THERE IS so much to say about last night’s presidential debate, which I turned off in disgust three-quarters of the way through, sometime after the fourth or fifth time Obama spoke of his support for modern eugenics, that I have had to deal with it in installments. When asked about women in the workforce, Romney said that when he was governor of Massachusetts, he was in the process of hiring his staff and was faced with a stack of applications from men. Romney decided that that wasn’t right so he ordered his existing staff to go out looking for female applicants. In other words, some men were denied jobs for one reason: They were men.
Romney also boasted of hiring a woman with school-age children. It wasn’t that this mother was more capable than other applicants. The implication of what he said was this. The very fact that she had children who needed her attention made her an especially desirable candidate for his staff. It didn’t matter that she wouldn’t be able to work as long as hours as those who weren’t mothers of young children, and it sure as heck didn’t matter that she would be in a high-pressured job and her children would be neglected. She was preferable because then he could show his support for “flexibility” to mothers. Is this sick, or what? See the transcript here.
My point, needless to say, is not that Romney is a worse candidate than Obama. My point is that both candidates glibly express support for the sort of feminist programs that were the idle and distant dreams of fevered feminists of the 1970s.
—– Comments —–
Terry Morris writes:
Beyond what you’ve said, Romney is, by far, the better choice for feminists who are in it for the long haul because his economic plan – lowering tax rates, deregulation, and encouraging the start-up of new businesses in the private sector while simultaneously ensuring the growth of already existing private businesses – has the potential of securing to feminists what they seek over a substantially longer period of time. Whereas Obama’s plan will continue to destroy real economic growth, thus destroying any gains feminists think they’ve secured to women by re-electing Obama.
But as I said in a related comment at this site, in this regard women (or feminist women) tend to be their own worst enemies. So I predict that they, as a distinctive voting bloc, will favor their actual enemy over their actual friend and cohort, overwhelmingly. But it couldn’t happen to a more deserving group of people in my books.
I was listening to the debate on radio, because I do not own a TV. (I had one, but I rarely used it; I ended up giving it to my late mother.) Anyway, I was listening to the debate earlier this week when Romney made his comments about how he promoted women working for him. Though I had intended to listen to the whole thing, I got so disgusted that I turned it off at that point.
I especially wondered why he’d have someone with young children working for him; I had a couple of questions arise from his comments. If she couldn’t legitimately meet the demands of the job, why take it? Why would he give someone the job who couldn’t meet the demands of the job? Would a man be allowed the same flexibility? Why would a businessman have someone working for him who couldn’t meet the demands of the job to help him? Isn’t that why the person was hired in the first place, to move BUSINESS forward? If the person cannot be there for whatever reason, then why hire them? How is this equality? If a woman cannot do the job, then why hire her?