Ann Romney/Hilary Rosen

[infinite monkey]

Wait, what? We're allowed to VOTE? Since when?

[DanaC]

Interesting piece in the Guardian about this, and how it fits in the general 'war on women' idea. This bit in particular seems to articulate why Mitt's reliance on Anne's advice in this area might be problematic:

...narrowing the analysis to which campaign more effectively moved their pawns across the electoral board not only insults Rosen (and Romney, for that matter), but completely blows past the policy argument Rosen was commenting on: what is the probable impact of Romney's understanding of women's needs on his policy-making, if it is – by his admission – filtered through the viewpoint of his wife's discussions with other conservative women? Ann says they're concerned about the deficit, which is a happy coincidence for a candidate who's staked his claim to Paul Ryan's "marvelous" budget proposal and its emphasis on deficit reduction over the social programs that disproportionately benefit women (because women are disproportionally represented in economically disadvantaged groups).

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...x-war-on-women

[classicman]

Originally Posted by DanaC

Interesting piece in the Guardian about this, and how it fits in the general 'war on women' idea.

Equally interesting response ...

There is no war on women. using the word war in this context trivializes the concept and reality of war itself which is abhorrent given the real wars that are currently being waged. women outlive men by 6-7 years and with a very small amount of legal research it is easy to conclude that women have all the rights men have and also female gender-centric rights which men do not have.

[piercehawkeye45]

I'm not sure on the context and don't care enough to find it but is it possible he just said that as a joke or in a different context?

Romney has issues but one of them isn't his intelligence. I don't believe in a second that Romney actually gets all his advice about women voters from his wife. The only way that could remotely be true is if his wife went out and talked to thousands and thousands of women voters from all classes. Even that is sketchy because it is definitely not Romney's style.

[BigV]

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45

I'm not sure on the context and don't care enough to find it but is it possible he just said that as a joke or in a different context?

Romney has issues but one of them isn't his intelligence. I don't believe in a second that Romney actually gets all his advice about women voters from his wife. The only way that could remotely be true is if his wife went out and talked to thousands and thousands of women voters from all classes. Even that is sketchy because it is definitely not Romney's style.

I do have issues with Romney's intelligence. And this particular kerfuffle is just another instance of several that make me question his depth of understanding about the economic and social world **I** live in. He has not shown much, if any, evidence that he knows practically anything about it.

He's made many comments that, taken individually, are groan worthy. "Corporations are people", "I like to fire people", "I don't know about what team he'll wind up with, but I have a couple friends that own football teams and..." And the same with his NASCAR team owner friends. And his fleet of vehicles "two Cadillacs", etc. Etc. Etc. They're tossed off so casually, so... naturally that they seem real. I believe they are real. And I take this as pretty reliable evidence that his "intelligence" on the subject of how I live is meager at best. It's good that he seeks input from others, no one knows everything, no one. Good on him. And his wife is as good a source as any for advice (though I don't know much about her creds) since she almost certainly has his (and their) best interests at heart. But the same disconnect applies for her when it comes to being able to "speak for" most women. I find the suggestion that she knows much about the workaday lives of "most women" laughable. And the economic disconnect is the major piece of that.

That Mitt Romney would tout Ann as a valid, informed source of good data about "what women want" (so to speak) is yet another of these faux pas (what is the plural??? whatever). He doesn't impress me with his intelligence when it comes to describing his inner dialog like this.

Business smart? Well, he sure has gotten results. Does he have experience governing? Yes. Is he like me? No, not really. And when he talks about what my life is like, me, the 99%, he shows his lack of understanding. I don't find that comforting. I find his delusion somewhat alarming.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by BigV

They're tossed off so casually, so... naturally that they seem real. I believe they are real. And I take this as pretty reliable evidence that his "intelligence" on the subject of how I live is meager at best.

But he's keenly aware of how the demographic he intends to serve live.

[DanaC]

Women may have the same de jure rights, but de facto rights are imbalanced. As is economic power.

[classicman]

...as is the world ...as is reality

[Ibby]

Acknowledging that it's a common problem doesn't absolve us of the responsibility to try to solve it.

[DanaC]

But that's precisely what we're talking about. The world. Reality.

The reality is that statistically women suffer more in the way of job loss and redundancy than men, are less likely to be in the kinds of employment that pay good redundancy packages than men and are slower to be rehired than men, during a recession.

Though there are exceptions, women are statistically more likely to be coupling external employment with carer duties such as looking after parents, more likely to have had a gap in their career to look after children, and more likely upon returning to work to find themselves at a reduced level.

Economically, women are generally less powerful than men. They, and the employment types that are predominantly female are less valued than men and predominantly male employment types. That makes them particularly vulnerable to certain kinds of economic stress. Coupled with a cultural assumption of male work being proper work and female work being a handy add on to boost the family income (I know it's changing, but we carry the remnants of earlier outlooks with us still), and an education culture that still, in subtle ways directs girls one way and boys another, what we are left with is a situation in which women are legally as protected as men, but in reality have a much more precarious and contingent relationship to the workplace.

It is a well-noted and commented upon phenomenon, that at times of economic turmoil, when job security is low and wage levels and working conditions are under threat, the cultural output starts to ask questions both about the nature of true womanhood (can a woman be a mother and a worker?) and the need for proper jobs and wages for family men. Sometimes the two are explicitly linked: suggestions are made that women really should be at home raising kids, and men need the validation of supporting their family financially as a proper husband should. It's no accident, I don't think, that out of the recession of the 90s a movement grew up of professional women who were giving up those decisions more traditonally associated with men, and allowing their husbands total control over the family finances and major household decisions.

There is often, at such times, an increasing sense of unease around female physicality, sexuality and moral health. This recent attempt to force vaginal ultrasounds on all women seeking abortions, is a fairly typical example of the way a culture of unease about women and their reproductive power, their competetive threat to male employment and their political outspokenness starts to leak into the relationship between the government and women's physical self. Correct me if I am wrong, but I can think of no male equivalent.

There are many examples of this throughout history. Some from the 18th and 19th centuries resonate rather shockingly with the ultrasound requirement.

Cultural and social distress aways ends up played out on the bodies of women. 'Figuratively and literally' it's been said by some historians.

[DanaC]

Here we go. had to nip and check me dates :p

The Contagious Diseases act caused massive controversy in Britain. It was the focus for a lot of proto-feminist activity, much like the recent ultrasuond requirement:

The Contagious Diseases Acts were originally passed by the Parliament of the United Kingdom in 1864, with further alterations and editions made to it in 1866 and 1869. In 1862, a committee was established to inquire into venereal disease in the armed forces; on its recommendation the first Contagious Diseases Act was passed. The legislation allowed police officers to arrest prostitutes in certain ports and army towns, and the women were then subjected to compulsory checks for venereal disease. If a woman was declared to be infected, she would be confined in what was known as a ‘Lock Hospital’ until ‘cured’. The original act was only lawful in a few selected naval ports and army towns, but by 1869 the acts had been extended to be in operation in eighteen ‘subjected districts’[1]

The Act of 1864 stated that women found to be infected could be interned in locked hospitals for up to three months, a period gradually extended to one year with the 1869 Act. These measures were justified by medical and military officials as the most effective method to shield men from venereal disease. As military men were discouraged from marriage and homosexual behaviour was criminal, prostitution was considered a necessary evil. However, no provision was made for the examination of prostitutes' clientele, which became one of the many points of contention in a campaign to repeal the Acts.

After 1866, proposals were introduced to extend the acts to the north of England and to the civilian population. It was suggested that this extension would regulate prostitution and stop street disorders caused by it in large cities.

The issue of the Contagious Diseases Act and venereal disease created significant controversy within Victorian Society. Known as the ‘Social Disease’, the acts themselves affected thousands of people's lives, from campaigners to prostitutes themselves. It exploded the debate over the double standards between men and women. It was one of the first political issues that led to women organizing themselves and actively campaigning for their rights.

The acts demonstrated the degree of double standards between men and women in Victorian society. Men were responsible for the demand for prostitutes, yet only women had to endure humiliating personal medical examinations and be contained in locked hospitals if found to be infected; women's reputations were threatened but not men's. The double standards of men were a key part in Josephine Butler's campaigns for the repeal of the acts.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contagious_Diseases_Acts

I am aware by the way that this is a massive tangent :p But it interests me, so I figure it might interest someone else.

[DanaC]

Incidentally, just to be clear about something: none of this is 'what men to do to women', it's what we, a society of men and women, do to ourselves.*






* ...

[classicman]

I'll cherrypick this part as I tend to agree with most of the rest of your post, V.

I find the suggestion that she knows much about the workaday lives of "most women" laughable.

Me too - And who is it that made that assertion?

[BigV]

Originally Posted by classicman

I'll cherrypick this part as I tend to agree with most of the rest of your post, V.

Me too - And who is it that made that assertion?

I find Mitt Romney's actions and words suggestive of it. Why else would he say what he said? Why would he turn to her for information on what women want? And the advice he got was kind of..it was just some fucking talking point made up by his campaign. Mitt Romney said of his interactions with is wife Ann:

I’ve had the fun of being out with my wife the last several days on the campaign trail. And she points out that as she talks to women, they tell her that their number one concern is the economy.

What is she? His female-talk interpreter? The Woman Whisperer? I'll tell you what. We have lots of women here in the cellar. Think about what kinds of concerns they post about. Yes, they do post about the economy, but it's not anything like "their number one concern is the economy". Sometimes it's being proud of their kids, sometimes it's learning a new scream from her husband. Sometimes it's morning sickness or frustration with parents or spouses or kids. Or their jobs and cow orkers. I've been around here awhile and I haven't seen what Mitt says is being reported to him. Probably Ann is talking with a different group of women I talk with, sure.

Mitt's kind of a clumsy doofus with his words, and his words regarding women are no exception. You know, I can't find the quote from Mitt that started this. And that's too bad, but my memory of it is that he was touting his understanding of women's concerns by touting the fact that he talks to his wife, Ann. I got no problem with that, EXCEPT that I just don't see anything in her experience that makes me feel like Ann knows the stuff he thinks she knows about, or at least that he thinks she's telling him. It doesn't jive with MY experience about listening to what women are saying is their number one concern. Dammit, it's just dumb.

"Hi Ann, what is the number one concern of the women you're talking to?"

"Ann, what are those women you're talking to saying?"

And the answer is "It's the economy, stupid"? No. just... no.

[piercehawkeye45]

Is Romney really that much different than past presidential candidates? I remember the same talk against Kerry in 2004 and I would think most representatives in Washington don't understand the lifestyle of the 99%.

Romney definitely is out of touch with most of America, I fully believe that, but I still have trouble believing that Romney lacks any knowledge about such an important demographic. That is one aspect that Romney's campaign is good at: knowing which views will resonate with certain people. His advisers even admitted that his campaign will change views with the 'Etch a Sketch' comment.

The female demographic is considered extremely important this election and will probably determine who wins. I would think that Romney's advisers, who probably are not from the 1%, have done a great deal of research figuring out ways to get women voters on his side. Maybe I'm wrong but that is how I see it.