Romney and women in the workforce

[Anonymous]

I am so tired of his anecdotes. Who cares that he let a female employee leave at 5? How does this translate into being president? I mean, what policy is he proposing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You should look at the pay disparity in Obama's administration. Sad really.

Idiot. The OP is talking about Romney, not Obama.

Oh, I thought there were two debating.

Great that Obama says that is his policy but it isn't his practice. In 2011, on average women in the White House were paid almost 20k less.

Lead by example.

[Anonymous]

He was specifically referring to a requirement a female candidate had about needing to have a flexible schedule so she could get home to take care of her family.

But nice try on twisting what he said.

[Anonymous]

Let him be POTUS and take away contraception and abortion rights. Back to being barefoot, pregnant and dependent on a man again. Back down to where you belong. Hell no, you can't let him win even if Obama sucks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Romney, like Bush, truly embraces hiring truly diverse people. An uncomfortable truth for those who hate republicans.

ANd then talking about how far out of his way he had to go to find ones that were qualified...and all of the concessions he had to make for them. But gosh darn it all, it was worth it!

[Anonymous]

Disagree. I thought Romney's response was great. You think it is a negative that only men applied and he sought apps from women and ended up with more women on his cabinet than any other state? Also, what is negative about flexable work schedules? Maybe I'm biased by the horrendous traffic here in DC, but I think there are multiple reasons (in addition to kids) to be open to flexible schedules.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Disagree. I thought Romney's response was great. You think it is a negative that only men applied and he sought apps from women and ended up with more women on his cabinet than any other state? Also, what is negative about flexable work schedules? Maybe I'm biased by the horrendous traffic here in DC, but I think there are multiple reasons (in addition to kids) to be open to flexible schedules.

You're biased by the traffic here in DC? Where do you think the rest of are posting from? Iowa?

There is nothing negative about flexible (note the 'i' for future use) work schedules, but there is something wrong with pointing out that women need some sort of accommodation since they are women. You know, odd creatures who have to be home to feed dinner to their offspring.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:He was specifically referring to a requirement a female candidate had about needing to have a flexible schedule so she could get home to take care of her family.

But nice try on twisting what he said.

Clearly you head what you wanted to. Like they say, "you can't fix stupid".

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Did anyone else catch that? Him going on and on about finding women for his cabinet, and then talking about how you have to make concessions for them so they can get home to make dinner for the kids? WTF? It is SO clear that he thinks women ought to stay barefoot, pregnant, and in the kitchen....but is trying to appear like he doesn't.

OMFG.

Oh please. Take your d*ck off. So now all of a sudden women *don't* want flexible work schedules? You may represent some small sliver of women, but the vast majority of women want to come home and be a mother to their children AND take care of their business out in the workplace.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Let him be POTUS and take away contraception and abortion rights. Back to being barefoot, pregnant and dependent on a man again. Back down to where you belong. Hell no, you can't let him win even if Obama sucks.

Well, if we're constantly barefoot and pregnant we're not likely to be mucking around in the workforce too much...

[Anonymous]

I thought the answer was terrible and frankly creepy. Binders of women? Do you want to be in a binder of women? But putting that aside, the question was about pay disparity. He obviously can't say anything about Ledbetter, so he goes off rambling about how no women applied (which I also find odd) and lands on what he believes is a related subject - flexibility. He just seemed out of touch. He needed to make it personal - talk about his mother, wife, daughters-in-law but maybe none of them work. He just seemed so out of touch.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Did anyone else catch that? Him going on and on about finding women for his cabinet, and then talking about how you have to make concessions for them so they can get home to make dinner for the kids? WTF? It is SO clear that he thinks women ought to stay barefoot, pregnant, and in the kitchen....but is trying to appear like he doesn't.

OMFG.

Oh please. Take your d*ck off. So now all of a sudden women *don't* want flexible work schedules? You may represent some small sliver of women, but the vast majority of women want to come home and be a mother to their children AND take care of their business out in the workplace.

Hey, dumbshit, not eveyone HAS children. And the point is that many women with children manage to do their jobs without need *special* treatment like Romney discussed. ANd guess what, dumbshit? Some fathers actually might want those, too. Did he mention that?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I thought the answer was terrible and frankly creepy. Binders of women? Do you want to be in a binder of women? But putting that aside, the question was about pay disparity. He obviously can't say anything about Ledbetter, so he goes off rambling about how no women applied (which I also find odd) and lands on what he believes is a related subject - flexibility. He just seemed out of touch. He needed to make it personal - talk about his mother, wife, daughters-in-law but maybe none of them work. He just seemed so out of touch.

Well, he's mormon, right? Those that live in compounds and believe in plural marriage usually use binders to pick out their brides. Heh.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Did anyone else catch that? Him going on and on about finding women for his cabinet, and then talking about how you have to make concessions for them so they can get home to make dinner for the kids? WTF? It is SO clear that he thinks women ought to stay barefoot, pregnant, and in the kitchen....but is trying to appear like he doesn't.

OMFG.

Oh please. Take your d*ck off. So now all of a sudden women *don't* want flexible work schedules? You may represent some small sliver of women, but the vast majority of women want to come home and be a mother to their children AND take care of their business out in the workplace.

Hey, dumbshit, not eveyone HAS children. And the point is that many women with children manage to do their jobs without need *special* treatment like Romney discussed. ANd guess what, dumbshit? Some fathers actually might want those, too. Did he mention that?

So, on one hand, the mention of flexible schedules was condescending and implying that women need special treatment, and then on the other hand, you're mad that "the asshole didn't say men should have it, too!"

[Anonymous]

Romney's response was really poor, especially considering he had a few moments to think through a credible answer. He didn't pivot well (from pay equality to an endorsement of affirmative action for women?) and he sounded very patronizing. Unless he plans to advocate for a national law that permits all women to leave the office at 5pm, his anecdote was silly and condescending. I couldn't believe he was admitting that he and his team initially didn't have any women for cabinet slots... in Massachusetts??? Totally absurd. Watch for the fact checking on that one tomorrow.

It was a softball question to Obama, no doubt about it, but political candidates need to be able to deftly turn those to their advantage. Romney seems to be mumbling to himself and losing his narrative.