What an asinine theory. So who would you have running the country?
Virtually all politicians should not be in office, from both parties according to you.

Classic, the ENTIRE point of EVERYTHING Rosen said was that, since Ann Romney has no contact with the world of employment, she has no business "advising" Mitt on what it's like for unemployed women. My understanding was that that's all Pico's saying - that Ann has no qualifications or experience with the challenges facing unemployed people, and has never been unemployed or impoverished herself, so claiming that she has some sort of advisory knowledge on the subject is unreasonable and misguided.

that... doesn't make sense to me. on one hand he had his own family's resort thing that lead to the whole Niger scandal because it had it in its name, and in the same time they where struggling for money?

have they thought of selling or renting it out (possibly after a name change)?

Nobody said their experience and wealth made them unfit to run the country. Just that she was not qualified to advise Mitt on what life is like for unemplyed women.

If he wants to know what unemployed wiomen, or indeed anyone on the breadline, face in life, he should find someone else to ask. That's all.

How does that differ from virtually any other politician, Dana?
Its a BS argument. Thats all.

Because NOT EVERY POLITICIAN claims that their WEALTHY WIFE is their advisor on UNEMPLOYMENT AMONG WOMEN. most politicians have advisors who have spent a career working on the subject, and even if they dont have personal experience, have academic or otherwise relevant experience with the subject matter at hand. Just like, living in Taipei for six years in/around high school doesn't make me a China expert, so if I were who Obama was getting to advise him on China policy, it would be a terrible shortcoming. Likewise, being a woman and once living in a cheap apartment doesn't make Ann an expert on poverty and the struggles of working-class women, and to point to her as his chief advisor in that capacity is laughable.

THAT I agree with. Unfortunately NO ONE ever said she was speaking on behalf of "unemployed women"
No one ever claimed that she was, nor that she did.
Provide supporting evidence please.


What was said:
THATS EXACTLY WHAT HE SAID. And he is correct. I see nothing wrong with it. Do you? Is he wrong?
What I see is the left is distorting the shit out of this. You are buying into it hook, line & sinker. Step back and TRY to assess what was actually said and how it was distorted for political purposes.

Please quote where he actually said those things you claim and I'll shut up about it.

Oh, and one last quote -

Who are Ann Romney's peers, the ones who she would be commiserating with about what women really are worried about? They are NOT women who are concerned about jobs, or the rising cost of groceries and gas and medical expenses. So, the women she hangs out with know NOTHING about the worry and anxiety regular women deal with on a daily basis. And so using her to speak about what the majority of women care about is just dishonest.

It's also kind of sexist. Like women have this deep and innate understanding of each other, simply on the grounds they're all female. We don't make the same assumption about men. Why would she have any greater understanding of what a working-class woman goes through and worries about than Mitt himself?

wait... if you don't have some deep and innate understanding of each other - and thus other women then yourself - simply on the ground of being female... how do you know that other women aren't making that assumption about men?

also, how do you know that other women don't make that assumption about themselves, believing that they have a deep and innate understanding of other women - regardless if its true or not?

also, how do you know other women don't actually have a deep and innate understanding of other women, and for some obscure reason you weren't included in the secret hand-shake?

By 'we' I meant our society in general.

Western culture generally assumes a level of female consciousness that somehow bonds women together in ways men don't experience.

This is probably not the time for me to have a rant about some of the feminist readings of eighteenth century female identity. It just adds to the noise. It's the consolation prize. Men have the economic and political power, but dont worry ladies, you have the close bonds and sisterhood and the power of life blahdeblahdeblah.

... and the distortion/distractions continue. Unfortunate, but expected.

For what it's worth, here's my 2 cents. I believe Ann Romney has had a priveledged married life. That doesn't exclude her from having the right to offer her opinions to her husband regarding women's issues, anymore than Hilary Clinton or Michelle Obama or any first lady for that matter. But every person's life experience is different and I think it is a mistake to rely on only one voice for opinions or advice on ANY subject. Over half this country is female and if you want to be president you better talk to a lot of them to find out the best way to serve them as president.

Wait, what? We're allowed to VOTE? Since when? ;)

Right. And he goes and picks a rich one. Like that isn't gonna ruffle feathers?

Interesting piece in the Guardian about this, and how it fits in the general 'war on women' idea. This bit in particular seems to articulate why Mitt's reliance on Anne's advice in this area might be problematic:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...x-war-on-women

I'm not sure on the context and don't care enough to find it but is it possible he just said that as a joke or in a different context?

Romney has issues but one of them isn't his intelligence. I don't believe in a second that Romney actually gets all his advice about women voters from his wife. The only way that could remotely be true is if his wife went out and talked to thousands and thousands of women voters from all classes. Even that is sketchy because it is definitely not Romney's style.

Equally interesting response ...

Women may have the same de jure rights, but de facto rights are imbalanced. As is economic power.

...as is the world ...as is reality

Acknowledging that it's a common problem doesn't absolve us of the responsibility to try to solve it.

But that's precisely what we're talking about. The world. Reality.

The reality is that statistically women suffer more in the way of job loss and redundancy than men, are less likely to be in the kinds of employment that pay good redundancy packages than men and are slower to be rehired than men, during a recession.

Though there are exceptions, women are statistically more likely to be coupling external employment with carer duties such as looking after parents, more likely to have had a gap in their career to look after children, and more likely upon returning to work to find themselves at a reduced level.

Economically, women are generally less powerful than men. They, and the employment types that are predominantly female are less valued than men and predominantly male employment types. That makes them particularly vulnerable to certain kinds of economic stress. Coupled with a cultural assumption of male work being proper work and female work being a handy add on to boost the family income (I know it's changing, but we carry the remnants of earlier outlooks with us still), and an education culture that still, in subtle ways directs girls one way and boys another, what we are left with is a situation in which women are legally as protected as men, but in reality have a much more precarious and contingent relationship to the workplace.

It is a well-noted and commented upon phenomenon, that at times of economic turmoil, when job security is low and wage levels and working conditions are under threat, the cultural output starts to ask questions both about the nature of true womanhood (can a woman be a mother and a worker?) and the need for proper jobs and wages for family men. Sometimes the two are explicitly linked: suggestions are made that women really should be at home raising kids, and men need the validation of supporting their family financially as a proper husband should. It's no accident, I don't think, that out of the recession of the 90s a movement grew up of professional women who were giving up those decisions more traditonally associated with men, and allowing their husbands total control over the family finances and major household decisions.

There is often, at such times, an increasing sense of unease around female physicality, sexuality and moral health. This recent attempt to force vaginal ultrasounds on all women seeking abortions, is a fairly typical example of the way a culture of unease about women and their reproductive power, their competetive threat to male employment and their political outspokenness starts to leak into the relationship between the government and women's physical self. Correct me if I am wrong, but I can think of no male equivalent.

There are many examples of this throughout history. Some from the 18th and 19th centuries resonate rather shockingly with the ultrasound requirement.

Cultural and social distress aways ends up played out on the bodies of women. 'Figuratively and literally' it's been said by some historians.

Here we go. had to nip and check me dates :p

The Contagious Diseases act caused massive controversy in Britain. It was the focus for a lot of proto-feminist activity, much like the recent ultrasuond requirement:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contagious_Diseases_Acts

I am aware by the way that this is a massive tangent :p But it interests me, so I figure it might interest someone else.

Incidentally, just to be clear about something: none of this is 'what men to do to women', it's what we, a society of men and women, do to ourselves.*






* ...:condom:

I do have issues with Romney's intelligence. And this particular kerfuffle is just another instance of several that make me question his depth of understanding about the economic and social world **I** live in. He has not shown much, if any, evidence that he knows practically anything about it.

He's made many comments that, taken individually, are groan worthy. "Corporations are people", "I like to fire people", "I don't know about what team he'll wind up with, but I have a couple friends that own football teams and..." And the same with his NASCAR team owner friends. And his fleet of vehicles "two Cadillacs", etc. Etc. Etc. They're tossed off so casually, so... naturally that they seem real. I believe they are real. And I take this as pretty reliable evidence that his "intelligence" on the subject of how I live is meager at best. It's good that he seeks input from others, no one knows everything, no one. Good on him. And his wife is as good a source as any for advice (though I don't know much about her creds) since she almost certainly has his (and their) best interests at heart. But the same disconnect applies for her when it comes to being able to "speak for" most women. I find the suggestion that she knows much about the workaday lives of "most women" laughable. And the economic disconnect is the major piece of that.

That Mitt Romney would tout Ann as a valid, informed source of good data about "what women want" (so to speak) is yet another of these faux pas (what is the plural??? whatever). He doesn't impress me with his intelligence when it comes to describing his inner dialog like this.

Business smart? Well, he sure has gotten results. Does he have experience governing? Yes. Is he like me? No, not really. And when he talks about what my life is like, me, the 99%, he shows his lack of understanding. I don't find that comforting. I find his delusion somewhat alarming.

I'll cherrypick this part as I tend to agree with most of the rest of your post, V.
Me too - And who is it that made that assertion?

Is Romney really that much different than past presidential candidates? I remember the same talk against Kerry in 2004 and I would think most representatives in Washington don't understand the lifestyle of the 99%.

Romney definitely is out of touch with most of America, I fully believe that, but I still have trouble believing that Romney lacks any knowledge about such an important demographic. That is one aspect that Romney's campaign is good at: knowing which views will resonate with certain people. His advisers even admitted that his campaign will change views with the 'Etch a Sketch' comment.

The female demographic is considered extremely important this election and will probably determine who wins. I would think that Romney's advisers, who probably are not from the 1%, have done a great deal of research figuring out ways to get women voters on his side. Maybe I'm wrong but that is how I see it.

Good Job! Demonize Stay at Home Moms! Winning points there! :thumb:

Ok, let's now categorize men.

Do men who have been out of work for:

1- one month. (this one just graduated from college and thinks the government should pay off his student loans)
2- two months. (this one is about to lose it all, 2 kids, wife, bills stacked up.)
3- four months. (this one is a new college grad and has no anxiety about work because he is still on his moms insurance and is living at home)
4- eight months. (this one was laid off and can't find work in his field)
5- sixteen months. (this one was laid off and thinks it would be great to take time off to stay home with his kids while his wife made the money)
6- thirty-two months. (this one wants to work terribly and wants to kill himself because his wife can't find a job either and they are about to lose their house)
7- or Stay at home Dads who have been only in that capacity for X months ( you fill in your magical mythical number between 1 and 100 months while mom worked because she made a shit load more than dad could make).

Ok, so geniuses, please explain to me who has more worth, who has a valid understanding of the working world, and who is more qualified than some other non-working Dad to make those judgements? Be sure to ID each category that is worthy of the ability to understand what it is like to work and which one is not and why one has greater worth than the other.... thanks.

Now replace all of the terms "men" with "Women".

Now tell me about the worth of a woman who does not have to worry about that and where she it says she should be penalized, persecuted, and pilloried in the press because she was fortunate?

Uh - ya lost me.

Its quite obvious.

Dude. If it was a man who stayed at home everyone would have treated the issue differently. But some dumb assed political Demoncratic Hack thought she would make political Hay out of the issue because Romney's wife was a stay at home mom. I know plenty of stay at home dads in the military. And if you told them they didn't know jack about the working world they would kick your ass. The dumb bitch that made that statement is a fool. Don't ever tell a stay at home mom she has no idea what she understands about the working world. Many work harder than some fool who goes off and tries to sell cars or advertising space everyday.

I find Mitt Romney's actions and words suggestive of it. Why else would he say what he said? Why would he turn to her for information on what women want? And the advice he got was kind of..it was just some fucking talking point made up by his campaign. Mitt Romney said of his interactions with is wife Ann:

What is she? His female-talk interpreter? The Woman Whisperer? I'll tell you what. We have lots of women here in the cellar. Think about what kinds of concerns they post about. Yes, they do post about the economy, but it's not anything like "their number one concern is the economy". Sometimes it's being proud of their kids, sometimes it's learning a new scream from her husband. Sometimes it's morning sickness or frustration with parents or spouses or kids. Or their jobs and cow orkers. I've been around here awhile and I haven't seen what Mitt says is being reported to him. Probably Ann is talking with a different group of women I talk with, sure.

Mitt's kind of a clumsy doofus with his words, and his words regarding women are no exception. You know, I can't find the quote from Mitt that started this. And that's too bad, but my memory of it is that he was touting his understanding of women's concerns by touting the fact that he talks to his wife, Ann. I got no problem with that, EXCEPT that I just don't see anything in her experience that makes me feel like Ann knows the stuff he thinks she knows about, or at least that he thinks she's telling him. It doesn't jive with MY experience about listening to what women are saying is their number one concern. Dammit, it's just dumb.

"Hi Ann, what is the number one concern of the women you're talking to?"

"Ann, what are those women you're talking to saying?"

And the answer is "It's the economy, stupid"? No. just... no.

But he's keenly aware of how the demographic he intends to serve live.

You know what, merc, I agree. Staying home to raise children is not the lazy, easy option. It's hard work, valuable work.

Which is why I feel so angry when politicians and rightwing correspondents focus their ire on single welfare moms. They're not 'sponging' they are staying home to raise their children.

Personally, I am in favour of paying a stayhome parenting benefit, equivalent to unemployment benefit, and lasting until the youngest child reaches ten years old.

That gets my vote!

It's kind of a bad idea to pay people to have babies they would not otherwise want. Stupid women already deliberately have extra babies because they can get a new set of child support payments from BabyDaddy #4. Meanwhile, the reason there are so many shitty and abusive foster parents in the system is because there is the lure of taking a kid on for the money.

That is a popular urban believe. Where are facts that support that claim with numbers?

In my whole life I have met two women who deliberately had children to avoid going back to work. One told me candidly that she loved being a mother, had no work experience and qualifications and was therefore a better Mum than she was a worker. I disagreed, but kept my mouth shut. She was a drinker and a brawler. Hence my opinion and my reason for not expressing it. She had three children, so not excessive.

The other was my boyfriend's ex, who chose to stop birth control once her first son (not his) went to pre-school. He swore she trapped him this way, but admitted he knew she'd come off the pill and carried on having sex anyway. He was too stupid to keep in the long run - she moved on as did I, I can't be doing with men who abandon their children.

If you have personal experience of women who squeeze out babies for benefits Clod, then I'd be interested to hear it. As I say, of all the hundreds of pregnant women I've known, only two have been thus afflicted. I don't count the ones I read about in the Hate Mail.

Duplicate post

yeah...I hear that a lot myself. But have found very little evidence of it in the world around me.

They used to say it when I was a kid too. Because back then there really was a council house or flat ready for you if you had a baby. I knew a few girls who had babies when we were teens. One of them, a lass called Donna, was 15 when she realised she was pregnant. She was thrilled. And yes, being able to get a flat was part of why she was thrilled. It would, in her words, get her away from her mum and dad's house, where she was woefully unhappy. But it wasnt why she had the baby. And it wasnt the only reason she was thrilled.

The particular demographic who might rely on such housing if they have a baby are also statistically likely to have had family breakdowns and a chaotic homelife. For a young lass in that situiation a baby can mean a lot of things, including something that is truly 'their own'.


very few of us do anything major in our lives because of a single solitary motivation. Even those for whom extra beneifts or a social house are part of their rationale, will have other reasons all mixed up in there. Including, potentially, the notion that this is what you do as a grownup. This is how you mark yourself an adult: you have a baby and you get your house and you're all set in the grownup world.

Just as an aside, I also think that, given the paltry amount of help these girls actually receive from the State (bad in the uk, but at least they get actual currency not just food stamps), anybody who actually chooses that as a better option in life deserves our pity and sympathy.

The Government is not the answer. AND tax payer dollars should not support those who choose to stay home. This is not a country the size of Rhode Island.... It is not feasible. The bottom line is stop demonizing those who have the choice.

That means religious extremists and the Tea Party disagree with you. They are anti-choice. They will even say that god tells us all what to do. Choice is advocated by evil liberals - according to them. When did you and they have a falling out?

Sorry, I've been behind on threads and just now saw this. My personal experience is not with women looking for state/federal benefits (which, like in the UK, is not much money at all,) but rather those aiming to get child support payments from the father, which are on a sliding scale with his income and have no upper limit. Get pregnant by someone with a $100,000 per year income, and you've got yourself as much as $30,000 a year for the next 18 years. Repeat as necessary for each different father. As an offhand count right now, I can think of... at least 5 women who either deliberately got pregnant (with additional children, not their first,) or kept babies they otherwise would have aborted if the dads had been brutally poor, because they wanted the child support money.

I was on the other side of that. Clods right on as usual.
Unfortunately there are plenty who do it for the gov't money as well.