities because they can just disappear, abandon any burden and move on with their careers pretending that nothing happened.

if women can choose to murder their children, why can't men choose to abandon them?

oh the beautiful modern society we live in.

Well said, however whites are certainly not the only ones who feel entitled in our society. Black women may not be attracted to gender politics because they are obsessed with politics of oppression and racism. Also, I think most women in this country are hardworking, middle-class and sensible enough not buy into these media fabrications.

No -- I think that any male who enters into sexual relations with a woman has a moral obligation to prevent unwanted contraception. If a child IS conceived then the male has an obligation to assume the duties of fatherhood, consistent with his age.

I also think, though, that since females get pregnant, not males, the burden of care is on them. As I mentioned in an earlier post, there is a good reason why a skydiver wears a parachute while the pilot of his airplane does not.

I have, though, always been puzzled by the logic of telling a woman she need not assume the responsibilities of motherhood (abortion) but a man MUST assume the responsibility of fatherhood (woman decides to deliver.)

Fortunately, some recent statistics indicate that young people are showing greater understanding of this whole issue since the rate of 'teen pregnancies shows sign of decreasing.

I think you should also remember that many single women didn't know they were going to be single after they had a kid. Even husbands run out on their children.

True indeed! Both husbands and wives desert their families, frequently for reasons that might compel anyone of us to do likewise.

Divorce . . . death . . . incarceration of a spouse . . . these are just a few of the things that can leave a father or mother with the challenge of raising children alone. I have close family in this situation and the persons involve struggle mightily to do the best they can by their kids. Bless them!

However, haven't we almost glorified the single mother? Hasn't a near cocoon of sanctity been woven around her? My perspective is shaped, in part, by my experience teaching inner city school. It is difficult for a single working parent to put in a full day and then have energy left over to sit around the kitchen table for two hours each evening going over Junior's algebra. So, the algebra does not get done and the child underperforms or fails.

It is VERY difficult for a single mother to control the whereabouts of her child (a boy especially) once he reaches full adolescence. So, the child goes truant or is out late at night with questionable friends (I had one seventh-grader who used to roam around the neighborhood in the small hours with a cousin who packed a pistol.)

Single mothers often become pregnant during their own adolescence and drop out of school. Their children, in turn, tend to replicate that experience. (Check the drop-out rates among blacks and you will see what I mean.)

Then, there is the question of a role model -- especially for boys. It is no good saying "Mom will be their role model" -- boys don't grow up to be women. My own father was taciturn to the point of being mute. I don't remember him offering advice even once when I was growing up. But, sick or well, tired or trim, rain or sun, he left the house everyday at 7:30 a.m. and did not return until 5:00 pm. He put his family ahead of everything and the only luxury he ever allowed himself was to play a round or two of golf at a public course each summer. This was how my brother and I learned what it meant to be a man: hard-working, dependable, putting others first. Absent that day-to-day role model, I simply don't know how a young man can learn how to conduct himself.

Notice that in the examples cited just above I do not blame single women. They come home tired, they have little money, they increasingly are unable to cope with their children as those children mature -- the disparity in physical strength with adolescent boys by itself rules out a strong hand in nurture. But . . . it is not being "judgmental" to state realistically that in most cases single-parenthood (almost always the mother) puts children at risk of poverty and educational failure for life.

So . . . why cannot we simply face this reality? Why must we lie to ourselves by saying, in effect, that single parents are "heroes" and that the situation they create is other than most unfortunate for themselves, their children and for the rest of society?

If you had a choice, would you have preferred to be raised by a single-parent (probably near the poverty line) or in a traditional family where economic stability was more easily achieved? If you answered "The latter," why, then, would we not wish the same for other young people?

A long answer (for which I apologize!) to your pithy post.

Mercy there too,

I think it is precisely because it is so much more difficult as a single mother that we should treat them with respect. I think the appropriate response if you know a single mom, is that the community should try to lend what support it can. It's a shame that our sense of community seems to have grown so much weaker. At the same time, I would refrain from scorn. People end up in difficult situations either because of their own decisions or because of things outside their control, and what we should do is just try to make things easier. I would be careful about rushing to judgement not knowing the circumstances behind someone's situation, and even if I did, I would say it wouldn't be my place.

I don't think Bob Dole should have said all that about single moms.

Because her Dad don't know what a shot gun (wedding) is...

What are you some kind of Christian with that uppity view of compassion?

// kudos and respect for such a civil thread

I wanted to add a comment here, because some of the disagreement here is based on perspective.

If you are an insurance company, of course you're going to charge more to insure women. A woman probably will have a child sometime over the course of her life. From an insurance company's point of view, having a child is a very bad thing. If you look at risk profiles, which is what insurance companies do, it is an event that is a certain expense of magnitude, with tremendous downside -- the possibility to be enormously expensive, if there are complications, is very real. And a woman may go through that expense as many times as she wishes/ is able over the course of her life. Indeed, she may go through with it IN SPITE of known complications and predicted extreme expense, simply because she wants a child. Even a woman who does not breed incurs more expense simply by guarenteeing she doesn't. So of course an insurance company will charge a lot more to insure women.

But, in a reality where women are independent agents, and not guarenteed the longterm support of a man, it may be counterproductive to take an insurance company-esque approach and have women bear the majority cost of childbearing and rearing. The cost to society if women don't have children, is tremendous in the long term.

It could be the other way round: if men are allowed to abandon their children, why can't women choose to terminate their pregnancies? Remember, paternal negligence has existed for longer than abortion techniques.

It could be the other way round: if men are allowed to abandon their children, why can't women choose to terminate their pregnancies? Remember, paternal negligence has existed for longer than abortion techniques. Plus I believe that if many poor girls had a present partner they could trust, I think the abortion rates would drop. In most cases the father also wants the girl to abort, so don't act like it's only women's fault.

No. Husbands do not run out on their children. They are driven out by no-fault divorce laws that allow harping, unfaithful, frigid, or feminist-inspired "mothers", to file for divorce, thereby reaping the benefit of the man's labor (in the form of alimony or child support), as well as the tax advantages associated with retaining the title of custodial parent 9 out of 10 times. And don't forget the emotional extortion tool they can then weild since failure to pay child support is enforcable and punishable by jail time while failure to uphold a visitation schedule is not. Conveniently for them, people who grew up in an era where women didn't behave this way, thus allowing them to perpetuate the narrative that you are now parroting. I can assure you, modern women are in no way the victim.

We created marriage to ensure that women had a culture that supported them. Women voluntarily destroyed it. Now they have the right to get knocked up and be supported by the man or by government, to kill a child before it's born, or (mis)use any of the dozens of birth control methods that are widely available to everyone (despite the lies of Sandra Fluke). Women are 100% responsible for whether or not a child comes into the world. A woman can even steal sperm out of a condom or otherwise completely sabotage a man and still be awarded finances to support her. Women have demanded the right, culturally, legally, and practically, to manipulate their bodies and the lives of men and children for financial gain, regardless of the social impact, or even the long term effect on their own offspring. Bottom line, women have shown their true character through the policies they demand. Endless freedom to be irresponsible while others pick up the tab.

So you believe that you can just drag a modern woman to the altar? Make her an "honest woman"?! You have not spent one second in the modern world sir.

I think your comment was prejudiced, discriminatory and misogynistic. You speak of "women" as one monolithical group, as if all women were the same, with a same personality and character. You speak as if all "women" as a group were the evil ones and all "men", as a group were innocent victims. Only in your twisted mind this is real.
To single out and attack a group of individuals indiscriminately is a hate crime, and I don't see why, in such cases, misogyny should be less of a crime than racism.

"women have shown their true character through the policies they demand"
What character? Does that include your mother, too?

So a "modern woman" is "disonest"? My God, your a twisted, woman-hating misogynist! I'm a "modern woman", please, tell me how I am disonest.

Watch-out! If this hatred escalates, you'll need therapy, or else you're gonna start serial killing "disonest-modern-woman", or bombing planned-parenthood buildings. Most terrorists, serial killers and hate-crime perpetrators begin with obsessive and irrational hatred for a group of people.Remember that most terrorists are fiercely religious and ideological.

Well, like Ellen excellently put: "My haters are motivators!"
And besides, I think you guys all hysteric because deep inside you're jealous because WE are 53% of the electorate(soon will be 55%) and WE (working women) are front and center in this election. It's all about US!
Since Rick Sanitorium has packed and left for irrelevantland, nobody gives a damn about the religious right and social conservatives, and you are desperate that the major, conviction-less FLIP-FLOPPER will move to the center (ho-ho, believe he will!).
Face it whiners, from now on, you won't even win inside your own party, you are irrelevant! $00k it, haters!