Vance’s Latest Misogynistic View

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think he was trying to make the point that caring for a child is important and worth taking time off from even a high level profession, but if so he did a horrible job of conveying the thought. Instead of being relatable, he's revolting.

Also it's not the sole purpose of post menopausal women and is pretty elitist because most people are forced to choose work over staying with a child.

If he didn't mean to be discussing this as the sole purpose of the post-menopausal female, then he could have tried not calling it the sole purpose of the post-menopausal female. At some point you have to believe what he actually says.

You'll save a lot on dental bills with those old crones. Just feed them mush -- those baby-carrying arms still work, amirite?

Again, he did not say those words - the podcast host did. But do continue with your outrage.
DP

And Jady agreed.

[Anonymous]

I posted this on the Trump death spiral thread, but it bears repeating here.

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4830905-walz-vance-poll-favorability/

The ABC News/Washington Post/Ipsos survey found
39 percent of respondents said they either have a “strongly” or “somewhat” positive view of Walz. By comparison,
32 percent of those surveyed said they either have a “strongly” or “somewhat” positive view of Vance.

Additionally,
30 percent said they have a “strongly” or “somewhat” negative view of the Minnesota governor, while
42 percent say they have a “strongly” or “somewhat” negative view of the Ohio senator.

Harris chose well when she chose a running mate. Trump chose...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Having a grandparent care for your kids is a wonderful thing. You know what isn't a wonderful thing?

Agreeing that this is the only thing the grandmother is good for anymore.

Well since that’s not what was “agreed on,” you don’t need to fret.

He literally said that is post-menopausal women's only purpose

…unless you’re JD’s mom? If you’re JD’s mom you’re cut off from there family unless he needs to wheel you out for a photo op of a sober boomer junkie.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I agree with his core premise—- it’s much better , in most cases, for a child to be raised by parents/grandparents vs daycare. Universal daycare is what is eww in this discussion.

His “core premise” is that women should be relegated to a handful of roles in society.

Men get to have all of the rest.

THAT core premise is NOT good for children or society.

(If his premise rested on helping children, there would be no need to specify the gender of the grandparent who watches them, nor whether that person is still having periods!!!)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I agree with his core premise—- it’s much better , in most cases, for a child to be raised by parents/grandparents vs daycare. Universal daycare is what is eww in this discussion.

I do too. Totally.

I would also like to point out that this audio is clearly edited... who knows what is spliced or missing. And, it is an article from Salon, so that makes it even more questionable.
Having said that, if advocating for having a grandparent assist with the care of a newborn infant is misogynistic, call me a misogynist. I like when he pointed out that she could have just continued working and given some of her salary to help them out, but she chose to help with the care itself.
And, I say this as someone who is currently in this exact position.... and I'm not Indian. A grandmother who is lucky enough to help with the care of her grandchild during the critical first years of development. I wouldn't trade it for anything in the world.

Talk about editing!!??

They did not say either grandparent. They referred to the one who has a uterus that can no longer carry a fetus to term, after which the person with the uterus is of limited use.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:They should've expanded the topic to when grandma gets too old or sick and requires round-clock care. Is Vance going to be changing her overnight diapers?

This, 100%. I'm Indian American, and yes it's extremely common for grandparents to be involved in care...I got help the first few years, and many of my cousins got help from their retired parents (both, not just grandma). And yes, a lot of these grandparents are retired docs, engineers, etc. But the converse of that is that we were all very very involved in elder care too, taking care of disabled parents in our home, not a nursing home...not something I see JD do at all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think he was trying to make the point that caring for a child is important and worth taking time off from even a high level profession, but if so he did a horrible job of conveying the thought. Instead of being relatable, he's revolting.

Also it's not the sole purpose of post menopausal women and is pretty elitist because most people are forced to choose work over staying with a child.

If he didn't mean to be discussing this as the sole purpose of the post-menopausal female, then he could have tried not calling it the sole purpose of the post-menopausal female. At some point you have to believe what he actually says.

You'll save a lot on dental bills with those old crones. Just feed them mush -- those baby-carrying arms still work, amirite?

Again, he did not say those words - the podcast host did. But do continue with your outrage.
DP

Would you like to be in tape agreeing with a person who said something very offensive about black people? Jews?

Or that would be no problem, because you were only agreeing with something racist or antisemitic that came from the other person’s mouth?

BE HONEST

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I agree with his core premise—- it’s much better , in most cases, for a child to be raised by parents/grandparents vs daycare. Universal daycare is what is eww in this discussion.

I do too. Totally.

I would also like to point out that this audio is clearly edited... who knows what is spliced or missing. And, it is an article from Salon, so that makes it even more questionable.
Having said that, if advocating for having a grandparent assist with the care of a newborn infant is misogynistic, call me a misogynist. I like when he pointed out that she could have just continued working and given some of her salary to help them out, but she chose to help with the care itself.
And, I say this as someone who is currently in this exact position.... and I'm not Indian. A grandmother who is lucky enough to help with the care of her grandchild during the critical first years of development. I wouldn't trade it for anything in the world.

+100
It's beyond telling that liberals are objecting to his point - that having a grandparent care for your kids is a wonderful thing. My own mom did something very similar and we all benefitted from it. My kids grew so close to her and didn't have to attend daycare. Bonus all around.

I mean, many millions of people have had help from grandparents for generations. Why is it a political stance now and why is it partisan? Why are Republicans even talking about this? If they're not talking about a policy decision related to it that could benefit families, then they just need to get off this subject. There are two wars going on and could they discuss health care, environmental or housing issues, perhaps? Maybe choose not to be a guest on podcasts and shows that can't get beyond these family issues? They won't.

Um… the podcast in question was recorded FOUR years ago. Good grief.

Oh, he disrespected women 4 years ago. That changes everything

??

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I agree with his core premise—- it’s much better , in most cases, for a child to be raised by parents/grandparents vs daycare. Universal daycare is what is eww in this discussion.

I do too. Totally.

I would also like to point out that this audio is clearly edited... who knows what is spliced or missing. And, it is an article from Salon, so that makes it even more questionable.
Having said that, if advocating for having a grandparent assist with the care of a newborn infant is misogynistic, call me a misogynist. I like when he pointed out that she could have just continued working and given some of her salary to help them out, but she chose to help with the care itself.
And, I say this as someone who is currently in this exact position.... and I'm not Indian. A grandmother who is lucky enough to help with the care of her grandchild during the critical first years of development. I wouldn't trade it for anything in the world.

Talk about editing!!??

They did not say either grandparent. They referred to the one who has a uterus that can no longer carry a fetus to term, after which the person with the uterus is of limited use.

Being on a podcast with another dude talking about a woman's ability to menstruate is just deeply, deeply weird - even if it's the other guy who actually said "menstrual." Trying to explain it away as being more about the concept of grandparents generally being involved in childcare is really disingenuous.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I agree with his core premise—- it’s much better , in most cases, for a child to be raised by parents/grandparents vs daycare. Universal daycare is what is eww in this discussion.

I do too. Totally.

I would also like to point out that this audio is clearly edited... who knows what is spliced or missing. And, it is an article from Salon, so that makes it even more questionable.
Having said that, if advocating for having a grandparent assist with the care of a newborn infant is misogynistic, call me a misogynist. I like when he pointed out that she could have just continued working and given some of her salary to help them out, but she chose to help with the care itself.
And, I say this as someone who is currently in this exact position.... and I'm not Indian. A grandmother who is lucky enough to help with the care of her grandchild during the critical first years of development. I wouldn't trade it for anything in the world.

+100
It's beyond telling that liberals are objecting to his point - that having a grandparent care for your kids is a wonderful thing. My own mom did something very similar and we all benefitted from it. My kids grew so close to her and didn't have to attend daycare. Bonus all around.

I mean, many millions of people have had help from grandparents for generations. Why is it a political stance now and why is it partisan? Why are Republicans even talking about this? If they're not talking about a policy decision related to it that could benefit families, then they just need to get off this subject. There are two wars going on and could they discuss health care, environmental or housing issues, perhaps? Maybe choose not to be a guest on podcasts and shows that can't get beyond these family issues? They won't.

Um… the podcast in question was recorded FOUR years ago. Good grief.

Oh, he disrespected women 4 years ago. That changes everything

??

I know our attention spans are collectively degrading, but four years ago isn't ancient history is it?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I agree with his core premise—- it’s much better , in most cases, for a child to be raised by parents/grandparents vs daycare. Universal daycare is what is eww in this discussion.

I do too. Totally.

I would also like to point out that this audio is clearly edited... who knows what is spliced or missing. And, it is an article from Salon, so that makes it even more questionable.
Having said that, if advocating for having a grandparent assist with the care of a newborn infant is misogynistic, call me a misogynist. I like when he pointed out that she could have just continued working and given some of her salary to help them out, but she chose to help with the care itself.
And, I say this as someone who is currently in this exact position.... and I'm not Indian. A grandmother who is lucky enough to help with the care of her grandchild during the critical first years of development. I wouldn't trade it for anything in the world.

+100
It's beyond telling that liberals are objecting to his point - that having a grandparent care for your kids is a wonderful thing. My own mom did something very similar and we all benefitted from it. My kids grew so close to her and didn't have to attend daycare. Bonus all around.

I mean, many millions of people have had help from grandparents for generations. Why is it a political stance now and why is it partisan? Why are Republicans even talking about this? If they're not talking about a policy decision related to it that could benefit families, then they just need to get off this subject. There are two wars going on and could they discuss health care, environmental or housing issues, perhaps? Maybe choose not to be a guest on podcasts and shows that can't get beyond these family issues? They won't.

Um… the podcast in question was recorded FOUR years ago. Good grief.

Oh, he disrespected women 4 years ago. That changes everything

??

I know our attention spans are collectively degrading, but four years ago isn't ancient history is it?

Not for most people, but for Vance? It's a lifetime and at least four careers ago.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I love that the nitwit right wing sycophants and JD's enabling wife have to keep rephrasing what he "really meant" -- as if this dweeb isn't a middle aged TRAINED LAWYER WITH A DEGREE FROM YALE LAW SCHOOL. Trained lawyers are very, very deliberate about how they speak and know precisely what words mean.

Bingo! He is and will always be white trash at heart.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I agree with his core premise—- it’s much better , in most cases, for a child to be raised by parents/grandparents vs daycare. Universal daycare is what is eww in this discussion.

I do too. Totally.

I would also like to point out that this audio is clearly edited... who knows what is spliced or missing. And, it is an article from Salon, so that makes it even more questionable.
Having said that, if advocating for having a grandparent assist with the care of a newborn infant is misogynistic, call me a misogynist. I like when he pointed out that she could have just continued working and given some of her salary to help them out, but she chose to help with the care itself.
And, I say this as someone who is currently in this exact position.... and I'm not Indian. A grandmother who is lucky enough to help with the care of her grandchild during the critical first years of development. I wouldn't trade it for anything in the world.

+100
It's beyond telling that liberals are objecting to his point - that having a grandparent care for your kids is a wonderful thing. My own mom did something very similar and we all benefitted from it. My kids grew so close to her and didn't have to attend daycare. Bonus all around.

I mean, many millions of people have had help from grandparents for generations. Why is it a political stance now and why is it partisan? Why are Republicans even talking about this? If they're not talking about a policy decision related to it that could benefit families, then they just need to get off this subject. There are two wars going on and could they discuss health care, environmental or housing issues, perhaps? Maybe choose not to be a guest on podcasts and shows that can't get beyond these family issues? They won't.

Um… the podcast in question was recorded FOUR years ago. Good grief.

Oh, he disrespected women 4 years ago. That changes everything

??

I know our attention spans are collectively degrading, but four years ago isn't ancient history is it?

Not for most people, but for Vance? It's a lifetime and at least four careers ago.

And four name changes ago

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I agree with his core premise—- it’s much better , in most cases, for a child to be raised by parents/grandparents vs daycare. Universal daycare is what is eww in this discussion.

I do too. Totally.

I would also like to point out that this audio is clearly edited... who knows what is spliced or missing. And, it is an article from Salon, so that makes it even more questionable.
Having said that, if advocating for having a grandparent assist with the care of a newborn infant is misogynistic, call me a misogynist. I like when he pointed out that she could have just continued working and given some of her salary to help them out, but she chose to help with the care itself.
And, I say this as someone who is currently in this exact position.... and I'm not Indian. A grandmother who is lucky enough to help with the care of her grandchild during the critical first years of development. I wouldn't trade it for anything in the world.

+100
It's beyond telling that liberals are objecting to his point - that having a grandparent care for your kids is a wonderful thing. My own mom did something very similar and we all benefitted from it. My kids grew so close to her and didn't have to attend daycare. Bonus all around.

I mean, many millions of people have had help from grandparents for generations. Why is it a political stance now and why is it partisan? Why are Republicans even talking about this? If they're not talking about a policy decision related to it that could benefit families, then they just need to get off this subject. There are two wars going on and could they discuss health care, environmental or housing issues, perhaps? Maybe choose not to be a guest on podcasts and shows that can't get beyond these family issues? They won't.

Um… the podcast in question was recorded FOUR years ago. Good grief.

Oh, he disrespected women 4 years ago. That changes everything

??

I know our attention spans are collectively degrading, but four years ago isn't ancient history is it?

Not for most people, but for Vance? It's a lifetime and at least four careers ago.

Haha. Is it at least within his "Vance" incarnation?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I agree with his core premise—- it’s much better , in most cases, for a child to be raised by parents/grandparents vs daycare. Universal daycare is what is eww in this discussion.

I do too. Totally.

I would also like to point out that this audio is clearly edited... who knows what is spliced or missing. And, it is an article from Salon, so that makes it even more questionable.
Having said that, if advocating for having a grandparent assist with the care of a newborn infant is misogynistic, call me a misogynist. I like when he pointed out that she could have just continued working and given some of her salary to help them out, but she chose to help with the care itself.
And, I say this as someone who is currently in this exact position.... and I'm not Indian. A grandmother who is lucky enough to help with the care of her grandchild during the critical first years of development. I wouldn't trade it for anything in the world.

Talk about editing!!??

They did not say either grandparent. They referred to the one who has a uterus that can no longer carry a fetus to term, after which the person with the uterus is of limited use.

Being on a podcast with another dude talking about a woman's ability to menstruate is just deeply, deeply weird - even if it's the other guy who actually said "menstrual." Trying to explain it away as being more about the concept of grandparents generally being involved in childcare is really disingenuous.

I think it’s AWESOME that random guys are talking about menses to their audience . Who cares what they are saying. Amazing ! We have all come a long way! Change is slow and zig zags