The New York Times knows what women want.
In a laughably absurd editorial, the New York Times, along with all the government owned media, is desperate to derail the Mitt train and they are willing to throw their credibility on the tracks, again, if that might help.
 |
| MittGinley? |
This editorial is a desperate attempt to drive a wedge between Mitt Romney and women by manufacturing a gaffe where none exists. They try to paint Mitt Romney as relic of the 50's and a former cast member of Happy Days (Has anyone ever seen Mitt and Ted McGinley in the same room? Just sayin'.)
They suggest that women should be upset because Romney said "binders of women" instead of "binders of women's resumes." But that is not it. Women should be outraged because Mitt suggested that women need flexibility with their schedules at work so the can be home with the kids and make dinner. The horror!! This prompted this amazing section of the editorial.
At this point we could practically hear his political consultants yelling “Stop!”
But Mr. Romney did not. “She said, I can’t be here until 7 or 8 o’clock at night. I need to be able to get home at 5 o’clock so I can be there for making dinner for my kids and being with them when they get home from school.”
Flexibility is a good policy. But what if a woman had wanted to go home to study Spanish? Or rebuild an old car? Or spend time with her lesbian partner? Would Mr. Romney have been flexible about that? Or if a man wanted similar treatment?
True equality is not satisfied by allowing the little lady to go home early and tend to her children.
Yes!! The NYTimes nails it. That is what real women want. They don't want to be with their children and make dinner. They want to come home to their lesbian lover working on an old V6 engine in the kitchenette and say "Hola mi amante lesbiana. ¿Quieres un vaso de Zinfandel blanco?"
This absurd little scene says more about the demented editorial staff than it does about Mitt Romney. Beyond the absurdity of it, look at how they view motherhood. They scoff at the idea that women want to be with their children, that motherhood is just another hobby choice like restoring an engine or learning Spanish.
They say "True equality is not satisfied by allowing the little lady to go home early and tend to her children." No true equality is served by aborting your children so you can work 70 hrs a week.
Oh by the way. CNN had that little tracker thingy going on during the debate and women loved when Romney talked about work flexibility. I guess they are not real women.
Comments
Post a Comment
Silly editorial, but what else might you expect from the NY Times?
At least the editorial acknowledged the fact that some contraceptives act as abortifacients.I guess that’s something to their credit.Might be better if they cared, though.
I don’t understand how the Dems can claim to speak for women while shouting down and throwing themselves in front of everything women actually say. We women are aware that if anything we already have more opportunities than men have. Yet we’re more unhappy than ever, because we live in a society that treats our womanhood itself as something to be cured. Mothers today miss their children. why can’t the left, with its talk of feelings and women and the importance of The Children, honor that feeling?
Wrote about what the mandate-happy government should provide for if they considered what women really want in my blog just today: proverbialgirlfriend.wordpress.com. What I still fail to understand is why so many people expect women who want to have children and raise them are expected to carry the lion’s share of the burden for doing so (and not complain), but society is supposed to cough up for strangers to have free contraception in the form of either higher taxes or insurance premiums (and the recipients get to complain as loud as they want if they fear it is being taken away from them entirely if it’s not free anymore).
I hadn’t really heard about this before, but judging from the quote above, Romney was quoting a woman. Correct me if I’m wrong about that. Anyway, if I’m right, I guess she isn’t a real woman, either. I mean, real women don’t want to spend time with their families or cooking dinner for their children.
Good heavens… can’t these people just accept that most married women with jobs would probably love to spend more time with their families? Why is recognizing this fact sexist?
Maggie D. :
can’t these people just accept that most married women with jobs would probably love to spend more time with their families? Why is recognizing this fact sexist?”
************************
They’d only consider it non-sexist if it was about men wanting to spend more time with their families. In that case, it would be enlightened thinking on the men’s part.
I am a working mother. I am conservative. I would love flexibility in my hours. And I would use it to spend time with my family. But I think men should be offered the same flexibility. And I don’t think employers should be forced to offer it.
They never seem to notice that the most sexist thing is conditioning women to believe that they’re valuable in the workplace insofar as they can make themselves like a man. Sorry folks, that’s not equality.
What a missed opportunity on Romney’s part. He could’ve had the Hispanic lesbian auto mechanic vote all locked up.
It helps women a lot when the fathers of their children have flexibility in the workplace so they can share activities like taking care of a sick child, taking a child to appointments, picking up a child at day care, etc. It’s obvious that both members of a working couple benefit when they can balance their work and family life this way. Romney’s emphasis on women’s need for flexibility, implying that men do not need it, makes him look outdated and out of touch with the real problems of today’s young families.
I love this article.
cowalker, I hope you’re also asking HHS why it isn’t ponying up money for men to have condoms.
So, Romney says that women need jobs and workplace flexibility, while Obama says that women need equal pay laws, contraception, and abortion.
But let’s look at each candidate’s reaction to “women’s issues”.
Romney - There are plenty of talented women out there, but it takes effort for employers to find them (binders full of women) and keep them (flexible schedules).
Obama - Women’s problems are caused by their ladyparts. So women’s equality means making ladyparts no longer an issue in the workplace.
Remind me who is waging a “War on Women” again?
(Interestingly, my captcha was “forward85”)
Posted by enness on Friday, Oct 19, 2012 11:44 PM (EST):
“cowalker, I hope you’re also asking HHS why it isn’t ponying up money for men to have condoms.”
I kind of assumed it was because you don’t have to pay for an examination by a doctor and lab tests before you can buy condoms. Also you don’t have to go back for an annual exam by a doctor before you can get a prescription for the next 12 month supply of condoms, nor do you need a pharmacist to fill a prescription for condoms. In other words, condoms are over the counter, like ibuprofen, bandaids and tampons—between you and the check-out clerk at the drugstore, or maybe even just between you and the self-checkout machine at the megamart. You may have noticed that women are not asking for health insurance to pay for Midol.
However I think it is entirely appropriate that men demand health care coverage for vasectomies, which I believe is also part of the HHS mandate.
The problem isn’t even that women want “equal rights” anymore, as a female, I can say I don’t feel any less equal to any man I know. The problem is that women want to BE men. That’s why our society is on it’s head. There are gender roles, and instead of fulfilling the “roles” we were created for, we’re trying to become something we’re not.
The question asked was about equal-pay for equal-work and its relationship to the Ledbetter Act which eliminated an grossly lopsided 180 DAY statute of limitation on compensation discrimination cases. Romney did not know anything about it, or did not want to affirm support for this obvious remedy to an unfair law. He still has not answered the question.
Posted by cowalker on Friday, Oct 19, 2012 4:27 PM (EST):
It helps women a lot when the fathers of their children have flexibility in the workplace so they can share activities like taking care of a sick child, taking a child to appointments, picking up a child at day care, etc. It’s obvious that both members of a working couple benefit when they can balance their work and family life this way. Romney’s emphasis on women’s need for flexibility, implying that men do not need it, makes him look outdated and out of touch with the real problems of today’s young families.
______________________________________
Spoken like a true liberal conformist.
As usual, the commentary’s devolved into a discussion on contraceptives & sterilization rather than women actually want/need to benefit their families.
Posted by anon on Monday, Oct 22, 2012 8:46 AM (EST):
“Posted by cowalker on Friday, Oct 19, 2012 4:27 PM (EST):
“‘It helps women a lot when the fathers of their children have flexibility in the workplace . . . . Romney’s emphasis on women’s need for flexibility, implying that men do not need it, makes him look outdated and out of touch with the real problems of today’s young families.’
______________________________________
“Spoken like a true liberal conformist.”
No, spoken like a sixty-year-old who raised two kids in a marriage (and yes, still happily married) where both partners worked in jobs where we had some flexibility. It was great. We had each other’s backs in the job market and at home. So we both enjoyed opportunities to share school activities and crises with our kids, while riding out the ups and downs of the American economy with more peace of mind than the household with one bread-winner can experience. My comments are solidly based in personal experience in an egalitarian marriage. I don’t think Romney has had this experience.
cowalker :
My comments are solidly based in personal experience in an egalitarian marriage. I don’t think Romney has had this experience.”
******************************
I guess it’s how one defines egalitarian.I know there are political/cultural models out there that might differ from Mr. Romney’s
experience, but I like the definition of egalitarian:” equality that reflects natural law.”
Posted by Kathleen on Monday, Oct 22, 2012 3:12 PM (EST):
“. . . I like the definition of egalitarian: ‘equality that reflects natural law.’”
It’s pretty clear that most Americans aren’t necessarily in agreement that there is a “natural law,” and even those who are certainly don’t agree on what it is. There is no consensus among Americans that “natural law” requires that they live in a household with one bread-winner. Most can’t afford it. This one of the realities that Romney hasn’t experienced. And it shows.
No, spoken like a sixty-year-old who raised two kids in a marriage (and yes, still happily married) where both partners worked in jobs where we had some flexibility. It was great. We had each other’s backs in the job market and at home. So we both enjoyed opportunities to share school activities and crises with our kids, while riding out the ups and downs of the American economy with more peace of mind than the household with one bread-winner can experience. My comments are solidly based in personal experience in an egalitarian marriage. I don’t think Romney has had this experience.
_______________________________________________________________
No, your comments are based on a prejudiced view of Romney. He is not excluding a father’s role as you impute here. He simply observed that women benefit from more flexibility. Children need moms. I know it is counter to the standard political correctness but his point is true.
cowalker ,
I disagree.My opinion of current popular culture is poor, but I haven’t given up on the basic decency,goodness, & wisdom of America.Even if some of us can’t put into words the definition of Natural Law, I believe it’s instrinsic to our society & what our Constitution & Declaration of Independence are founded on.It doesn’t depend on a poll or survey asking whether one agrees or disagrees.
I personally think Mr Romney is a very decent man & it’s my hope & prayer that he wins this election.
Post a Comment
By submitting this form, you give The National Catholic Register permission to publish this comment. Comments will be published at our discretion, and may be edited for clarity and length. For best formatting, please limit your response to one paragraph and don't hit "enter" to force line breaks.
The time period for commenting on this article has expired.