Romney and women in the workforce

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

+1. The question was about equal pay.

[Anonymous]

on the flip side Obama's cabinet is hostile towards women

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/suskind-book-female-advisers-in-obama-white-house-sidelined-and-ignored/2011/09/16/gIQAAOSSXK_print.html

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Ordinarily I would not respond to this type of thing but you made a big deal of my misspelling of "flexable" in the first sentence of my post when I obviously spelled it correctly in the very next sentence of my post (yet you did not similarly note that in the "future" I did use the "i"!!!) Obviously an Ipad typing issue. I guess I should be thankful that you did not "sic" me . . . . I see where your priorities lie.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Ordinarily I would not respond to this type of thing but you made a big deal of my misspelling of "flexable" in the first sentence of my post when I obviously spelled it correctly in the very next sentence of my post (yet you did not similarly note that in the "future" I did use the "i"!!!) Obviously an Ipad typing issue. I guess I should be thankful that you did not "sic" me . . . . I see where your priorities lie.

The 'a' and 'i' are nowhere near each other, presumably even on an iPad--and it doesn't appear anyone made a big deal of it, unless you consider a paranthetical snide remark to be a big deal. Neither of your comments really seemed to address the issues. Are the pharmacies out of Adderall again?

[Anonymous]

Do not fret, Romney had a binder full of women! Massachusetts- home of the best women's college in the nation, really mittens? You're not in Alaska buddy.

[Anonymous]

http://bindersfullofwomen.tumblr.com/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:http://bindersfullofwomen.tumblr.com/

Brilliant!

[Anonymous]

But raising Olympic horses as a deductible hobby expense is such a great enterprise for a woman.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP shut up.

Typical conservative intolerance.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:http://bindersfullofwomen.tumblr.com/

They are neatly filed by husband's occupation, and color coded by number of children. There is a large miscellaneous section in the back. It takes up about 47% of the binder.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:http://bindersfullofwomen.tumblr.com/

Winner. Game over.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:http://bindersfullofwomen.tumblr.com/

Winner. Game over.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/friction-over-womens-role-in-obama-white-house-was-intense/2011/09/19/gIQA9OUygK_story.html

[Anonymous]

I think Romney has some work to do still in trying to win over more women. The story was a strange one to tell. I respect him for offering a flex work schedule, but am wondering why qualified women didn't appy to work with him initially. I also felt Romney needed to watch it with how he interacted with this evening's debate moderator. Obama was no star either, but a bit more respectful.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:http://bindersfullofwomen.tumblr.com/

Winner. Game over.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/friction-over-womens-role-in-obama-white-house-was-intense/2011/09/19/gIQA9OUygK_story.html

Very interesting article. I didn't know any of this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think Romney has some work to do still in trying to win over more women. The story was a strange one to tell. I respect him for offering a flex work schedule, but am wondering why qualified women didn't appy to work with him initially. I also felt Romney needed to watch it with how he interacted with this evening's debate moderator. Obama was no star either, but a bit more respectful.

I thought the exact same thing as I was watching.