Eagle Forum Legislative Alerts

Thursday, October 18, 2012

Feminists ticked off at Romney

Liberals and feminists are ticked off by Mitt Romney's debate comments about women:
Still, Pamela Greaves of Vacaville and other women in the mostly liberal [San Francisco California] Bay Area said they were ticked off at Romney's remark during the debate that he let a female employee get off work at 5 p.m. to get home and cook dinner for her family.

Romney's "whole stance on women just doesn't seem like it comes from this century," said Greaves, 55, an IT worker who supports Obama.

Romney "didn't say anything about equal pay for equal work,'' she said. "What he was talking about was getting a job; that's not the point. Lots of women work; lots of women have careers."
So what did he say that was so condescending and misogynistic: The leftist DailyKos explains:
During Tuesday's debate, Romney was asked about equal pay. But he never answered the question. Instead, in what has become typical Romney fashion, he explained what women really care about, because he's such an expert:
I recognize that if you’re going to have women in the workforce that sometimes they need to be more flexible. My chief of staff, for instance, had two kids that were still in school. She said, I can’t be here until 7:00 p.m. or 8:00 p.m. at night; I need to be able to get home at 5:00 p.m. so I can be there for making dinner for my kids and being with them when they get home from school. So we said, fine, let’s have a flexible schedule so you can have hours that work for you.
That's right, Romney talked about getting more jobs, growing the economy, searching for qualified women, and accommodating the family needs of female workers. He pointedly ignored Barack Obama's answer to the question, which was to brag about enabling back pay lawsuits for alleged discrimination that may have happened 20 years earlier.

This election is the pro-family businmessman versus the pro-feminist anti-marriage egalitarian lawyer. Romney would rather increase economic prosperity and then make deals that make everyone happy. Obama would rather concentrate on going into court and asking some judge to take money away from someone else.

I am not a woman, and I don't know how women voters are going to react to this. You tell me. Do you want a job where you are appreciated for what you do? Are you insulted that an employer might want to accommodate a wife with family responsibilities? The DailyKos complains:
Plenty of fathers would love to be home at night to care for their children. ... And not every woman in the workforce wants or needs flexibility so she can rush home to cook dinner.
I guess that they are offended at any talk of treating men and women differently. We do have equal pay laws, and I am sure that a Romney administration would enforce them. But I doubt that he will be bragging that the first bill he signs into law is an anti-business bill to sue employer for 20-year-old grievances.

Update: I just tuned into MSNBC TV, and Chris Matthews led off his program complaining that Romney is anti-woman for all of the above reasons.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Keep comments short. Long comments will be deleted.