- This topic is empty.
-
AuthorPosts
-
April 17, 2012 at 6:30 pm #755286
kootchmanMemberThe bullet points are a starting point. Like all of life our decisions have consequences. The biggest determinant of economic status and employment… decisions each and every family makes on how to construct child raising…. thankfully, and gratefully, with great gratitude most mothers make the choice to be the primary caregivers. Still.
http://usgovinfo.about.com/cs/censusstatistic/a/womenspay.htm
April 17, 2012 at 6:37 pm #755287
JVMemberUnemployed Women: a large part of the stimulus money was blown on “shovel ready” projects, car companies, and Solyndra type of investments.
That’s where Obama chose to put his trillion dollar stimulus chips. The car manufacturing jobs, shovel ready jobs, and Solyndra boardroom strike me as places with a low percentage of women.
Maybe he didn’t have women in mind when he was spending all of that money.
April 17, 2012 at 6:52 pm #755288
JanSParticipantand once again…it turns into Obama bashing, instead of discussion about the topic. Sigh. And snipe on…
April 17, 2012 at 7:08 pm #755289
JVMemberFrom Kootch’s dol.gov link:
women are less likely to belong to a union than are men.
Again, this is a statistic that doesn’t work out well for women when this administration starts directing the flow of money to his Big Union cronies.
April 17, 2012 at 7:16 pm #755290
JVMemberJanS, I know it’s inconvenient, but “women’s issues” are larger than just “liberal women’s issues” such as birth control and abortions.
Some actually care about employment, their children’s future debt, and the economy. Which naturally leads to the conversation about Obama’s negative impact on all of those things.
April 17, 2012 at 7:31 pm #755291
JanSParticipantoh, JV, I’m not so obtuse as to not understand that. But could we please have a discussion on the subject without every other sentence including things like “Obama’s union cronies”, or buzzwords like Solyndra (are you related to Kootch? lol) or Obama this, Obama that. Some people out here want to be convinced one way or the other what’s really right and what’s really wrong. They do not want to hear political sniping, either way. If you want to discuss what Obama’s roll…or John Boehner’s roll, congress roll, or legislation out of southern states, or Arizona as applied to the topic, then have at it…in a sensible way. Make me understand your views. Cite numbers, stats, polls, anything besides bashing.
April 17, 2012 at 7:35 pm #755292
kootchmanMemberSeemed part of a rational, on topic post. We just can’t sing his praises… the only chorus you want to hear. The issue of the thread was you can post how you see it…
:and after reading both articles.. we could talk about what we saw and why we saw it differently.” Solyndra, union cronyism, are good reference points..
JV did just that.
TDe ” Businesses should preserve their best assets, but they don’t always, because businesses are run by people with biases”
true… but bias works in favor for women too. I might very well keep a single mom over a single guy. Add compassion to good business judgement. “sisterhood” has it’s adherents too.
April 17, 2012 at 7:53 pm #755293
JVMemberJanS, would you agree that beginning this thread with the “War on Women” mantra and expecting a civil discussion was a non-starter?
This isn’t what I had envisioned (nor JoB perhaps) so in the spirit of calling a cease-fire on this issue:
http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/article/york-time-cease-fire-phony-war-women/478266
April 17, 2012 at 11:02 pm #755294
JanSParticipantno, I wouldn’t agree with that. You asked her to pick something, and then, when she did, you have a problem with it, want to set the rules, and change the rules after you left the choice up to her. Pull up your big boy pants, and get over the title.
April 17, 2012 at 11:23 pm #755295
NFiorentiniMemberAt the risk of coming across as troll or a spammer, I feel compelled to repeat something that I’ve said before (rephrased a bit differently):
The part of the GOP which is waging a war against women is being compelled by the fundamentalist Christians to whom they pander. This is less a war perpetrated by the “right” or the “Republicans” on women than a war on reason and, ultimately, freedom itself waged by the theorcrats who are the American equivalent of the Taliban. The only way that this war ends is if Christians (Catholics, evangelicals, and Mormans) become such a minority that they lose all political power.
It’s fine to try to out-vote the GOP at the polls, but it’s even more important to dissuade hearts and minds away from the silly superstition of that causes people to support government-mandated rape wands and to oppose marriage equality.
America needs to cease being a Christian nation (and it never was, despite what fundies keep telling us) and to start becoming a reasonable nation.
April 17, 2012 at 11:34 pm #755296
kootchmanMemberActually with remarkable lack of diversion.. like “Obama bashing”… there were some salient points made. Most of the stimulus money went to unionized industries, political payback for influence groups, and relatively little to the men AND women who constitute the largest populations of the unemployed, and are paying the load of taxes should feel discriminated against. They are. Why, with inflation rising, wages in stagnation, and houses still in depression, did we AGAIN pay an offbeat energy program 10 million for a Dutch lightbulb company, after closing down every domestic production line. We need to subsidize Philips for $60 lightbulbs that won’t be produced here? THEN… to offset the cost, we have to borrow 40 cents from China to pay the proposed offsets for the green energy. How many women worked at that GE lightbulb plant that made 19 cent lightbulbs? Surely economic security has to be a “right”.. right? One Philips lightbulb or 300 GE lightbulbs? Is economic security a right for women? Guess not. Maybe that’s why Gallup polls, notoriously favorable to Democrats has moved Romney 5 points ahead of Obama. Maybe the war on woman is being interpreted differently now?
April 17, 2012 at 11:41 pm #755297
JVMemberJan, weren’t you the one who expected us to discuss the republican “war on women”, but whined when we pointed out Obama’s failures in this arena?
Regardless of the title, I can play on any field you want, nasty or nice. This field was nasty from the beginning so that’s where the game was played. I’m not going to bring a knife to a gun fight.
I was just saying that framing the topic differently probably would have led to more civil discussions about the same issues. For example, “Energy Policy” would be a great discussion topic, whereas “Obama’s Green Energy Failures” is designed to pick a fight. See the difference?
April 18, 2012 at 12:07 am #755298
JanSParticipantHere’s my take as a woman. I see it as an assault on what women have gained in the last 50-60 years, so , yes, a war on women. It’s a catchy phrase, and Repubs have no problem using it, or things like “Class Warfare”. As a conservative MAN, you don’t see it as a war. Say that. And then tell us why. Give examples, cite links. You are intelligent. Get over the title, and get to the substance. Is that really difficult?
Or start over from the beginning. Tell someone they can choose the topic, and then tell them what words they cannot use.
Mr. Obama did not cause every evil thing in the world. He is not evil personified. And, many of us see that it’s Repubs, Tea Party states, and not the sitting president that is causing many women, both Dem and Repub to be unhappy with the way things are going.
Back to the topic at hand…I’m not going to nit pick this with you anymore. You don’t like the topic so you’re not gonna play now. You started this, guess you can end it.
See ya..I gotta go get tethered to a machine until late tonight…sigh.
April 18, 2012 at 1:39 am #755299
kootchmanMemberHe did not cause every evil. But he is the root cause of many extraordinary mistakes. This “war on women” is when he crossed over from politician to master of the grand gimmick. The TEA Party is the well spring from which he was told no… no more. That wasn’t one or two dogmatic conservatives, that was a national movement that achieved one of the most stunning reversal of political fortunes seen the this century. Milllions upon millions of your fellow citizens voted to stop him dead in his tracks. That’s all we could do in one two year election cycle. We will finish the job in November and restore this country to one of aspiration. Stalemate is better than further retreat and more damage. Cite links to a war that doesn’t exist? It’s a democratic fabrication. A political ploy. I can’t cite what doesn’t exist. Certainly the conservatives never made such a declaration. Obama thought it was a winning strategy, declare a war, where there is no real enemy and then claim victory. Reminds me of the 60’s slogan…. “suppose they gave a war and no one showed up”. No one did.
April 18, 2012 at 2:39 am #755300
DBPMember>>As a conservative MAN, you don’t see it as a war.
—OK, well I’m an independent-left man, Jan and I don’t see it as a war on women either.
What Muslim exremists do . . . now THAT’s a war on women. Those folks literally KILL women for showing their faces in public, for trying to get an education, or sometimes just for . . . well . . . being women.
So if you call what some American conservatives are advocating a “war on women,” then what expressions will you have left that can do justice to what Muslim extremists do to women?
But take heart, there’s another way to get where you want to go. As an editor, I know there’s always a different (and often better) way to say something. My whole job is helping people smooth and polish language so that it conveys a clear, strong message while leaving as little room for misinterpretation as possible.
So what about this: “war on women’s rights”?
Sure, kootch & co probably won’t cotton to that either, but at least it’s a step forward. And I think it still conveys the idea pretty clearly.
From there, you could probably focus it even further, to “war on reproductive freedoms” — that is, if you simply must use the word “war.” (Must you?)
Or, if you’re talking specifically about women’s income slipping, relative to mens, then how about: “impoverishment of women”?
The object here is to conduct the argument using language that leaves an opening for people to enter into the debate without feeling like they’re on trial for something.
But this expression “war on women” makes that hard, ‘cuz it’s really polarizing.
Ditto for “racist,” “sexist,” and “socialist.”
And um . . . oh yeah . . .
“Messiah.”
Â
      Â
Â
April 18, 2012 at 2:51 am #755301
sydneyMemberdbp that’s like saying my spouse isn’t abusive because he only yells at me all the time
April 18, 2012 at 3:07 am #755302
JoBParticipantJV..
wow.. just wow..
you read Barabra Boxer’s article and all you did was object to the title
and dismiss the legislation she cited as not really a women’s issue ?
then your links
wow.. just wow
At what point do you admit that family planning is an economic issue for women
as is wage equality?
not germane?
i don’t think so.
And please explain to me why not renewing the violence against women act is a good thing for women?
I purposefully chose a fact filled article on the issue of the erosion of women’s rights to generate reasonable discussion.
you object to the terminology
but you seem to have a difficult time countering the arguments it is based on.
You may find the term War on Women offensive
I find the legislation it is based on offensive
April 18, 2012 at 4:34 am #755303
WorldCitizenParticipantApril 18, 2012 at 6:14 am #755304
JVMemberJoB I don’t find the term offensive. (“offensive” is reserved almost exclusively for people without a coherent argument or a spine)
I find it stupid, hyperbolic, dishonest, and counter productive, but not offensive.
As DBP said, let’s reserve that for when we are talking about killing girls for going to school in Afghanistan, or aborting millions of babies in China every year just for being female. (YES MILLIONS!!) Both of those are legitimate examples of wars on women. Now, I’m sorry, you were saying something about wage inequality?
Boxer didn’t mention those real wars on women because women do not concern her, politics do. Plus that would make you think logically, not emotionally. And she doesn’t want that, she wants emotionally-charged women to get all huffy and race out and vote for her, lest some woman-hating republican force them to pay for their own $9-per-month birth control. Gasp!!
April 18, 2012 at 6:18 am #755305
dobroParticipantWow, who could have predicted that the discussion would be about the title and Barack Obama and B Boxer’s ignorance of the REAL wars on women rather than any information presented in the specific articles that were ostensibly to be discussed?
PS Isn’t it curious how men get to define “women’s issues” and decide what subjects are acceptable in a game that we’re making up as we go along? Funny, innit?
April 18, 2012 at 6:49 am #755306
JanSParticipantbut, boy, JV is good with the zings like”Plus that would make you think logically, not emotionally. ” I find that offensive – so there. But you know us poor women…we get all emotional, men are the logical ones. JV…you still haven’t really gotten into the discussion. And leave Obama out. Make it logical, make it make sense. Tell us how your wife feels. Tell us how your female friends feel about it.
Or don’t. It’s totally up to you. JoB wins this round. You just want to dump on Obama, and that sucks. Oh, and that 9 buck a month BC quip? Shows where you are really at. It doesn’t add to the conversation one iota.
Take you seriously? SERIOUSLY?
April 18, 2012 at 7:22 am #755307
JVMemberJan, I’m happy to discuss those things when that is the topic. But the topic is the War on Women, and I’m still waiting on you to give me your thoughts on the real wars that women face all over the world. Where’s the outrage?
You don’t seem that concerned about girls getting killed for going to school, or the abortions of millions of girls in China. (maybe I didn’t mention those things in my previous post…I’m sure you wouldn’t just choose to ignore such large scale casualties in the war on women)
But you jumped all over that $9 birth control comment…that’s what really pisses you off!
So do you really care about women’s rights, or do you care about using women’s issues for political advantage?
April 18, 2012 at 8:44 am #755308
JanSParticipantno, no..I asked you first – lol…deflecting again, are you? I was interested in what you might have had to say. You decided this would be between you and JoB, it would be civil, perhaps enlightening. I wanted to learn more of what you really, really had to say…but you chose the easy way, simply bashing Obama.
Please don’t hand me rhetoric about…that’s what really pissed you off. I’m not pissed off. I think that 9 buck BC is more rhetoric. We all know the prices vary, it’s not one size fits all…but what would a man know about that? Ask the females in your life if you have to. That is simply right wing talking points all over again, my friend.
And we aren’t talking worldwide, I didn’t think. You have no effing way about how I feel about what happens to women in third world countries. Here’s a thought…pick up a book called Half The Sky by Nicholas Kristoff and his wife Cheryl Wu Dunn…it’s enlightening.
Now…back to the original OP…and that fact that we were talking aobut things in the good ol’ US of A…You’re deflecting again, and I’m betting it’s because you don’t have a solid argument in rebuttal. Prove me wrong. And see if you can do it without repeating “Obama did it” over and over again. Waiting with baited breath, bucko…this was your idea. Have at it.
April 18, 2012 at 12:47 pm #755309
redblackParticipantApril 18, 2012 at 2:46 pm #755310
JoBParticipantJV
“Boxer didn’t mention those real wars on women because women do not concern her, politics do.”
This is exactly what is wrong with most of the arguments i see coming from the right.
They are full of unsubstantiated assertions.
If you actually spend even a small amount of time learning about Barbara Boxer you would know that isn’t true..
all i had to do was go to wiki to retrieve this gem…
“In 1991, during the Anita Hill Senate hearings, where Hill accused U.S. Supreme Court nominee Clarence Thomas of sexual harassment, Boxer led a group of women House members to the Senate Judiciary Committee – demanding that the all-white, all-male Committee of Senators take Hill’s charges seriously”
and that was in 1991 before the words War on Women ever appeared in political print..
if it wasn’t for the fact that she is a democrat her personal profile reads as the perfect profile for a republican politician. She started life as a stockbroker for pete’s sake.
do you even know what committees she chairs.. or what she does with them?
that also predated what you are calling a political construct… the war on women
she is now hip deep in trying to fight the legislation that is being promoted by the Republican party that makes it more difficult for women to compete in the workplace.
Yup, there is the Women’s Rights Campaign…
made possible by the tidal wave of that same legislation.
We could go on to discuss her long term commitment to women’s health ….
but you get the idea.
i don’t buy the argument that as long as women in the United States aren’t being treated as badly as those in Afghanistan..
there is nothing for them to fight about…
if we don’t stand up for ourselves here
we could easily be treated as badly as those in Afghanistan.
what do you think the Violence against Women Act that the Republicans are refusing to renew is all about?
you say ..
it’s just women’s healthcare funding
and access to contraceptives
and access to safe legal abortions
and personal safety ..
and…
i say those are all critical economic issues for women.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.