2nd Debate Thoughts?

RustyBelle · October 2012

Oh my goodness, I've been at work all day and dying to say 2 things.

1. If you want to cook dinner for your family, the you should be able to without anyone making you feel degraded. I HATE the 1950's thing being thrown around as an insult/negative view. Some women put their family as a priority and some women put their career as a priority. There are some women who do it all, and there are other combinations of everything in between.

None of those choices are wrong, cooking and cleaning for your family does not mean you are suppressed and controlled by your husband. Just like focusing on a successful career does not make you a heartless woman that does not love your family.

2. I want to address Romney's "secret" tape, because I think there is a double standard here. He was speaking at a fundraiser, which means you are going to say things differently than you would in front of the camera for the general public. Just like Obama did in his "secret" tape. He did the same thing when he was running for President, telling New Orleans that they were not helped quickly because "they aren't cared about as much".

But the part that upset me the most about it was that he compared a natural disaster to September 11th. I feel like that says a lot.

Also, at least Romney didn't use a different accent when he was speaking "privately". Like someone said, you are more likely to be your TRUE self when in private.

carlab44 · October 2012

RustyBelle:
Oh my goodness, I've been at work all day and dying to say 2 things.
1. If you want to cook dinner for your family, the you should be able to without anyone making you feel degraded. I HATE the 1950's thing being thrown around as an insult/negative view. Some women put their family as a priority and some women put their career as a priority. There are some women who do it all, and there are other combinations of everything in between.
None of those choices are wrong, cooking and cleaning for your family does not mean you are suppressed and controlled by your husband. Just like focusing on a successful career does not make you a heartless woman that does not love your family.

2. I want to address Romney's "secret" tape, because I think there is a double standard here. He was speaking at a fundraiser, which means you are going to say things differently than you would in front of the camera for the general public. Just like Obama did in his "secret" tape. He did the same thing when he was running for President, telling New Orleans that they were not helped quickly because "they aren't cared about as much".
But the part that upset me the most about it was that he compared a natural disaster to September 11th. I feel like that says a lot.
Also, at least Romney didn't use a different accent when he was speaking "privately". Like someone said, you are more likely to be your TRUE self when in private.

I don't think anyone is saying there is anything wrong with wanting to cook dinner for your family. And there most certainly are people that value a flexible schedule (this is in response to an early poster). However, the question had to do with making pay more equitable between men and women. There wasn't even any mention of families or kids in the question. People are up in arms because he answered a question about making pay more equal with a story about women needing more flexible hours to be home to cook dinner.

vlagrl29 · October 2012

carlab44:
RustyBelle:
Oh my goodness, I've been at work all day and dying to say 2 things.
1. If you want to cook dinner for your family, the you should be able to without anyone making you feel degraded. I HATE the 1950's thing being thrown around as an insult/negative view. Some women put their family as a priority and some women put their career as a priority. There are some women who do it all, and there are other combinations of everything in between.
None of those choices are wrong, cooking and cleaning for your family does not mean you are suppressed and controlled by your husband. Just like focusing on a successful career does not make you a heartless woman that does not love your family.

2. I want to address Romney's "secret" tape, because I think there is a double standard here. He was speaking at a fundraiser, which means you are going to say things differently than you would in front of the camera for the general public. Just like Obama did in his "secret" tape. He did the same thing when he was running for President, telling New Orleans that they were not helped quickly because "they aren't cared about as much".
But the part that upset me the most about it was that he compared a natural disaster to September 11th. I feel like that says a lot.
Also, at least Romney didn't use a different accent when he was speaking "privately". Like someone said, you are more likely to be your TRUE self when in private.
I don't think anyone is saying there is anything wrong with wanting to cook dinner for your family. And there most certainly are people that value a flexible schedule (this is in response to an early poster). However, the question had to do with making pay more equitable between men and women. There wasn't even any mention of families or kids in the question. People are up in arms because he answered a question about making pay more equal with a story about women needing more flexible hours to be home to cook dinner.

at least he didn't turn it around into health care, he stayed on topic. what about the women in the white house not getting paid equally...huh??

LuckyDad · October 2012

cincychick35:
[On several occasions, Obama has taken actions which have not be in accordance to the Constitution.

? Obama told the Department of Justice not to defend the Defense of Marriage Act, which was passed by a bipartisan Congress. Instead, the DOJ argued against the valid law (which has been upheld by multiple courts), forcing the House of Representatives to hire outside counsel to defend the law. This gross abrogation of a president?s constitutional duty to defend and protect the laws of the land was unprecedented.
? Obama signed Dodd-Frank into law, which allows the government?s seizure of property, violating the Due Process Clause of the Constitution and creating administrative positions that are not vetted by the Senate as required by the Appointments Clause.
? When the Democrat-led Congress would not pass net neutrality, Obama?s Federal Communications Commission violated the Constitution by contravening Congress to restrict the freedom of Internet service providers to manage their network transmissions.
? When the Democrat-led Congress could not pass cap and trade, Obama?s EPA decided to auction greenhouse gas allowances, essentially imposing a tax on emissions, which, according to the Constitution, can only be done by Congress. You will also recall Congress having to act to halt the EPA?s ban on incandescent light bulbs.
? When the Democrat-led Congress did not pass the Employee Free Choice Act, Obama contravened Congress by pushing the NLRB to pass regulations that allowed for ?ambush elections? and required employers to provide employee e-mail addresses and phone numbers to union organizers.
? When the Democrat-led Congress refused to pass the Dream Act, the Obama White House and DHS decided to implement a policy of granting illegal aliens stays of refusal, which is essentially amnesty by fiat. The Obama policy even gives local immigration officials the authority to dismiss deportation cases against illegal alien criminals convicted of violent crimes.
? Without the approval of Congress, as required by the Constitution, Obama ordered the U.S. military to attack Libya.

I won't refute all your points, but I will say that you are speaking of the First Amendment with one legal interpretation that has not been held up by the Supreme Court, or in some cases not yet challenged. Until the Supreme Court rules, it's tough for individual people to say without a shadow of a doubt if stuff like that is or is not covered by the First Amendment. Recall that we kinda had no idea if the ACA was going to be constitutional or not. Apparently, it is. Funny how our system works that way. Along the same lines, you can't claim Dodd-Frank is unconstitutional if there hasn't been a court case saying it is. You don't get to decide that, the Supreme Court does. You can say it's a bad law, but ultimately it's up to the Court.

The court appointments is a hugely tricky issue, because there's no precedent for the Senate minority using the filibuster to block a simple up-down vote on appointees. It's pretty clear the Senate is not supposed to have the authority to deny the President forever and the nominees are supposed to be entitled to a yes-no vote. The short answer is Obama did it, and there's no way to prove it was unconstitutional without a court challenge, which isn't going to happen, therefore it is legal.

It is entirely within the scope of the executive branch to enforce the law as it deems appropriate. You can disagree with his methods, but the President choosing not to enforce DOMA is completely within his power.

Really, it sounds like you need to brush up on Civics 101. The Executive Branch has a lot more power specifically granted by the Constitution besides just signing bills into law and appointing Supreme Court justices. George W Bush did expand the powers of the Executive Branch significantly, and admittedly the same things you are complaining about now are the same sort of things Liberals complained about under GW Bush. Simply because you disagree with policy doesn't make it unconstitutional.

carlab44 · October 2012

vlagrl29:
carlab44:
RustyBelle:
Oh my goodness, I've been at work all day and dying to say 2 things.
1. If you want to cook dinner for your family, the you should be able to without anyone making you feel degraded. I HATE the 1950's thing being thrown around as an insult/negative view. Some women put their family as a priority and some women put their career as a priority. There are some women who do it all, and there are other combinations of everything in between.
None of those choices are wrong, cooking and cleaning for your family does not mean you are suppressed and controlled by your husband. Just like focusing on a successful career does not make you a heartless woman that does not love your family.

2. I want to address Romney's "secret" tape, because I think there is a double standard here. He was speaking at a fundraiser, which means you are going to say things differently than you would in front of the camera for the general public. Just like Obama did in his "secret" tape. He did the same thing when he was running for President, telling New Orleans that they were not helped quickly because "they aren't cared about as much".
But the part that upset me the most about it was that he compared a natural disaster to September 11th. I feel like that says a lot.
Also, at least Romney didn't use a different accent when he was speaking "privately". Like someone said, you are more likely to be your TRUE self when in private.
I don't think anyone is saying there is anything wrong with wanting to cook dinner for your family. And there most certainly are people that value a flexible schedule (this is in response to an early poster). However, the question had to do with making pay more equitable between men and women. There wasn't even any mention of families or kids in the question. People are up in arms because he answered a question about making pay more equal with a story about women needing more flexible hours to be home to cook dinner.

at least he didn't turn it around into health care, he stayed on topic. what about the women in the white house not getting paid equally...huh??

?? Nowhere did I defend Obama's record of equal pay. Nor did I criticize Romney's record. I stated why Romney's answer offended some people.

And yes Obama turned the topic to healthcare (in his follow up to Romney, not his original response) just as Romney turn it into the Economy. And both of course are important in the discussion of women (people in general) in the work force. If Obama care continues and healthcare isn't tied to your job, it will open up the opportunity for many people to take positions, or even be more entrepreneurial, than they otherwise wouldn't be able to.

cincychick35 · October 2012

LuckyDad:
cincychick35:
[On several occasions, Obama has taken actions which have not be in accordance to the Constitution.

? Obama told the Department of Justice not to defend the Defense of Marriage Act, which was passed by a bipartisan Congress. Instead, the DOJ argued against the valid law (which has been upheld by multiple courts), forcing the House of Representatives to hire outside counsel to defend the law. This gross abrogation of a president?s constitutional duty to defend and protect the laws of the land was unprecedented.
? Obama signed Dodd-Frank into law, which allows the government?s seizure of property, violating the Due Process Clause of the Constitution and creating administrative positions that are not vetted by the Senate as required by the Appointments Clause.
? When the Democrat-led Congress would not pass net neutrality, Obama?s Federal Communications Commission violated the Constitution by contravening Congress to restrict the freedom of Internet service providers to manage their network transmissions.
? When the Democrat-led Congress could not pass cap and trade, Obama?s EPA decided to auction greenhouse gas allowances, essentially imposing a tax on emissions, which, according to the Constitution, can only be done by Congress. You will also recall Congress having to act to halt the EPA?s ban on incandescent light bulbs.
? When the Democrat-led Congress did not pass the Employee Free Choice Act, Obama contravened Congress by pushing the NLRB to pass regulations that allowed for ?ambush elections? and required employers to provide employee e-mail addresses and phone numbers to union organizers.
? When the Democrat-led Congress refused to pass the Dream Act, the Obama White House and DHS decided to implement a policy of granting illegal aliens stays of refusal, which is essentially amnesty by fiat. The Obama policy even gives local immigration officials the authority to dismiss deportation cases against illegal alien criminals convicted of violent crimes.
? Without the approval of Congress, as required by the Constitution, Obama ordered the U.S. military to attack Libya.

I won't refute all your points, but I will say that you are speaking of the First Amendment with one legal interpretation that has not been held up by the Supreme Court, or in some cases not yet challenged. Until the Supreme Court rules, it's tough for individual people to say without a shadow of a doubt if stuff like that is or is not covered by the First Amendment. Recall that we kinda had no idea if the ACA was going to be constitutional or not. Apparently, it is. Funny how our system works that way. Along the same lines, you can't claim Dodd-Frank is unconstitutional if there hasn't been a court case saying it is. You don't get to decide that, the Supreme Court does. You can say it's a bad law, but ultimately it's up to the Court.
The court appointments is a hugely tricky issue, because there's no precedent for the Senate minority using the filibuster to block a simple up-down vote on appointees. It's pretty clear the Senate is not supposed to have the authority to deny the President forever and the nominees are supposed to be entitled to a yes-no vote. The short answer is Obama did it, and there's no way to prove it was unconstitutional without a court challenge, which isn't going to happen, therefore it is legal.
It is entirely within the scope of the executive branch to enforce the law as it deems appropriate. You can disagree with his methods, but the President choosing not to enforce DOMA is completely within his power.
Really, it sounds like you need to brush up on Civics 101. The Executive Branch has a lot more power specifically granted by the Constitution besides just signing bills into law and appointing Supreme Court justices. George W Bush did expand the powers of the Executive Branch significantly, and admittedly the same things you are complaining about now are the same sort of things Liberals complained about under GW Bush. Simply because you disagree with policy doesn't make it unconstitutional.

Never said it was "unconstitutional", I said these policies went against the spirit of the constitution. And if you notice, I did not include the ACA in my list, because whether I like it or not...the Supreme Court did deem it to be constitutional.

jebrmbbeb · October 2012

vlagrl29:
jebrmbbeb:
I bet there are many women, single moms or not, who have children or not, who would be very grateful for consideration in the work place. I think the fact that people are upset by this is absurd. Because you know what, a lot of women do make dinner for their families.
From the feminist point of view, you don't want the pity? You want to be treated the same as every male in the workplace? Then fine. But I'll bet there's a lot of women who would appreciate this. Finding fault with compassion; now that's sad.
exactly! me and DH must be of the few that still hold traditional values. He works a LOT, and i'm taking care of the kid and making sure the house is taken care of and somehow in between all that , I also run my own business. I never liked working in an office, I never felt they were flexible at all. I wished they had been, I can't imagine working in one with a kid now. You would use all your time up on doctor appts and the kid being sick. and I take offense to the "you didn't build that" explanation. ok sure, i get my mail from the post office, I cash my checks at the bank, and I travel on roads that have been constructed for us. but EFFF that, I'm the one working my @ss off and so is DH to make our living....no one is helping us.

My husband's father worked his @ss off building his business as well, and my husband still does to maintain it. My father in law was dirt poor for years and years until finally all his hard work started paying off. After living that and experiencing it, of course it's offensive for anyone to say you didn't build it; you had help from us. It's wrong, and it's an unnecessary comment. He should have never said that, no matter what the context was. I also stay at home with a toddler, and work my a off just keeping the house maintained and people fed! I would be very grateful if I went back to work and my employer was considerate of my role in my household.

You are not the only couple with these traditional values. Many families are out there like so, including me and my husband and our families. They are just often not the ones to speak up.

I find the fact that men and women are different empowering. I love that I have my own divine role and purpose as a woman and my husband his. But now a days the world doesn't agree- we should all be the same, there is no difference between us.

cincychick35 · October 2012

ohioloveyou:
cincychick35:
Absolutely! Now, after the attack to our embassy in Benghazi I would say he does have authority for a military strike.
But he went ahead with military operations in March of 2011 and got involved in what seemed to be a Libyan civil war which ended in the capture and killing of Gadaffi. Maybe I missed something but what was the catalyst for the US to be involved in a Libyan civil war?
Whoops, that's right, we're talking about last year's military action. Sorry, don't know where my mind was.
But, I am curious about how you think of the war in Iraq, then? They didn't attack the U.S. either.

I have mixed feelings regarding the war in Iraq. The Bush administration gave the impression all the military actions taken in the middle east at that time were a part of the war on terror and in direct response to what happened here on 9/11, that somehow Saddam Hussein was funding/assisting al-Qaeda. Iraq had also been listed as a state sponsor of terror since the early 90's. So, at the time I felt like we did have justification to proceed with military actions.

Now, we have learned there were no weapons of mass destruction (as both Clinton and Bush had previously stated), there is no evidence Hussein was supporting al-Qaeda, etc. We have all heard that Bush just invaded Iraq over oil, etc. So looking back, I just don't know if we were justified in our military strikes of Iraq. But one thing I do know, is that we lost way too many of our service men and women and we were there way way way too long.

I guess, Bush's true intentions will remain unknown.

cincychick35 · October 2012

FezzesAreCool:
cincychick35:

CoffeeBeen:
Cincy, I don't care if you're elegant or not. I just think there's enough rhetoric in politics, no need to say something because you think it sounds good when it doesn't mean what you're trying to say.

Thanks! I am fearful of the future. I feel we are on a downhill spiral and I want my kids to have a better life with rich opportunities. I feel we need a President who understands economics, who has balanced budgets and who can turn things around.

I voted for Obama in 08, I just don't feel he has done right by "we the people", I would like to take a different direction.

I am, quite frankly, more fearful of my daughters futures if Romney wins. There may be SCOTUS appointments in the next 4 years and Roe v. Wade may come before the court after those appointments are made.

The idea of my daughters not having autonomy over their own bodies because the government dictates it scares the crap out of me.

I can understand that. But as an adopted child and a woman who is trying to conceive, I (personally) do not believe in abortion so that is not something that dictates my vote. But having said that, I have no desire to impose my personal beliefs on anyone. If someone chooses abortion, that is completely up to them and between them and their conscience/God. All I simply ask that my tax dollars are not used to fund something that I personally do not agree with.

I also like the idea of my daughter/son/mother/brother/sister to have autonomy over their own body and healthcare. And that is why the ACA scare the crap outta me.

AndrewBreitbart · October 2012

It felt a lot like the Ryan-Biden debate... people said that Biden won on points, but then the momentum went to the Romney-Ryan ticket, at least a little bit. The same might go for this debate. Romney's numbers on the economy on the CNN and CBS polls were strong, he's way ahead, and the Libya question will be discussed in the last debate.

It's very hard to tell what effect the debate will have if any. I feel like his first horrible performance created a 'priming effect' in which Obama was destined to be called the winner of the second debate unless he drooled on himself. The media were primed to cheer the resurrection of Obama, saying "he's back."

I felt that some of the questions were uninteresting, and I wonder about having the debate in such a non-swing state. Some of the questions were odd/taken from a democratic premise, and if one or two of the voters were undecided... well, they might have been undecided about whether to vote Democrat at their local polling place or absentee. I saw all the voters as disillusioned democrats...I rolled my eyes at Candy Crowley's judgment on the Libya comment from Romney and the Lily Ledbetter and gun control questions.

jebrmbbeb · October 2012

cincychick35:
FezzesAreCool:
cincychick35:

CoffeeBeen:
Cincy, I don't care if you're elegant or not. I just think there's enough rhetoric in politics, no need to say something because you think it sounds good when it doesn't mean what you're trying to say.

Thanks! I am fearful of the future. I feel we are on a downhill spiral and I want my kids to have a better life with rich opportunities. I feel we need a President who understands economics, who has balanced budgets and who can turn things around.

I voted for Obama in 08, I just don't feel he has done right by "we the people", I would like to take a different direction.

I am, quite frankly, more fearful of my daughters futures if Romney wins. There may be SCOTUS appointments in the next 4 years and Roe v. Wade may come before the court after those appointments are made.

The idea of my daughters not having autonomy over their own bodies because the government dictates it scares the crap out of me.
I can understand that. But as an adopted child and a woman who is trying to conceive, I (personally) do not believe in abortion so that is not something that dictates my vote. But having said that, I have no desire to impose my personal beliefs on anyone. If someone chooses abortion, that is completely up to them and between them and their conscience/God. All I simply ask that my tax dollars are not used to fund something that I personally do not agree with.
I also like the idea of my daughter/son/mother/brother/sister to have autonomy over their own body and healthcare. And that is why the ACA scare the crap outta me.

My opinion as well. I don't want to pay for something that I don't agree with. That is the real problem. I can't say the government should decide for you; but it should be a private thing that has nothing to do with me or my money. I wouldn't go out of my way to stop others from having abortions, but I will in no way support it or want to help fund it.

AndrewBreitbart · October 2012

**cantwait**:
Hopeforthebest:
Obama won. Goes to round 3

Curious as to how you got to this? I saw Romney as more confident, more apt to answer the questions rather than defend his positions over and over and more presidential.

There's two types of winning. Obama may have done the first, which was a) doing better than the last debate and b) winning on points in the actual debate room. The post-debate spin is something that Romney may yet win. Even in the CNN and CBS polls that Obama won, the economy numbers are stronger for Romney, and that's what people may be voting on. There's the same thing going on with this debate as with the VP; Biden may have won in the room, but Romney-Ryan maintained the momentum.

RustyBelle · October 2012

carlab44:
RustyBelle:
I don't think anyone is saying there is anything wrong with wanting to cook dinner for your family. And there most certainly are people that value a flexible schedule (this is in response to an early poster). However, the question had to do with making pay more equitable between men and women. There wasn't even any mention of families or kids in the question. People are up in arms because he answered a question about making pay more equal with a story about women needing more flexible hours to be home to cook dinner.

Ok, but I don't see how you make the point of "he didn't answer the question" by saying "why do I need flexible hours? so I can cook? this isn't 1950".

I'm just don't like the 1950 argument in general I guess. You know what I mean? It doesn't make sense to me.

CoffeeBeen · October 2012

RustyBelle:
carlab44:
RustyBelle:
I don't think anyone is saying there is anything wrong with wanting to cook dinner for your family. And there most certainly are people that value a flexible schedule (this is in response to an early poster). However, the question had to do with making pay more equitable between men and women. There wasn't even any mention of families or kids in the question. People are up in arms because he answered a question about making pay more equal with a story about women needing more flexible hours to be home to cook dinner.
Ok, but I don't see how you make the point of "he didn't answer the question" by saying "why do I need flexible hours? so I can cook? this isn't 1950".
I'm just don't like the 1950 argument in general I guess. You know what I mean? It doesn't make sense to me.

Romney was asked how he would help women in the workforce and he responded that he likes to find ways for them to cook dinner. You really don't think that's a little 1950's?

Women are actively discriminated against in the workplace and that's the first thing that pops into his mind? It's terrible that he can't comprehend a woman outside of a domestic role.

RustyBelle · October 2012

I believe he said SHE wanted to cook dinner for her family. So what? And what is wrong with women who like being domestic? Why is it a character flaw?

And I'm sorry but " It's terrible that he can't comprehend a woman outside of a domestic role" is just silly.

CoffeeBeen · October 2012

RustyBelle:
I believe he said SHE wanted to cook dinner for her family. So what? And what is wrong with women who like being domestic? Why is it a character flaw?
And I'm sorry but " It's terrible that he can't comprehend a woman outside of a domestic role" is just silly.

The problem is not that Romney helped some woman have flex hours. The problem is that his response ending workplace discrimination was trying to help her succeed at home, not in the workforce. Where are his policy solutions for equal pay, the glass ceiling, and gender discrimination? They don't exist because when Romney thinks of women, he thinks of cooking dinner.

MidwestGidget · October 2012

RustyBelle:
I believe he said SHE wanted to cook dinner for her family. So what? And what is wrong with women who like being domestic? Why is it a character flaw?

Late to this party. I actually love that he said something about a flexible schedule--I would kill for one. I too, like to cook dinner for my family.

BUT...that's not a woman's issue. It's a family issue (a point Obama made)--ideally, if my husband really wanted to do this, or had a job that was less demanding, then he could be home to cook dinner. The assumption that it's the reason why WOMEN should get a flexible schedule is condescending.

Flexible schedules for all, I say. Not that Romney even advocated for giving women this benefit; only that he gave his Chief of Staff this privilege. Didn't advocate legislation on the issue, unlike Obama with the Lily Ledbetter Act. Romney helped out one woman. Sucks it wasn't me.

MidwestGidget · October 2012

Or Matthew Yglesias from Slate.com could have written about it way better than I could ever put it:

http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2012/10/17/binders_full_of_women_romney_s_weak_policy_on_women_in_the_workforce.html

GeraldoRivera · October 2012

RustyBelle:
Oh my goodness, I've been at work all day and dying to say 2 things.
1. If you want to cook dinner for your family, the you should be able to without anyone making you feel degraded. I HATE the 1950's thing being thrown around as an insult/negative view. Some women put their family as a priority and some women put their career as a priority. There are some women who do it all, and there are other combinations of everything in between.
None of those choices are wrong, cooking and cleaning for your family does not mean you are suppressed and controlled by your husband. Just like focusing on a successful career does not make you a heartless woman that does not love your family.

So there's no possible way that a man might want to make his family a priority rather than his career? That he might want to come home early to cook dinner for his children?

GeraldoRivera · October 2012

CoffeeBeen:
RustyBelle:
I believe he said SHE wanted to cook dinner for her family. So what? And what is wrong with women who like being domestic? Why is it a character flaw?
And I'm sorry but " It's terrible that he can't comprehend a woman outside of a domestic role" is just silly.
The problem is not that Romney helped some woman have flex hours. The problem is that his response ending workplace discrimination was trying to help her succeed at home, not in the workforce. Where are his policy solutions for equal pay, the glass ceiling, and gender discrimination? They don't exist because when Romney thinks of women, he thinks of cooking dinner.

You said it. Yes

RustyBelle · October 2012

GeraldoRivera:
RustyBelle:
Oh my goodness, I've been at work all day and dying to say 2 things.
1. If you want to cook dinner for your family, the you should be able to without anyone making you feel degraded. I HATE the 1950's thing being thrown around as an insult/negative view. Some women put their family as a priority and some women put their career as a priority. There are some women who do it all, and there are other combinations of everything in between.
None of those choices are wrong, cooking and cleaning for your family does not mean you are suppressed and controlled by your husband. Just like focusing on a successful career does not make you a heartless woman that does not love your family.

So there's no possible way that a man might want to make his family a priority rather than his career? That he might want to come home early to cook dinner for his children?

I agree with you, it shouldn't matter who wants to do those things. But I feel like women who like/want to do those things are looked down on. Women (or men) who take that role in their family should be put on a pedestal because those things are important.

vlagrl29 · October 2012

jebrmbbeb:
vlagrl29:
jebrmbbeb:
I bet there are many women, single moms or not, who have children or not, who would be very grateful for consideration in the work place. I think the fact that people are upset by this is absurd. Because you know what, a lot of women do make dinner for their families.
From the feminist point of view, you don't want the pity? You want to be treated the same as every male in the workplace? Then fine. But I'll bet there's a lot of women who would appreciate this. Finding fault with compassion; now that's sad.
exactly! me and DH must be of the few that still hold traditional values. He works a LOT, and i'm taking care of the kid and making sure the house is taken care of and somehow in between all that , I also run my own business. I never liked working in an office, I never felt they were flexible at all. I wished they had been, I can't imagine working in one with a kid now. You would use all your time up on doctor appts and the kid being sick. and I take offense to the "you didn't build that" explanation. ok sure, i get my mail from the post office, I cash my checks at the bank, and I travel on roads that have been constructed for us. but EFFF that, I'm the one working my @ss off and so is DH to make our living....no one is helping us.
My husband's father worked his @ss off building his business as well, and my husband still does to maintain it. My father in law was dirt poor for years and years until finally all his hard work started paying off. After living that and experiencing it, of course it's offensive for anyone to say you didn't build it; you had help from us. It's wrong, and it's an unnecessary comment. He should have never said that, no matter what the context was. I also stay at home with a toddler, and work my a off just keeping the house maintained and people fed! I would be very grateful if I went back to work and my employer was considerate of my role in my household.
You are not the only couple with these traditional values. Many families are out there like so, including me and my husband and our families. They are just often not the ones to speak up.
I find the fact that men and women are different empowering. I love that I have my own divine role and purpose as a woman and my husband his. But now a days the world doesn't agree- we should all be the same, there is no difference between us.

Me too. I never want to be the bread winner unless absolutely necessary. it works for our marriage. I may get flamed for this but I kinda think that whole women's movement screwed it up a tad for the rest of us. some men expect women to work now and consider them lazy if they don't. Had experience with one of those men.

GeraldoRivera · October 2012

vlagrl29:

some men expect women to work now and consider them lazy if they don't. Had experience with one of those men.

Wouldn't you consider a man who didn't want to work lazy?

GeraldoRivera · October 2012

RustyBelle:
I agree with you, it shouldn't matter who wants to do those things. But I feel like women who like/want to do those things are looked down on. Women (or men) who take that role in their family should be put on a pedestal because those things are important.

I hear this a lot but I have a hard time understanding it because I've never actually met anyone who felt this way (who looked down on women who like to cook and clean).

RustyBelle · October 2012

I take the whole 1950's thing as looking down on women who like those things. Unless I am completely off base about that. That is the way I take it at least.

I get what you are saying that some women are offended when it's expected of them. But in general most women do those things. Not all, but most. So to make a general statement about what would benefit the majority of a specific group isn't condescending or offensive in my opinion.

vlagrl29 · October 2012

GeraldoRivera:
vlagrl29:

some men expect women to work now and consider them lazy if they don't. Had experience with one of those men.
Wouldn't you consider a man who didn't want to work lazy?

not if they are a SAHD. I'm specifically talking about not working to stay home and raise the kids. I guess I'm old school.

vlagrl29 · October 2012

RustyBelle:
I take the whole 1950's thing as looking down on women who like those things. Unless I am completely off base about that. That is the way I take it at least.
I get what you are saying that some women are offended when it's expected of them. But in general most women do those things. Not all, but most. So to make a general statement about what would benefit the majority of a specific group isn't condescending or offensive in my opinion.

I like to do these things to. i like taking care of the house, cooking, baking, cleaning, doing crafts with DD, taking her to her activities. I love it all

GeraldoRivera · October 2012

RustyBelle:
I take the whole 1950's thing as looking down on women who like those things. Unless I am completely off base about that. That is the way I take it at least.
I get what you are saying that some women are offended when it's expected of them. But in general most women do those things. Not all, but most. So to make a general statement about what would benefit the majority of a specific group isn't condescending or offensive in my opinion.

What's offensive and condescending about what Romney said is that his ONLY answer to the problem of equal pay and equal treatment of women in the workplace is "let's make sure women can get home early to fix dinner." As if that's the primary and sole concern of working women. As if women are fine with being paid far less than their male counterparts for doing identical work as long as they can be home in time for dinner.

It's totally dismissive of the serious issues that the question was asking about, and it shows that Romney has no idea what real, working women struggle with (especially those who are not white collar). That's why it's offensive.

ShadyPines920 · October 2012

Trying to get Romney to state his position on women issues is like trying to grab Jello.

1. He is supposedly for women's right to health care but not mammograms and cancer screenings; Romney's primary legal advisor is Robert Bork, who has proclaimed far and wide that he doesn't believe the Equal Protection Clause includes women.

2. As to his "binder full of women", the Boston-based non-partisan coalition of women?s groups MassGAP said in a statement today that it spearheaded the process and compiled a roster of female applicants for top jobs in the state in 2002, then ?presented this information to the administration for follow-up interviews and consideration for appointment.? A study by the University of Massachusetts and the Center for Women in Politics and Public Policy shows that the percentage of women in senior positions during his tenure dropped in real numbers. It went from 30% when Romney became governor to 27% when he left. It climbed back up after the new governor took over.

3. On the abortion issue, he has and will adjust his position in order to win political office. In March 2002 during his run for governor, Romney told the Lowell Sun that, "On a personal basis, I don't favor abortion. However, as governor of the commonwealth, I will protect a woman's right to choose under the laws of the country and the commonwealth. That's the same position I've had for many years." Also, during the 2002 governor's race, Romney's platform stated, "As Governor, Mitt Romney would protect the current pro-choice status quo in Massachusetts. No law would change. The choice to have an abortion is a deeply personal one. Women should be free to choose based on their own beliefs, not the government's." Romney promised to "preserve and protect a woman's right to choose" and declared "I will not change any provisions in Massachusetts' pro-choice laws". Now in order to win the Republican Right, he vows that he is pro-life.

I have more but will wait till after the next debate.....

CoffeeBeen · October 2012

vlagrl29:
RustyBelle:
I take the whole 1950's thing as looking down on women who like those things. Unless I am completely off base about that. That is the way I take it at least.
I get what you are saying that some women are offended when it's expected of them. But in general most women do those things. Not all, but most. So to make a general statement about what would benefit the majority of a specific group isn't condescending or offensive in my opinion.
I like to do these things to. i like taking care of the house, cooking, baking, cleaning, doing crafts with DD, taking her to her activities. I love it all

It's great that you do those things. But there are single, childless women who want equality and Mitt Romney's answer is that he wants women to be able to cook dinner for their families. His response should have addressed how he will get ALL women flex hours, or how he will get ALL women equal pay for equal work, or how he will help ALL women get training for the job they want, or how he will help ALL women have a shot at breaking the glass ceiling. Mitt's idea of a career woman is one that works when she's not taking care of her family. Once again, he's negating an entire portion of America that doesn't fit into his naive preconceptions.

His response was akin to this: http://www.theonion.com/articles/would-a-man-who-doesnt-support-women-let-his-wife,29966/

2nd Debate Thoughts?

Re: 2nd Debate Thoughts?

Choose Another Board

Search Boards