Politics & Current Events
Dear Community,
Our tech team has launched updates to The Nest today. As a result of these updates, members of the Nest Community will need to change their password in order to continue participating in the community. In addition, The Nest community member's avatars will be replaced with generic default avatars. If you wish to revert to your original avatar, you will need to re-upload it via The Nest.
If you have questions about this, please email help@theknot.com.
Thank you.
Note: This only affects The Nest's community members and will not affect members on The Bump or The Knot.
Our tech team has launched updates to The Nest today. As a result of these updates, members of the Nest Community will need to change their password in order to continue participating in the community. In addition, The Nest community member's avatars will be replaced with generic default avatars. If you wish to revert to your original avatar, you will need to re-upload it via The Nest.
If you have questions about this, please email help@theknot.com.
Thank you.
Note: This only affects The Nest's community members and will not affect members on The Bump or The Knot.
Re: Who doesn't value womens' right to choose their own life path?
Yes, because Rush is equal in fame and notoriety to Rosen.
People are running away from the statement because of the first part where she says that Ann Romney's never worked a day in her life. It devalues the work done by stay at home parents. If she had said 'she's never held a job outside of the home' that would be different. It would have been better if she had just left off the part about not working - the part about not dealing with the economic realities that most do is a strong enough statement on its own, IMO.
I can't even dignify Pamela's stupid statement either. Generalizations are stupid. One person does not make for a good mouthpiece, especially when they make asinine comments.
I feel as if I need a list of shiitstirrers here so I can avoid all posts begun by them.
Zeus and Bubba
It's not just that, though. And, to be entirely honest, I was kind of waiting for this comment (though not necessarily from you, Tef).
I don't think you see posters here getting upset when an rep of the Rs makes a terrible statement. They get upset when an rep of the Rs makes a terrible statement, and the rest of the Rs don't condemn it.
Which didn't happen here. A D party rep made an asshat-ish statement, and almost immediately other Ds came out to condemn it.
I think I, personally, would be more willing to differentiate the idiotic statements of, for example, Rush from the broader R party if when he says fvcked up things, the party immediately condemned them. And, honestly, I don't see that happening nearly as often as I would hope.
Actually, i'd love to see more of that from both parties.
"You don't get to be all puke-face about your kid shooting your undead baby daddy when all you had to do was KEEP HIM IN THE FLUCKING HOUSE, LORI!" - doctorwho
I think there is some truth to the viewpoint of "if you don't understand something, it's going to be hard to fix it."
If you've only ever been at Bain Capital, perhaps you really do think that it's all about tax breaks for businesses. A struggling person in the middle class trying to stay there probably knows best what would help him/her the most and corporate tax breaks probably is not it.
It's just like with many of the international development NGOs out there. Lots of them want to go ahead and determine what is best for poor people in X country instead of asking those people what they need most and what would be most helpful. They want to impose a solution without understanding the problem.
You need to understand someone's situation before you can fix it. And yes, most politicians do not fall into this category. Which is probably why there have been so many failed policies and money thrown at the wrong thing from both sides.
I'm not saying you need to live it to understand it... but you do need to get some sort of understanding. Mittens just makes a lot of comments that make him seem like he doesn't really get it. I don't know whether or not that means he does, but that's part of what gets people all riled up.
It's not, so there's your fallacy.
40/112
Exactly. The statement as it stands perpetuates the myth that a SAHM is some sort of bon bon eating brain drain - how could she have any clue about the economy and needing a job? SHE DOESN'T WORK. Not, her husband is unbelievably wealthy and she's never struggled a day in her life.
The idea that someone who has never worked a day in their life (aka SAHM) doesn't know what "most women" struggle with is absurd. Just because I am SAH doesn't mean I don't worry about the economy - in fact, I worry about it because I am not dependent upon myself and my job, but because I am dependent upon someone else and THEIR job security. If MH loses his job tomorrow, we have no money coming in at all - why wouldn't I be concerned about the state of the economy? It's an asinine statement, and just perpetuates the myth that SAHMs are useless outside of the home and spend their days obsessed with kids and housecleaning.
Personally, I also don't think that b/c Ann Romney is well off and has never struggled means she doesn't understand that the economy is an important issue for women this election (hell, it's important for everyone, man or woman - I'd be concerned if she didn't know that). I don't think being wealthy automatically makes you stupid or ignorant to the issues facing the rest of the country. Does Romney appear to have some sort of communication issue at times? I guess, but I don't really think this particular situation is a good example of him sounding that out of touch. I would hope most people know that the economy is an important topic, regardless of whether they have lived paycheck to paycheck or struggled at some point.
Zeus and Bubba
DD #1 passed away in January 2011 at 14 days old due to congenital heart disease
DD#2 lost in January 2012 at 23 weeks due to anhydramnios caused by a placental abruption
Clap clap clap. I would absolutely consider voting for someone who said this.
This comment struck me. It's hard to argue with your overall logic here. But to the bolded part -- I'm not sure that's true. A working, middle-class person feels their own economic struggles intensely and understandably their priorities are shaped by them. But every person doesn't necessarily think about solutions to their own problems in context with all the hairy macro-economic realities, and the ripple effects every regulatory or tax-related decision makes across the economy. Which is why I don't want the job of president, solving this economic situation in the face of passionate opposing theories of what will work is incredibly daunting. And I think all sides want the same outcome -- a robust middle-class and a society that affords plenty of opportunity. It's how to get there where they begin to disagree, and I *assume* that Mitt believes a business-friendly environment will ultimately help that struggling middle-class family by protecting an employers ability to sustain and add jobs -- which will be filled by the heads of those households.
And I don't think you're wrong if you disagree with this, I'm just saying that a likely Romney voter might feel it's knowledge of the greater economic dynamics that will be key to the way forward, not personal experience with the economic struggle. Ideally, a candidate could have both. But I'm not holding my breath.
Zeus and Bubba
Yes, that would be a breath of fresh air.
Zeus and Bubba
I can't even imagine being this ungrateful and tragically ignorant.
DING DING DING
Stop the presses. Hold the phone. WE HAVE A WINNER!
Thank you!
I agree with you, and I know it's not that simple. A business-friendly environment is good for everyone, I'm sure, and I do think that is a priority for Romney.
But tax breaks are just a part of that (I focus on that because many Rs act as if that will solve everything). Just because you give a company a tax break, it doesn't mean they will pass along those savings to employees by increasing salaries. Nor will they go out and hire new workers, all other things being equal (eg, prices and demand for their product). If your business is a hedge fund, that is just extra money to the owners (although perhaps then the bonuses given to bankers ARE bigger that year, as they are based on profit. This is not really the struggling middle class though). However, I don't think a tax break will lead to them hiring more fund managers, or if that is a good thing - people whose jobs are dependent upon lower tax rates and nothing else. But there are other policies that lead to business-friendly environment: streamlined bureaucracy, small business help, established legal system, etc. Not everyone can pay for lawyers to help them navigate all of that.
Like you said, everyone will focus on their struggles and that will be their priority- which is why an investment manager who makes most of his money on cap gains will care disproportionately about that tax, even if it's not necessarily a big driver of growth. Someone in the middle class may want tuition credit for their kids, even though it's not helping the economy overall, too. I get that this goes both ways.
I don't think Romney is unqualified to be President due to his lack of understanding of the middle class struggle. I wouldn't say that is the most important thing. But I do understand why people wouldn't want to vote for him considering the disconnect they feel when he makes comments that show just how little he knows about their lives. Especially when he is often talking about knowing how they feel and wanting to help them. I can see a sense of "how can he fix this if he has no idea what is really happening?" Maybe that's not fair; but it's completely understandable.
Come on, all. This is PAMELA. The one who pointed out the only reason there are Dems/Libs in this world is because while growing up, our parents didn't tell us "Life's Not Fair!"
Call me Kat =^..^=
Actually, I get it. I was an engineering student my 1st couple years at college, and in my first women's studies class I hesitated to identify as feminist the first day.
It was b/c I had broken down those barriers. I was in a school that was about 20%, looking at a future lucrative career. My dad always supported those goals. I saw no evidence that women needed feminism.
That lasted all of 3 seconds before I realized that my case was exactly the proof of my own feminism and the need for it. If I was so proud of being the unique case, doesn't that show inequality? I also realized that what I'd been taught was feminism was Rush's version, and that I actually had always been a feminist.
It did take some education, though, to grasp systemic issues beyond my own circumstance. So, no, I'm not at all surprised by the irony.
It was definitely a stupid comment from a political viewpoint. It just deflected the focus to Ann Romney and, no doubt, a made up "war on stay at home moms". No matter how you look at it, it was a rather petty, silly political attack - but that doesn't make it untrue, just unwise. It's true that "Ann Romney has never dealt with the kind of economic issues that a majority of the women in this country are facing."
But it's also kind of irrelevent whether she has or hasn't. Ann Romney isn't running for president, so Rosen's comments are a bit unseemly.
As I think about it I also think it's a little pie in the sky to say that feminism is about the right to have choices. Most women have no choice; they have to work, just like most men. I'm still waiting for the magic feminist fairy to wave her wand and tell me I can just stay home and I don't have to work! The average woman is doing what Ann Romney does, and working 40 hours outside the house, and still has much less money in her purse.
Plenty of feminists, and plenty of anti-feminists have no choice but to work. I sn't it depressing that after all these years, it's a very old fashioned notion that gives us 'choice': Marry a rich man.
Off topic but couldn't resist responding to the bolded.
DH and I are FAAAAR from rich.
However, as a couple prior to marriage we decided that me being a SAHM (at least until the kids are in school, possibly longer) was a priority so we structured our lives accordingly.
We bought a smaller house that we could easily afford on DH's salary, we still drive the cars we've had since getting out of college so no car payments, we have no data or texting on our phones, I coupon, etc.
Being a SAHM is a choice and that choice is influenced by financial factors but many families find a way to make it work that are not rich. namely all the moms in my Mom's Group. None of us are rich by any stretch and most of us have to work at it to afford to stay home (couponing, consignment sale shopping, etc.)
And I know that I get definite judgment from certain people about being a SAHM, and there is a general feeling that some people think I don't do anything but sit and watch soaps and eat bon bons.
My SAHM friends feel it too. So yes many SAHMs feel like there is a "war" on our choice to be at home and are a little sensitive when people imply that what we do doesn't have value.
This is off topic and perhaps this is flammable, but I think more people would have that choice if they were willing to have a lower standard of living, which many aren't. Probably not the majority of women, but a fair number could. I'd be in that middle road. Of course more money would be nice, but we could live decently off only my husband's income. It would cost us, though in terms of vacation, clothing, eating out, obviously we would have a noticably smaller amount of disposable income. Still a pretty good life, though.
The pie in the sky part is having the choice to stay home AND all that money in her purse. That indeed is for very few people.
I grew up wih a mom who broke barriers in a male dominated field. She also was the first class of women at a major university. Her whole life has been about breaking barriers as a female. So I few up with that perspective. It took me a long time to realize its more thn that. So I get it, too. Although I'm not as feminist as many on here, I do get that it's bigger than I thought.
On another not,e I don't think Romney stands a chance at saying the right thing. Because of his wealth, people are either going to think he is being insinsere if he tries to go one way, and that he can't relate if he goes the other. He is screwed either way on these sorts of issues.
Eh, maybe he can't say the perfect thing, but he could do a lot better than what he's been doing. Someone suggested the "I'm lucky that I haven't had that struggle and I want to work hard for an America where more people have an opportunity to improve their situation so that perhpas their kids won't have these struggles." That was paraphrased, and not as good as the original, but you see my point.
Agreed. Honestly, I think it's going to come down to.....do you want Obama in office again, or don't you? Not, gee do you think Romney is so out of touch or don't you?