- This topic is empty.
-
AuthorPosts
-
April 17, 2012 at 1:46 am #602913
JoBParticipantJV proposed that I start a new topic where one of us could post an article on a subject from our side of the political aisle and the other could counter with an article on the same subject from theirs ..
and after reading both articles.. we could talk about what we saw and why we saw it differently.
i think this is a great idea so i am starting with an article by Barbara Boxer on my favorite subject.. women’s rights and the war on women.
You all know i feel very strongly about women’s rights.. and that the trivialization of the necessity of those rights is one of my pet right wing peeves…
I am guessing politico could be labeled a progressive source…
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0412/75143.html#ixzz1sFoY6gio
btw.. i like this idea so much that i would welcome any other poster to start one another with the issues of their choice…
April 17, 2012 at 2:11 am #755262
CurtissimoMemberOK I’ll bite. This whole “war on women” issue is blatant pandering to lowest common denominator of female values because the Demcratic number crunchers have determined it is the best way to win this fall, given their TOTAL FAILURE on the economic front. So while we are are pushed towards poverty women are tricked into getting excited about something that is not a real issue at all. Like taking candy from a baby.
This isn’t a great article but it gets the basic point across:
April 17, 2012 at 2:54 am #755263
JoBParticipantCurtissimo..
you are right.
it isn’t a great article
What i liked about Baraba Boxer’s article is that she not only cited specific legislation aimed at women, but gave us cumulative numbers backing up her contention that this was in fact a republican strategy.
citing labor statistics that ignore the context of the major male job loss in the period directly preceding Obama’s inauguration doesn’t exactly counter the deliberate passing of legislation detrimental to women.
Men got fired first because women were cheaper to retain.
As the economy dropped, women’s jobs dropped too.
men’s wages dropped with the expanding labor pool and businesses and consequently men are now once again a bargain..
that didn’t work out so well for anyone
but was hardly the consequence of Obama’s political decisions
At best.. they could be laid to the fear of American businesses of what Obama would do that Smitty so often refers to… and that’s a real stretch.
However, the tea party in Arizona just got a bill passed and signed that says that life now begins for a fetus before it is conceived.
You can tell that’s definately political because it isn’t very well thought out
if a woman was menopausal.. would the life of her change of life baby begin with the mother’s last period.. even if it had been six months prior?
As a republican, don’t those guys embarass you?
this kind of legislation wasn’t conceived or promoted by the Obama administration as a political ploy to pander to the women’s vote…
it was conceived and promoted by the right wing of the Republican party…
and has only recently been used by the Obama White House as a political ploy because their political pollsters recognized that women were incensed and speaking up.
The Obama White house didn’t create the bandwagon.
They jumped on the tail end after it was well down the road… hoping against hope that no-one would realize they weren’t anywhere near the reins.
We are grateful for their company..
but the war on women was conceived by some real boneheads in the Republican party
and called out by the women who will be affected by it.
April 17, 2012 at 3:27 am #755264
JoBParticipantooh ooh
gotta add this one
my cup runneth over ;->
“No modern candidate is going to announce that he — or she — supports unequal pay for equal work. But given that only five Republican senators voted for the Ledbetter law — the four female GOP members and Arlen Specter, who was soon to be an ex-Republican — it’s fair to ask Romney’s view. Pay disparities, and disputes over what, if any, legislative measures should be taken to address them, aren’t disappearing any time soon. “
four female GOP members
and Arlan Specter who was soon to be an ex-republican
there does appear to be a pattern here..
April 17, 2012 at 3:31 am #755265
dobroParticipantAs far as the two articles go, the “right” article consisted of Obama bashing, ancient Republican boilerplate that history shows they don’t abide by, and fudged numbers that distort the facts in favor of the viewpoint.
The Boxer article did present verifiable facts presented in context about the number and amount of woman-centered bills introduced by Republicans that support her thesis.
The writing of the two articles shows a great difference in quality. The usnews article reads like an attack press release while the Boxer article began with a metaphor, developed her point of view with facts and observations on specific events, and brought it together at the end with a recapitulation of her opening gambit.
If I were an English teacher she’d get an A and Sharon Day would get a C.
(Not sure if grading composition was part of the deal but its ok to make up some rules as we go along, right?)
April 17, 2012 at 3:39 am #755266
JoBParticipantdobro..
i am sure JV is searching as we speak for a much better article than that posted by Curtissimo
unless of course they are out doing something fun this evening
or something not so fun like taxes
i did post an opinion piece that i liked to soften the edges a bit…
expecting them to take on Barbara right out of the starting gate probably was taking unfair advantage ..
do we know if JV is a guy or a girl?
i only ask because i am struggling with gender neutral pronouns tonight
in fact.. i am struggling with language tonight in general.. i had to go ask hubby what words like he, she, him, her were called as a group:(
he is always surprised by the things that fly out of my head no matter how many times i ask him what should be considered a really stupid question for a well educated person.
i wish i could blame it on aging but this may be a good indication it’s time to dig out the anti-virals again:(
April 17, 2012 at 4:09 am #755267
velo_nutParticipantTroll.
April 17, 2012 at 6:13 am #755268
JanSParticipantJoB…and JV eventually. Thanks for starting this, trying to put together something that is more relevant than ” Obama bad”, “Obama evil”, “Obama the worst in history”, and on and on ad nauseum.
April 17, 2012 at 12:31 pm #755269
kootchmanMemberWell, since the “war on women” is a fabrication in itself, the title alone is a political construct.
Depressing but accepted as this the level of debate one has to stoop to. “Men got fired first because women were cheaper to retain. As the economy dropped, women’s jobs dropped too.” It is also profoundly ignorant of how business works.
When a business cuts…when taxes, credit, consumer confidence collapses, and it has an uncertain future, preservation is job one. We look not on gender. We look not on wages. We look at the assets we have in front of us. We ask, what assets must we keep and retain and whose lose would be of most consequence.
Then we cut. If I have person “A” making $25 per hour…working in the shipping ordering department.., for your sake JoN.. it’s a male. I also have a woman who makes $20 per hour in the same department.
The $25 per hour person… also has a CDL license and in a pinch can make a delivery while I pare down the total work force. Add a bit more… he has small engine repair experience and can to the proper maintenance on the forklifts. He is more versatile, can fill more slots. He also happens to be CPR certified, and has taken a few community college courses on supply chain management.. Who am I going to let go? The woman who makes $20 per hour or the man who makes $25 per hour? That’s what businesses do…. in real life. You preserve the best assets you can, not the highest or lowest costs assets. Unless you are unionized.. then you may have to let the best qualified go in favor of seniority. You keep the least motivated, more supervisory intense, job specific, most seniority. Gender had nothing to do with it.
April 17, 2012 at 12:38 pm #755270
kootchmanMemberWell, since the “war on women” is a fabrication in itself, the title alone is a political construct. It fits talking points for a “war on woman”… but for my wife who has weathered this storm and reductions in work force, and has a very substantial salary advantage over 80 per cent of her fellows… she would look upon a statement like that with as much enthusiasm as she greeted the statements of Hilary Rosen. Partisan clap trap.
Depressing but accepted as this the level of debate one has to stoop to. “Men got fired first because women were cheaper to retain. As the economy dropped, women’s jobs dropped too.” It is also profoundly ignorant of how business works.
When a business cuts…when taxes, credit, consumer confidence collapses, and it has an uncertain future, preservation is job one. We look not on gender. We look not on wages. We look at the assets we have in front of us. We ask, what assets must we keep and retain and whose loss would be of most consequence.
Then we cut. If I have person “A” making $25 per hour…working in the shipping ordering department.., for your sake JoN.. it’s a male. I also have a woman who makes $20 per hour in the same department.
The $25 per hour person… also has a CDL license and in a pinch can make a delivery while I pare down the total work force. Add a bit more… he has small engine repair experience and can to the proper maintenance on the forklifts. He is more versatile, can fill more slots. He also happens to be CPR certified, and has taken a few community college courses on supply chain management.. Who am I going to let go? The woman who makes $20 per hour or the man who makes $25 per hour? That’s what businesses do…. in real life. You preserve the best assets you can, not the highest or lowest costs assets. Unless you are unionized.. then you may have to let the best qualified go in favor of seniority. You keep the least motivated, more supervisory intense, job specific, most seniority. Gender had nothing to do with it.
I wouldn’t rely on Politico to understand that dynamic. Or this administration. Obama never had to preserve a business, or meet a payroll…. or see the value in a business that is essential to preserve. He had never had to try and maximize shareholder value to have access to interest free investor capital.
April 17, 2012 at 12:46 pm #755271
redblackParticipantObama never had to preserve a business, or meet a payroll…. or see the value in a business that is essential to preserve. He had never had to try and maximize shareholder value to have access to interest free investor capital.
none of which has anything to do with being president.
and if you’re a union employer you do not have to retain the most senior employees first.
April 17, 2012 at 12:47 pm #755272
kootchmanMemberTell me a union shop can ignore seniority… go ahead. And I said MAY have to let go….It has everything to do with being a president redblack. It’s the economy… it’s the economy…. and Obama has no clue. He has devalued the dollar, is trying to penalize risk capital, trashed the bond markets, made chaos out of the tax planning rituals,,, etc etc,,, He could have learned on the job.. as have others… but he hasn’t. Women HAVE suffered more job losses. That’s because we have a service base economy. However, it’s how you slice and dice your demographics… in the professional class, age 28 to 45… women have the decided edge… are the most employed and make more than their male counterparts. ( posted URL previously ) The War on Woman is a convenient poitical construct to divert the gaze from the record.
April 17, 2012 at 1:03 pm #755273
redblackParticipanta union shop can ignore seniority.
regarding pay and gender, can you find that link and repost it, please? it is germane to the discussion.
the economy and balancing books isn’t the only part of the job, kootch. yes, it’s important, but this is a nation of people, not widgets. more importantly, government is not a business and it shouldn’t be run like one. therefore, i think that likening the president to a CEO is a false analogy, and that being a CEO is actually an under-qualification.
so, having said that, previous presidents did far worse things to the economy and made this a nation of service employees. but every time the president talks about investing in manufacturing and actually making things in this country, you guys foam at the mouth.
what is your agenda here, regarding pay and wages? because it seems like you want to create jobs, but the jobs you talk about are all low-paying, and you might need two or three of them to raise a family.
April 17, 2012 at 1:20 pm #755274
redblackParticipantsorry for the diversion. back to the spirit of the original post and its intent:
from curtissimo’s link:
Across America, women are feeling the pain of the weak economy—in the job market and at the kitchen table. Wives are worried about shrinking wages and rising prices as they try to make ends meet. Mothers fear for their children’s futures as the national debt skyrockets and college becomes unaffordable. Businesswomen are frustrated by the regulations and economic policies that make hiring impossible. Fewer women are working, and more are living in poverty.
i emphasized those words because i think they’re keys to the republican strategy to defeat obama in november.
like most republican responses to senator boxer’s claims, ms. day offers nothing but platitudes, generalities, and fear-mongering.
even republican women in congress are warning their leadership that pretending the war on women is a fabrication is not just bad politics. it’s bad policy.
April 17, 2012 at 1:50 pm #755275
kootchmanMemberFactually, seems about right to me sir. I think you called it redblack.
April 17, 2012 at 1:56 pm #755276
kootchmanMemberIt’s way back in the War on Women version 1.0… I foam when the president thinks he can invest in manufacturing…I delight when he lets American investors and businesses are encouraged to do so.
Neither one of them will create jobs. Only private industry has the horses to pull that cart. That, Romney recognizes. The worst stat is the the tear women were on, in creating new businesses. That engine has stalled dead. The big fellahs can sorta take care of themselves… it is the death of start-ups. One thing I do remember from the post Carter melt-down… and I participated in it… start ups. Two things fueled it.. one, the confidence that it could be done, and the ease with which it was done.
April 17, 2012 at 2:16 pm #755277
JoBParticipantkootch..
regardless of whether you agree with my sense of why men were axed first.. if you look at the numbers you will find that it is factually correct that men were far more represented in the first round of job loss and women in the second.
i happen to believe it’s because they had two equally qualified candidates for the job… and one of them cost them a third less.
You did notice that in the Republican version of this scenario.. it’s wives, mothers and last but not least businesswomen worrying about regulations and economic policies that make hiring impossible…
Where are the working women in this scenario?
And.. why are the regulations and economic policies that make hiring possible making it more difficult to hire women than men?
because again.. that is a factual reality. Men are being hired at a much higher rate during our wonderful recovery than women.
And lastly.. i hear a deafening silence about all of the legislation that has been promoted and passed in these United States that restricts women’s ability to compete successfully in the workplace.
Why is that?
If you would not call this a war on women…
then what exactly would you call it?
April 17, 2012 at 2:57 pm #755278
TDeParticipantIn reading the two articles and trying very very hard to be objective, I do find the Boxer article to be more convincing because she backs her precepts with facts, figures and references, while the other only makes political statements. That being said, I don’t think the Republicans actually declared an outright war on women. That would be too obvious. I think they have taken their old world beliefs, that men should make all choices and have all power, to the legislative level and it has worked out well for them because cutting rights for women increases not only male dominance but I think more importantly for them, male economic standing. I think that these particular Republicans have felt very threatened by women having the same rights, power and economic security that men have predominately enjoyed for so many years. So old century thinking, but change is really hard for some to swallow. I honestly think this latest recession whammied this country with such a huge economic shock that it has brought out the very worst of our survival instincts. There are those among us who would step on anyone or pander to any source of wealth to get ahead and stay ahead, financially.
And yes, there are those Republican women who feel secure in the arms of the men who support them and will always align with the thinking of the men they love. It’s so easy to enjoy one’s most comfortable shoes, while not understanding how another’s shoes could possibly be so painful. If “they” would just find their own comfortable shoes, “they” wouldn’t suffer so much and “we” shouldn’t have to do anything to alleviate “their” suffering. No inclination at all to relate to another’s circumstance and no willingness to step into another’s shoes for even a short time to see how frightening survival at the more basic levels can be.
One of my favorite sayings is by James D Miles; “You can easily judge the character of a man by how he treats those who can do nothing for him.” Goes for women, too.
One more thing… I agree with Kootchman on how business should make cuts when cuts are called for. “Should” being the optimal word, because we all know that not all businesses actually operate that way. If the same company in the example had a person charged with making the layoff decisions who had always felt threatened by the female worker and if the male worker in the example had less assets to offer but had a family he was supporting while the woman was single and maybe even younger, that layoff scenario could turn out quite differently in terms of being good for the company. Businesses should preserve their best assets, but they don’t always, because businesses are run by people with biases. For every business that operates efficiently for the good of the company, there is a business out there that operates solely by the bias of the people in charge. I’ve worked for both kinds over the years.
I like this discussion! Thanks.
April 17, 2012 at 3:29 pm #755279
JoBParticipantTDe..
i agree with your assessment of the root causes of the republican backlash..
but at the end of the day.. regardless of whether they meant only to put themselves up and didn’t think about what they would do to women in the process…
it still ends up being an assault on women’s rights..
i am still hoping that someone will come up with a better article from the right wing perspective…
thank you TDe for maintaining perspective on this.
I confess.. although i look like the voice of reasonableness in comparison with some of my feminist friends,
i feel too strongly about this issue to see what i consider as an assault as only less than lofty.
April 17, 2012 at 3:41 pm #755280
TDeParticipantHmm… didn’t mean to sound that lofty. :) You call it what it actually is. Even though “war” wasn’t verbally declared, it is an attempt to roll back the rights women have gained by extreme effort over the course of many years. It is an assault.
If a bunch of guys runs over the crest of a hill and beats up a bunch of other guys who are enjoying themselves sitting on the grass on a sunny day and robs them of their right to peacefully sit on the grass, no matter what the event was labeled prior to the action, it IS an assault.
April 17, 2012 at 3:53 pm #755281
JoBParticipantTDe..
i meant characterizing Republican men as having less than lofty intentions
instead of having punitive intentions
although i often bow to the wisdom you post
i have never thought of you as lofty ;->
and yes.. an assault is an assault..
regardless of intention
April 17, 2012 at 3:57 pm #755282
TDeParticipantHa… as long as you see me clearly! :) Sometimes I read through a post too fast and miss some intent.
April 17, 2012 at 6:04 pm #755283
JVMemberJoB, I’m getting a late start because I thought you were going to post this morning, and now I’m 20 posts and 15 hours behind.
First, our intent was to clarify, not start off throwing grenades, like “War on Women” or “Why the Left Hates America”
This is obviously your big topic, but it does everybody a dis-service to lump everything you disagree with into the “war on momen” marketing campaign. Can you really believe that half of the country is against women? Even Barbara Boxer must be smart enough to know that isn’t true. She’s also smart enough to know that manipulating the “women’s rights” voters will ensure that uninformed women keep voting Democrat.
Here’s an article about the marketing/manipulation of women.
http://townhall.com/columnists/marybethhicks/2012/04/12/democrats_war_talk_says_women_are_gullible
April 17, 2012 at 6:11 pm #755284
kootchmanMember” I think that these particular Republicans have felt very threatened by women having the same rights, power and economic security that men have predominately enjoyed for so many years.”
I don’t think so. It may be morale boosting to feel we are scardy pants … but we are fathers of daughters, and husbands. In a world of rationed things.. and that is what economies are… I have every intention to make sure my daughter gets the economic security that her talents and ambition can create. I suspect, though I can’t prove it… the daughters of good republican dads are going to do fine. We do teach gender is not the determinant. Talents and ambition rule the day.
Job you are right the first rounds of layoff were men… the construction industry got hit hardest, first. It is still more populated by men. However, the deeper the recession got, the gender disparity turned. No one turned on the let’s fire women switch.
The income disparity between men and women is attributable mostly the decision on how to raise families. Women still dominant the decisions to raise the kids. That decision means some compromise… part time work, work that coincides with school schedules, .. the rate of wage disparity has been fairly consistant for over twenty years. Look at the stats though for women with no children and a college degree… there is no income disparity and employment levels are well in favor of women. Numbers are the starting point … why the numbers are what they are… that’s the analysis. Although I am deeply suspicious of government stats… this is a highly politicized environment… the Labor Secretary and every cabinet officer is now out on the campaign trail… but ..
April 17, 2012 at 6:17 pm #755285
JVMemberAs for Boxer’s article, I read the whole thing, and she points out several pieces of legislation that she claims make the case that Republicans are anti-women. All of them lead back to larger areas which require more than just a knee-jerk reaction. Areas such as abortion, federal funding of abortions, contraception, health care, role of the federal gov’t, mandates forced on religious institutions, etc. These are topics which could all be debated separately by rational people without the “war” label.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.