JFLNYC wrote:

JUburton wrote:

RichmondPhilsFan wrote:

JUburton wrote:It was a pretty innocuous statement. If you can't generalize that women want to take care of their children then you can't really generalize anything. He wasn't saying every woman needs their hand held and special exemptions to help with their household 'duties'. He was saying that he worked with them so they could accomplish their professional goals and still be home for their family. It's a bit patronizing but there are so many more things to vilify the guy for that I don't see how this is really an issue.

My wife thought it was more than a bit patronizing. But hey, she's just a working mother.

I don't think he wasn't referring to ALL women or implying that he was. He meant well but it came off kind of weird and didn't address the question.

So if some employer said he "worked with" a Black, allowing him to come to work late because he had to stop to get the freshest watermelon, it would be OK because he was speaking of Blacks generally, but not ALL Blacks?

jerseyhoya wrote:the woman whining about the horseshit 'fact' of women making 72% of men

JUburton wrote:

RichmondPhilsFan wrote:

JUburton wrote:It was a pretty innocuous statement. If you can't generalize that women want to take care of their children then you can't really generalize anything. He wasn't saying every woman needs their hand held and special exemptions to help with their household 'duties'. He was saying that he worked with them so they could accomplish their professional goals and still be home for their family. It's a bit patronizing but there are so many more things to vilify the guy for that I don't see how this is really an issue.

My wife thought it was more than a bit patronizing. But hey, she's just a working mother.

I don't think he wasn't referring to ALL women or implying that he was. He meant well but it came off kind of weird and didn't address the question.

RichmondPhilsFan wrote:

JUburton wrote:

RichmondPhilsFan wrote:

JUburton wrote:It was a pretty innocuous statement. If you can't generalize that women want to take care of their children then you can't really generalize anything. He wasn't saying every woman needs their hand held and special exemptions to help with their household 'duties'. He was saying that he worked with them so they could accomplish their professional goals and still be home for their family. It's a bit patronizing but there are so many more things to vilify the guy for that I don't see how this is really an issue.

My wife thought it was more than a bit patronizing. But hey, she's just a working mother.

I don't think he wasn't referring to ALL women or implying that he was. He meant well but it came off kind of weird and didn't address the question.

I'm just telling you that perhaps, as a white man (playing the message board odds here), you're not in the best place to conclude whether a statement was or was not perceived as patronizing by working women.

dajafi wrote:I have just one question: how in the hell did Woody miss "Toldfinger"?

What actually happened was that in 2002 -- prior to the election, not even knowing yet whether it would be a Republican or Democratic administration -- a bipartisan group of women in Massachusetts formed MassGAP to address the problem of few women in senior leadership positions in state government. There were more than 40 organizations involved with the Massachusetts Women's Political Caucus (also bipartisan) as the lead sponsor.

They did the research and put together the binder full of women qualified for all the different cabinet positions, agency heads, and authorities and commissions. They presented this binder to Governor Romney when he was elected.

I have written about this before, in various contexts; tonight I've checked with several people directly involved in the MassGAP effort who confirm that this history as I've just presented it is correct -- and that Romney's claim tonight, that he asked for such a study, is false.

Youseff wrote:Is Obama saving the Romeny Cayman Islands tax haven thing for the last debate or is he never going to mention it in this kind of forum?

JUburton wrote: I don't recall saying that I was and I certainly understand why it might be patronizing or bothersome to working/middle class women. It probably even continues the pattern of how out of touch he is with the working/middle class. My intent was that he meant to be sympathizing with women but it was largely misplaced. He probably going all Werthless and saying 'women just want to be homemakers!' If there's one thing I've learned about women it's that they don't like to be falsely sympathized/empathized with by men who think they understand their position as a gender, whether it's in the workplace, right to choose, contraception etc.

It's a bit patronizing but there are so many more things to vilify the guy for that I don't see how this is really an issue.

td11 wrote:what was romney trying to do with the pension attack last night?

td11 wrote:what was romney trying to do with the pension attack last night?

“Any investments I have over the last eight years have been managed by a blind trust. And I understand they do include investments outside the United States, including in Chinese companies. Mr. President, have you looked at your pension? Have you looked at your pension?”
— Romney

“I don’t look at my pension. It’s not as big as yours so it doesn’t take as long.”
— Obama

“Let me give you some advice. Look at your pension. You also have investments in Chinese companies. You also have investments outside the United States.”
— Romney

We have certainly been skeptical of the Obama campaign’s claims about Romney-related investments in Chinese companies, but this was bit of curve ball by GOP candidate.

Generally, the payout from a pension — in this case, from Obama’s years in the state legislature — is based on years of service and other factors, not necessarily how well the pension does in the stock market. (It certainly is an unusually lucrative pension system, as a Chicago Tribune investigation found.) Obama’s defined-benefit pension is valued at between $50,000 and $100,000 on his financial disclosure form.
To our mind, there’s a qualitative difference between a pension-plan investment portfolio and earning returns from contemporary stock investments.

The Romney campaign explains that his point was that international investments are a crucial part of investing today — and that just as Obama has no control over the investments made by his pension fund, Romney has no control over investments made by funds that are part of his blind trust. The Romney campaign says that 19 percent of the Illinois pension fund’s investments are in foreign companies, including dozens of Chinese companies.

“Obama has a pension, managed by the IL Pension fund. He has no control over how they invest it, and they invest some of it in Chinese companies,” a Romney spokesman said. “Romney has a blind trust. He has no control over how the trustee invests it, and the trustee invests some of it in funds that invest in Chinese companies.”
(As has often been noted, as a Senate candidate in 1994, Romney dismissed a blind trust as an “age-old ruse.” In a blast at Sen. Ted Kennedy’s blind trust, Romney said: “The blind trust is an age-old ruse, if you will. Which is to say you can always tell a blind trust what it can and cannot do. You give a blind trust rules.”)

RichmondPhilsFan wrote:

JUburton wrote: I don't recall saying that I was and I certainly understand why it might be patronizing or bothersome to working/middle class women. It probably even continues the pattern of how out of touch he is with the working/middle class. My intent was that he meant to be sympathizing with women but it was largely misplaced. He probably going all Werthless and saying 'women just want to be homemakers!' If there's one thing I've learned about women it's that they don't like to be falsely sympathized/empathized with by men who think they understand their position as a gender, whether it's in the workplace, right to choose, contraception etc.

Right, which is why I disagreed with the last sentence in your initial post:

It's a bit patronizing but there are so many more things to vilify the guy for that I don't see how this is really an issue.

If women voters feel that he is patronizing and mysogynistic, then regardless of whether they're right or wrong, that's a pretty important concern for them.

Many women have significant concerns that Romney would either work towards rolling back women's rights or stand idly by while a batshit crazy Republican Congress does so. Again, right or wrong, that's pretty important to them.

RichmondPhilsFan wrote:So now I'm really confused as to what you're trying to say. Are you agreeing with me that it's a significant concern after all?

CalvinBall wrote:

td11 wrote:what was romney trying to do with the pension attack last night?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fac ... #pagebreak

“Any investments I have over the last eight years have been managed by a blind trust. And I understand they do include investments outside the United States, including in Chinese companies. Mr. President, have you looked at your pension? Have you looked at your pension?”
— Romney

“I don’t look at my pension. It’s not as big as yours so it doesn’t take as long.”
— Obama

“Let me give you some advice. Look at your pension. You also have investments in Chinese companies. You also have investments outside the United States.”
— Romney

drsmooth wrote:

Youseff wrote:Is Obama saving the Romeny Cayman Islands tax haven thing for the last debate or is he never going to mention it in this kind of forum?

Cayman Islands = another country = foreign policy category = 3rd debate

makes sense

td11 wrote:

What actually happened was that in 2002 -- prior to the election, not even knowing yet whether it would be a Republican or Democratic administration -- a bipartisan group of women in Massachusetts formed MassGAP to address the problem of few women in senior leadership positions in state government. There were more than 40 organizations involved with the Massachusetts Women's Political Caucus (also bipartisan) as the lead sponsor.

They did the research and put together the binder full of women qualified for all the different cabinet positions, agency heads, and authorities and commissions. They presented this binder to Governor Romney when he was elected.

I have written about this before, in various contexts; tonight I've checked with several people directly involved in the MassGAP effort who confirm that this history as I've just presented it is correct -- and that Romney's claim tonight, that he asked for such a study, is false.

http://blog.thephoenix.com/BLOGS/talkin ... inder.aspx

"At one point I specifically recall asking my secretary to bring the binder into my office. So I did, factually beyond all doubt, ask for the study".