Seems to be is always were. But in matters of degree it really is hard to top the present collusion of government and money.Originally Posted by bae
Seems to be is always were. But in matters of degree it really is hard to top the present collusion of government and money.
Trees don't grow on money
There isn't any reason for me to think that Mrs. Romney wouldn't be an excellent champion for women's issues. Since I'm male and that apparently means my opinion in the matter is worthless I will say that DW agrees. No, Ann Romney has not lived through every scenario that any woman might face. Has anyone? She is not poor, or Catholic, or black, or a red head, or whatever. She is, by all indication, intelligent, articulate, educated, compassionate and knows how to use her connections to get things done. There might be a better candidate out there somewhere, but until that person comes to light you could do a lot worse.
On the grander stage, a lot of us DO care about women. Women are under-represented when it comes to real discussions of the economy on a national or global level. So how do we get women more involved? DW loves her circle of friends, but they also bore the **** out of her. They are mothers who don't follow issues or take a stand who have raised daughters who don't follow issues or take a stand. I can only speak to what we see, but that is a lot of women (as in a HUGE majority) who are simply not engaged in the political or economic process. How many of the hundreds and hundreds of active women members on this site take part in these political discussions on a regular basis? Ten? Less? What can we do to get women more involved here and in the world at large?
Are you getting Herman Cain's talking points memo?
Just having some fun, don't mind me
Lol. Hey, a pizza in every pot, right?
There actually is one place I think Mr. Romney might be stretching the truth. That's where he says (talking about Mrs. Romney)...
“She says that she’s going across the country and talking with women, and what they’re talking about is the debt that we’re leaving the next generation and the failure of this economy to put people back to work.”
In my experience with all our female friends only a couple have ever said anything even remotely close to that. And that circle of friends is made up mostly of educated, professional people who are simply not engaged (by choice). I just can't figure out why because most of them feel that way if you press them for an opinion. What is it that keeps so many women out of the discussion?
Check out the "Chicks on the Rights" website, it's fun. It's one of those political headline websites where you get soundbite news of the day and (sometimes) snarky commentary but Mock and Daisy are funny women involved in the politics of the day.
Here are my opinions, as a married woman with small children:
- Although I shoot off at the mouth here on a regular basis without facts/articles/links to back me up -- IRL I like to know what I am talking about if I am going to engage in a political discussion (I don't know if that is a personality trait or a gender trait)
- As the primary caregiver in my family, I have 3 people that I 'manage', 2 of them under 4 feet tall, my time is not my own (this was also true when I was a working mom) --- same could be said for the non-primary caregiver in the home that their time is not their own, but somehow my husband keeps up with his reading (WSJ, Atlantic, Sports), exercising more than I do -- that may be more a reflection on my personality more than my gender.... what time I do have I dink around here, more than I should --- but I learn things here in an interactive way which I love
- It's 24/7 being a mom (and a Dad too I'm sure, I've just never been a dad so I don't know the other side) -- -- Mom where's my socks, Mom where's the mustard
My husband and I talk Current Events constantly, I love it, I always have.
I do not like to talk current events with rabid zealots though under any circumstances because it gets me too agitated and is futile in my mind.... so especially when I am with my in-laws they may see me as apolitical, but actually I just don't like talking with them about politics.
Another possibility may be that women may be busy spending their time where they can affect real change in politics --- their PTAs, their volunteer organizations, their faith-related works....
Just because people don't want to shoot off at the mouth, doesn't make them apolitical
This is just written from the perspective of a woman with small children in the midst of Mommydom --- I do realize that this is just one small smidgen of the female experience
I don't find women born post-feminist movement and later reluctant to participate political discussion
I watched my mom bust her hump in a man's world in a backwater town, she never stepped down from a discussion of any kind
I consciously opted out of that path, but then again because of her generation I now have that --- CHOICE
I think that many women don't like to argue, it's more competitive for them, they prefer more cooperative stuff. On the way society needs to go overall, more cooperation is the right direction (between equals, cooperation with the powerful is just submission). But I like arguments, debate, and I think the politicians are more than fair game for the most viscious barbs.
Trees don't grow on money
Well for me it's just the fact that people won't do the right thing and just all agree that I'm right - always - on every issue ;-)!
I think alot of it is time contraints - especially for working mothers whio have sooo much on their plates between the job, the kids, the house, the dog, the hubby, etc... Even SAHM's are on 24/7 and have sooo much to do when they have downtime that it's hard to get "actively" involved even if they do have a strong interest. As for us single, childless, working or retired women... well, no excuses really, it's just that sometimes you have to work on specific issues near and dear to your heart and let some others go. I'm pretty involved with equal rights and opportunity (and obligation) issues for women, but they aren't the same concerns that most Moms - and maybe most women - have so I don't really get involved with talking about them. It's also hard to have a type-written conversation, I'd MUCH rather do my arguing in person. Within smacking distance :-)!
Well, I THOUGHT this WAS getting in the discussion! Here we are, several women with definite views, discussing those views, and STILL we aren't seen!
Funny you don't consider THIS as part of the discussion.
Well, FYI, take the women voices here, right and left, and consider it a cross section of the educated segment of American women. Stay at home, Work out of the Home, small business owners, some privileged and some not so privileged. Young, old, Feminist, or not. Here we are. Ask us anything!
Actually, and this is one reason most scoff at Romney citing his wife as advisor, I don't believe women across the nation are telling her of their concerns about employment, and corporate goals, or any of whatever he said she said, anymore than I believed nuclear proliferation was foremost on little 9 year old Amy Carters mind.
If she is truly an average woman, (and I mean intellectually and emotionally, not financially as it's pretty well documented she isn't that) Her concerns are family oriented as in education, health care (again, I don't see her as advisor on those either as she can afford any school her kids want, and all the health care money can buy) and the related concerns, which encompass the greater neighborhood/city/state/country. When a woman speaks of education, unless she is a dolt, it's understood to mean 'the state of' because of course what affects her family affects her community.
Where a man may discuss 'life' from a business (or sports, or guy thing) perspective, the woman discusses 'life' from a family/people perspective. They are talking about the same thing, and sort of meet in the middle somewhere overlapping, but each must recognize the other's context and metaphors to understand the conversation. Women too often are dismissed in conversation, I think, because maybe they don't talk in man-business speak (and it is a man's world, still) and their speak is actually more metaphorical and encompassing than man-speak, which tends to be self centered, or internalized, (not in a bad way, just in the 'how does it affect me' kind of way)
Rush Limbaugh and his nastiness towards that young college woman is a perfect example. He kept asserting SHE was a slut and SHE wanted to have gratuitous sex with all the birth control SHE wanted. But he didn't actually listen to her did he. (or maybe he did and he's just a nasty, mean, blowhard a**hole.) She wasn't just advocating for herself, but for her fellow students and all women really. Her language told of HER experiences, but her speak was for us all, and included us all. And then what happened to her? She was shouted down by those who keep insisting they aren't warring on women, called a slut, and worse, and found no champion on the right.
Hey, do you remember how those men on the right, those in a position of power who are listened to and respected for their word, came out in her defense, decrying Limbaugh's words and praising this woman who just wanted to join in the discussion? Naw, me neither!
Women do try to join in the discussion and let their voice be heard, but often they realize it's like trying to teach a pig to dance.
Well, I THOUGHT this WAS getting in the discussion! Here we are, several women with definite views, discussing those views, and STILL we aren't seen!
Funny you don't consider THIS as part of the discussion.
Want me to count the number of female posters who have contributed to this thread or is it just more exciting to carry on with "Rush Limbaugh blah blah blah..."?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote