Does Romney Consider Women and Men Equal?

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Here's one point of view...

----------------------------------------------------
Every Single One Of Romney’s Model Justices Voted Against Lilly Ledbetter

By Ian Millhiser on Apr 11, 2012 at 3:00 pm

Earlier today, the Romney campaign responded to a question about whether their candidate supports the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act’s protection of equal pay for women with an awkward six second silence, followed by a promise to “get back” with an answer about whether or not Romney actually supports equal pay for women. The campaign has spent the rest of the day engaged in ham-handed damage control — first by putting out a statement saying that he is “not looking to change current law,” then by releasing statements by Republican congresswomen who previously voted against the Ledbetter Act.

Yet for all of Romney’s equivocating on whether or not he actually believes that women should be paid the same amount as men who do the exact same job, Romney cannot hide two important facts. The Ledbetter Act was only necessary because of a 5-4 Supreme Court decision which overruled decades of precedent protecting equal pay for equal work; and Romney promised to appoint more justices like the ones who voted against Lilly Ledbetter.



Lily Ledbetter



Last November, Romney listed four sitting Justices as the models he will follow if he gets to appoint a justice of his own — Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Chief Justice John Roberts. Every single one of these justices voted against Lilly Ledbetter and against equal pay for women in the workplace. Just like they have voted in favor of corporate immunity from the law on issues ranging from forced arbitration to enabling corporations to buy and sell elections.


But, of course, Congress overruled the Supreme Court’s error in the Ledbetter case when it passed the Ledbetter Act, and Romney now says that he doesn’t want to change “current law.” So doesn’t that mean women’s current rights to equal pay are safe?


Not if Romney gets to appoint any more conservative justices. Just months after Congress spanked the Supreme Court by overruling their attack on women in Ledbetter, the five conservative justices handed down a very similar opinion stripping many older workers of their right to be free from employment discrimination. Worse, in taking away many older workers’ ability to protect their jobs, the Court left no doubt that it was thumbing its nose at precedent. Although longstanding law clearly established that the justices’ assault on older workers was wrongly decided, the Court’s conservatives choose to ignore this law because “it is far from clear that the Court would have the same approach were it to consider the question today in the first instance.” In other words, now that conservatives are in charge, they are free to do whatever they want.


Given that the conservative justices renewed their attack on workers so soon after the Ledbetter Act became law, and that they did so in an opinion that expressly stated that they do not care about precedents or established law, women simply cannot be sure that these same justices won’t hand down another decision much like Ledbetter if given the opportunity to do so. Mitt Romney may claim that he does not want to change “current law” in a way that harms working women, but if he gets to add more justices like Roberts or Scalia to the Supreme Court, he won’t have to. The Supreme Court will do it for him.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

According to the kooky, Scientology-like religious cult to which Willard belongs, women are second-class citizens who can only get to heaven on their husbands' coat tails.

[Smiling Assassin27]

He might. He might not. One thing we do know is that our President does not.

Speaking of Ledbetter:

Female employees in the Obama White House make considerably less than their male colleagues, records show.

According to the 2011 annual report on White House staff, female employees earned a median annual salary of $60,000, which was about 18 percent less than the median salary for male employees ($71,000).

Calculating the median salary for each gender required some assumptions to be made based on the employee names. When unclear, every effort was taken to determine the appropriate gender.

The Obama campaign on Wednesday lashed out at presumptive GOP nominee Mitt Romney for his failure to immediately endorse the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Restoration Act, a controversial law enacted in 2009 that made it easier to file discrimination lawsuits.

President Obama has frequently criticized the gender pay gap, such as the one that exists in White House.

“Paycheck discrimination hurts families who lose out on badly needed income,” he said in a July 2010 statement. “And with so many families depending on women’s wages, it hurts the American economy as a whole.”

It is not known whether any female employees at the White House have filed lawsuits under the Ledbetter Act.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

^

Link?

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Originally Posted by Smiling Assassin27

Calculating the median salary for each gender required some assumptions to be made based on the employee names. When unclear, every effort was taken to determine the appropriate gender.

Uh, what kind of fact finding is the above?

[Smiling Assassin27]

and judging by this picture of his campaign HQ, he doesn't like colored people either:



wow, doing this lazy/lefty/liberal smear thing is easy!

[DomCasual]

Originally Posted by L.A. BRONCOS FAN

According to the kooky, Scientology-like religious cult to which Willard belongs, women are second-class citizens who can only get to heaven on their husbands' coat tails.

Well, in fairness, the reverse is also true - a man can't get to "heaven" without a woman. But why let facts like that get in the way of your bigotry?

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Originally Posted by DomCasual

Well, in fairness, the reverse is also true - a man can't get to "heaven" without a woman. But why let facts like that get in the way of your bigotry?

"Facts" like those give L. Ron Hubbard a run for his money!

[DomCasual]

Originally Posted by L.A. BRONCOS FAN

"Facts" like those give L. Ron Hubbard a run for his money!

Okay, so you make a misleading statement.

I correct you on the statement.

Then you make a completely-unrelated statement, as some sort of rebuttal?

No wonder you usually just post cartoons. The whole "thinking for yourself" thing doesn't seem to be your thing.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Originally Posted by DomCasual

Okay, so you make a misleading statement.

I correct you on the statement.

Then you make a completely-unrelated statement, as some sort of rebuttal?

No wonder you usually just post cartoons. The whole "thinking for yourself" thing doesn't seem to be your thing.

The statement wasn't "misleading" - it was a fact (one you didn't deny.)

And I post cartoons so as to include folks with your particular handicap in the discussion.

You're welcome!

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Originally Posted by Smiling Assassin27

and judging by this picture of his campaign HQ, he doesn't like colored people either:
wow, doing this lazy/lefty/liberal smear thing is easy!

Actually, Right Wing, FOX, etc al... propaganda is easily exposed for what it is...

-------------------------------------------------------
Why It Will Be Hard For Romney To Claim That Obama Is Waging A War On Women

By Alex Seitz-Wald and Pat Garofalo on Apr 11, 2012 at 12:27 pm

As part of Mitt Romney’s ongoing attempt to project all of his weakness onto President Obama, the presumed GOP nominee is accusing his general election opponent of waging a “war on women.”

Democrats have used the same charge to highlight Republicans’ systematic attacks on women’s rights, but Romney flipped the claim at a rally last night night, saying, “The real war on women has been the job losses as the result of the Obama economy.” He continued the attack on Fox News this morning, where he repeatedly went out of his way to attack Obama’s record on women:

ROMNEY: Over 92 percent of the jobs lost under this president where lost by women. His policies have been really a war on women. … Women in particular suffered under this presidency.

The “92 percent” statistic that Romney cites is highly misleading. For one thing, it attributes to Obama job losses from January 2009 — a terrible month for jobs — before he was even sworn in as president, and long before his policies were enacted. If you count the entirety of the recession beginning in 2007, 39.7 percent of the jobs lost — less than half — were lost by women.

The reason women’s job losses are skewed towards the end of the recession is that the earlier job losses were largely in male-dominated industries such as construction. Women, meanwhile, tend to work in industries that have been hit harder on the back end of the recession, such as education and health care — public sector jobs that have been decimated by GOP austerity budgeting. Princeton University Professor Betsey Stevenson told Politifact that “in every recession men’s job loss occurs first and most, with unemployment rates for men being more cyclical than those of women’s.”

Meanwhile, Obama has enacted policies to help women, like the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, designed to help close the pay gap between the genders. This morning, Romney’s campaign wouldn’t say if their candidate supports the law, which was blocked by Senate Republicans. In fact, the campaign couldn’t offer any coherent explanation for how Obama has waged a “war on women” at all.

On health care — which polls show is women’s number one issue, beating even the economy — Obama’s health reform law includes a number of provisions to help women women, such as free preventive services and better access to contraception, both of which were enacted over opposition from Republican lawmakers. Meanwhile, Romney has called for eliminating Planned Parenthood and restricting access to contraception.

Romney’s concern for women is a new development, likely spurred by very bad polling for him, as just last month he told a college student concerned about losing access to her insurance-covered contraception, “vote for the other guy.”

[Smiling Assassin27]

And hey, we've got an Obama adviser who visited the WH 35 times accidentally showing what Dems really think of women:



Axlerod and others had to walk this back but the mask slipped.

[Garcia Bronco]

Men and Women aren't equal, or rather they are equal in very few ways.

[BroncoBeavis]

Originally Posted by DomCasual

a man can't get to "heaven" without a woman.

I think that's how we used to say it in Junior High.

[DomCasual]

Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis

I think that's how we used to say it in Junior High.

That's statutory rape, brother!

[BroncoBeavis]

Originally Posted by DomCasual

That's statutory rape, brother!

No such thing when you're in Junior High.

But we was definitely putting the cha-cha up on a pedestal back in those days. In the Andy Stitzer sense.

[peacepipe]

Originally Posted by Smiling Assassin27

And hey, we've got an Obama adviser who visited the WH 35 times accidentally showing what Dems really think of women:



Axlerod and others had to walk this back but the mask slipped.

BTW,she is not a obama advisor,she is no more an advisor to Obama then sarah palin an advisor to romney.

http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.co...s-hilary-rosen

Fox News host Greta van Susteren has penned a defense of Hillary Rosen:

In making her remark about Mrs. Romney and her choice to raise a family and not work outside the home, I know Hilary knows raising children is hard work, really hard work…the absolute hardest work. Hilary has children. That is the best way to know the challenge of raising children – have them! Hilary is not anti-stay-at-home mom.

I did not read Hilary’s comments to in anyway take away from hard chore of raising children or staying at home and raising them and not working outside the family. I read it to mean that raising children without financial pressure is easier than having financial pressure. This is not to take away from Mrs. Romney – she has done a spectacular job raising 5 great sons – but to face the reality that financial pressure does make it harder to raise a family. This is also not to say that the Romney family success is anything to be ashamed of…the family should be very proud of its success. I admire success, don’t you?

[peacepipe]

Originally Posted by Garcia Bronco

Men and Women aren't equal, or rather they are equal in very few ways.

care to list the ways? I give you that women & men are not the same strength wise.

[DomCasual]

Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis

No such thing when you're in Junior High.

But we was definitely putting the cha-cha up on a pedestal back in those days. In the Andy Stitzer sense.

The cha-cha on the pedestal. That's pretty good!

[BroncoBeavis]

Originally Posted by peacepipe

BTW,she is not a obama advisor,she is no more an advisor to Obama then sarah palin an advisor to romney.

http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.co...s-hilary-rosen

Speaking of Sarah, it's going to be interesting to hear the Romney/Stepford Wife angle in 2012, coming from the same people who wondered what Sarah Palin was doing outside of the kitchen in 2008.

[Garcia Bronco]

Originally Posted by peacepipe

care to list the ways? I give you that women & men are not the same strength wise.

I couldn't possibly list all the criteria. We are not equal in terms of some areas related to biology and physiology. Psychologically speaking I have only ever seen one area where men perform significantly better than women and that's in spatial ability specifically regarding the Mental Rotation Tasks....which is a timed test. So women could do it, but it just took them slightly longer and that was 20 years ago. I bet today the gap is less significant if it exists at all.


Here's a funny one.

Alcohol consumption: Take a man and woman of the same weight. Both consume one beer...men will gain .025 BAC; women will gain .030 in BAC. In one hour both genders will work out .025. Meaning a woman after an hour will still have roughly a .005.