My over all impression was "I can't wait for this election to be over."
I will preface to say I did think Romney was rude, however I think he had an advantage in that he did not have to defend the last four years. No matter what kind of a speaker you are you can't change the fact that the average family makes less money, at the same time that gas, food, and medical care cost a lot more.
I'd love to elaborate but I am a single mother dodging bullets... The gun violence is astounding.
I thought it was a good, good arguments from both sides and fun to watch. The moderator was HORRIBLE, has already admited she was wrong on the Libya issue.
CNN's Candy Crowley: Romney Was Actually Right On Libya - YouTube
Molly, Morgan, Mia and Carson
I couldn't get past Romney's answer to the equal pay for women question. Not the "binders full of women" comment, that was kind of a funny way to put it, but I think people who are calling that comment offensive are really reaching, and also totally missed the part that WAS offensive. First of all, he didn't answer the question as far as I could tell. But what he did say is that he wanted the economy to be so good that employers needed employees so bad that they would even hire women! Yes, women! With their crazy gotta-get-home-to-cook-dinner schedules.... (Obviously these are my words, not his, but that's totally the way I interpretted his answer. I was sitting there flipping off the screen )
For those who missed it, here is the YouTube video. Romney's answer starts right at 1 minute. "IF you're going to have women in the workforce..." That guy, what a hoot!
Last edited by Alissa_Sal; 10-17-2012 at 09:46 AM.
This is an interesting POV. I did not think of that. I do remember a debate about this awhile back. People did make mention of the fact that women have issues unique to them. The require maternity leave, it is common for them to have to leave due to a sick child and so on. That does not make them bad workers. I think what he was saying is that we have to overcome these differences. If women are working out of the home, we need to be more flexible. The fact of the matter is that my DH has an advantage in the work place. I pack him a lunch each day and have dinner waiting for him when he comes home. Today my oldest is sick with a fever and throwing up. DH does not have to stay home and take care of her.
Let's compare ....
http://scholarworks.umb.edu/cgi/view...nor%20women%22Between January 2002 and July 2004, 42 percent of
the new gubernatorial appointments made by Governor
Mitt Romney were women. Massachusetts was widely
recognized for that achievement—and MassGAP
received considerable credit.
Read more: Women paid significantly less in Obama White House than their male counterparts | Mail OnlineAll of President Barack Obama's employees may not be treated equally in the White House, as recently released financial records show that female employees earn significantly less than their male counterparts.
Using the 2011 annual report of White House staff salaries that was submitted to Congress, an $11,000 difference is clear between the median female employee salary and the median male employee salary.
This news comes on top of continued criticism- of both President Obama and prior presidents- that women are underrepresented in the White House.
Of the administration's 20 top earners, who each took home a tidy $172,200 for their work in 2011, only six of those were women.
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
Mom to Lee, Jake, Brandon, Rocco
Stepmom to Ryan, Regan, Braden, Baley
Granddaughters Kylie 10/18/2010 & Aleya 4/22/2013
I never consider a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosopy, as a cause for withdrawing from a friend. --Thomas Jefferson
Aside from maternity leave (which may happen what, two or three times in most women's lives since I think the average family has 2.5 kids?) I don't really think that flexibility is a woman's issue or a man's issue. It's just an employee issue. Bonita, you pack your husband a lunch and make him dinner and stay home with the kids when they are sick because you are a SAHM. You might arrange things a little differently if both you and your husband worked outside the home. In most double income families that I know, the spouses don't pack each other lunch, they take turns with dinner (or eat more take out than is probably good for them - guilty here!) and whoever can (because they have more sick time or whatever) stays home on those days where a child is sick. It's not a "woman" thing because families where both incomes are needed can't afford to make it a "woman's thing." My income is just as needed as my husbands, so we have to work together to make sure we are both adequately able to perform our duties at work.
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for flexibility, but I think flexibility benefits both men and women. I have a very flexible job, and that is really the one thing more than any other that keeps me where I am. The pay is decent, the work is fine, but I love that I can basically set my own hours (within reason of course) as long as I get all of my work done, and I have 2 days a month (of my choosing) that I can work from home (and can arrange for more, if needed.) That rocks! But guess what, my department is about half men, half women, and the men take advantage of it too, including to take care of kids when need be. We all love the flexibility - who wouldn't? In the end, I guess I think that where it makes sense, flexibility should be a part of every company's culture, for both women and men. We all need to find a tolerable work-life balance.
I also think that it should be up to the individual woman or man whether or not they want to persue a career that doesn't allow for that kind of flexibility. Just like with a man, if a woman knows that a job is going to require 60 hour weeks in the office, she knows whether or not her life situation can take those kind of hours. The employers should hire whoever is most qualified for those positions, expect them to provide quality work, and not pre-emptively decide for women that they know that she can't do a 60 hour a week job just because she's a woman. Maybe she has a partner that stays at home or has a less demanding job. Maybe she doesn't even have or want kids. That's not the employers concern; they should let her worry about that, just like they do with men.
In the end, I found Mitt's comment to be extremely condescending and biased against women.
In the end, you can have whatever position you want I did not fully support Romney's stance either. If no qualified woman applied, you should not pass over the men who did apply just because they are men.
What I am saying and what I think he was saying is that one answer to getting equality for woman is to offer more flexibility in the work place.