Brent Nyitray
Fairlington Blade
Let the mutherfuker burn!
jnc4p
Kevin S. Willis
Michigoose
lmsinca
markinaustin
Arcanaut
novahockey
quarterback
ScottC
yellojktDon’t know if any of you will be interested, but I thought I’d toss this out there. Open thread, so if you don’t feel like saying anything about the debate, chime in with whatever’s on your mind!
And I totally stole thisfrom Mark
Filed under: Debates, Open Thread |
All Things in Moderation 
Slimiest Spin Room Denizen? My money is on John Sununu. He is approaching Jabba The Hutt sliminess if not corpulence.
LikeLike
yello, have you been watching the pre-debate spin cycle?
Silly you! I’m sitting here reading Edith Wharton (and hoping that Candy Crowley is better than I think she’s going to be).
LikeLike
Been channel flipping between Fox, MSNBC, and CNN. I’d stay on CNN more if they kept the camera on Soledad O’Brien all night. She is the hawtest Irishwoman on TV.
LikeLike
Blessed quiet after scrolling quickly through pre-debate comments on PL.
LikeLike
Romney wants the Pell Grant program to keep going? Since when???
LikeLike
Romney’s Pell Grant program would look like Ryan’s Medicare, smaller, skimpier, and in name only.
LikeLike
I love the fact that Obama has now said twice “very little of what he just said is true.”
LikeLike
Romney is starting to get shrill.
LikeLike
647 career HRs ain’t enough to prevent a right-handed hitting A-Rod from sitting in lieu of a lefty Eric Chavez or Raul Ibanez when Verlander’s pitching.
US MNT 3-1 over Guatemala to book their ticket to the Hexagonal in CONCACAF WC qualifying.
Is something else going on tonight?
LikeLike
questioner is pinning Romney to the mat on what *specific* deductions he’d eliminate.
And why is it that whenever he throws out specific numbers (tax payers are making $XXX less than they were 4 years ago but gas costs $XXX more) I don’t believe a word he says??
Mike–huh?? 🙂
LikeLike
To the extent he is even addressing it, Romney is failing miserably at answering audience question asking specifics about his tax plan.
And he’s trying to sell zero capital gains tax as a positive to the middle class?
LikeLike
okie: I’m convinced that he thinks that middle class folks have to worry about that tax.
LikeLike
Michi:
If you define middle class as AGI up to $250K, then yes the middle class has to worry about capital gains.
LikeLike
I think it may depend on how he defines “middle class.” Over $100,000? Over $500,000? Over $5,000,000? Who knows.
LikeLike
Ha, corked!
LikeLike
Silly me, Mike! 🙂
Oh. . . .he just hit him on “Big Bird and Planned Parenthood” as the means of reducing the deficit!
LikeLike
“Of course they add up!” Yes, he’s getting shrill.
LikeLike
But,of course, mike was much more specific and scientific.
This bickering with Crowley is getting annoying.
LikeLike
Lily Ledbetter. Good on Obama.
LikeLike
“Women have lost 385,000 jobs” Again, are his numbers real?? Anyone know without googling it?
LikeLike
Romney doesn’t even get the difference between affirmative action and equal pay.
LikeLike
I think the loss of government jobs, at all levels, has been disproportionate to women, but I don’t recall the specifics.
LikeLike
Why does obama always get the last word?
LikeLike
Oh, good–asking Romney to differentiate between Bush and himself. . . and Romney returns to the last question.
His “Five Point Plan” again.
LikeLike
Brent,is that a general complaint or do you have numbers? (I’m sure that will be fact-checked in short order if not already.)
LikeLike
Probably it looks that way, Brent, because Romney keeps interrupting when Crowley is trying to move to the next question, so Obama gets to rebut. If Romney would quit pulling the bully routine he’d probably get the last word half the time.
But right now, honestly, from what I’ve seen on two other sites, that’s a right wing meme rather than an independent observation. If I’m wrong, I apologize ahead of time.
LikeLike
Boy, is Romney flop-flipping all over immigration right now.
LikeLike
I think Romney has already called he out twice for cheating him out of a response…
LikeLike
Crowley has lost control.
Should the moderator have kill switches for the candidates’ mics?
LikeLike
Romney’s lying, Brent.
If Crowley isn’t going to call him out on it then Obama should.
And it’s not like Romney’s being the politest person in the room.
LikeLike
Should the moderator have kill switches for the candidates’ mics?
I wouldn’t argue with that, as long as it was automatic (i.e., as soon as the clock his 0:00 the mic goes off).
LikeLike
“okiegirl, on October 16, 2012 at 7:32 pm said:
I think it may depend on how he defines “middle class.” Over $100,000? Over $500,000? Over $5,000,000? Who knows.”
Last I read, Romney defined it as $200K or less for purposes of his tax plan.
I watched about 30 seconds of it and that’s all I can stand. Going to catch up on “Homeland” and “Dexter” instead.
LikeLike
Oh!!!!! Excellent job, Mr President, taking Romney down on Libya. Romney was offensive in what he said.
LikeLike
jnc:
didn’t know you were a “Dexter” fan! We’ll have to chat about that sometime. . .
LikeLike
jnc, “[l]ast I read” is key. I do recall similar, but I also recall that with that definition the tax burden on lower and/or middle classes would have to go up or deficit would have to increase. Sorry, I’m watching the debate so not taking time to look things up right now. Speaking of which, it was interesting to me that to the first time (as far as I know) Romney made the tax burden (expressed as total dollars paid to total income taxes collected?) for the upper brackets relatively the same at 60%.
And hope all is well in your world.
LikeLike
Great quote on PBS’s sidebar:
LikeLike
Which is the more popular drinking word tonight, “crushed” or “China”??
LikeLike
Got back late from a two day business trip. However, I had left over beef short ribs in the fridge from breaking in my new Le Creuset pot over the weekend in the fridge so things could be worse. (I also had beer in the fridge too).
The one question I would like to see Obama asked and answer, which I am sure will never be asked by a participant or the media is:
“Why do you believe your economic/stimulus plan didn’t produce the results that were promised/predicted, what have you learned as a result of that, and what do you plan to do differently in your second term based on what you learned?”
LikeLike
Also:
As noted in the piece, this is the same definition used by Obama when deciding which portion of the Bush tax cuts he will make permanent.
LikeLike
Overall, I think this one goes to Obama. I especially appreciate his speaking to various issues of particular interest to women.
LikeLike
I especially appreciate his speaking to various issues of particular interest to women.
I especially resent his speaking to various issues of no particular interest to men.
LikeLike
Watching PBS commentary and the idea that neither candidate connected with the in-person audience: did folks here see that? When watching, I did not pay attention to that.
LikeLike
Compared with WJC they did not connect. But BHO got more friendly smiles when I could see the audience.
LikeLike
jnc, read the atlantic.com piece. It did not at all speak to Romney’s tax plan and how the numbers play out with that definition. But it does correctly point out that Romney’s definition is essentially the same as Obama’s.
Is there any such data factored by cost of living? An income of $200,000+ is significant in Oklahoma, much less so for example in the northeast.
LikeLike
Hi, mark. Re a comment on another thread, when I inquired whether this might be a “referendum election,” my thought was not an EC tie. Rather, it referred to either side claiming a popular vote “referendum” for its policies.
LikeLike
Okie – got it!
I’m still voting for GJ. Won’t make a difference if election is not a landslide and it won’t be a landslide.
LikeLike
I especially resent his speaking to various issues of no particular interest to men.
Really, Scott? Really.
Whoa.
LikeLike
Really, Scott? Really
No, not really. I didn’t even bother to watch it. I just find the seemingly never ending pretense that “women” as a group have particular political interests in common with each other and exclusive of men to be very, very tiring.
LikeLike
scott, it seems to me that males should want to pay attention to issues that are of particular interest to females. Especially when they are campaigning.
LikeLike
From the Rose Garden speech: http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/09/12/remarks-president-deaths-us-embassy-staff-libya
“Since our founding, the United States has been a nation that respects all faiths. We reject all efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others. But there is absolutely no justification to this type of senseless violence. None. The world must stand together to unequivocally reject these brutal acts….”
“No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for. Today we mourn four more Americans who represent the very best of the United States of America.”
To claim Romney is “lying” when saying that Obama refused to characterize the attack as “terrorism” is very weak, given that the reference to “terror” is very oblique, and the direct reference is “senseless violence” and “brutal acts.”
LikeLike
LikeLike
michi, FTW!
LikeLike
Brent:
No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation
You’re saying this wasn’t calling it terrorism?? I need to know how you define “is”, then.
LikeLike
I am saying it is not an open-and-shut case. Crowley should have stayed out of it.
Oh well, Romney will have the whole next debate to beat obama about the head and shoulders over Libya.
LikeLike
To claim Romney is “lying” when saying that Obama refused to characterize the attack as “terrorism” is very weak, given that the reference to “terror” is very oblique, and the direct reference is “senseless violence” and “brutal acts.”
This is grasping at straws.
We on the left conceded that Romney “won” the first debate. Can you not do the same?
LikeLike
We on the left conceded that Romney “won” the first debate. Can you not do the same?
Obama won.
LikeLike
I just find the seemingly never ending pretense that “women” as a group have particular political interests in common with each other and exclusive of men to be very, very tiring
I don’t think any of us have ever claimed that they are exclusive of men. Probably more important to us, individually and collectively, than to men, individually and collectively, but not exclusive.
LikeLike
brent, thanks.
Somehow I don’t feel any better. 🙂
LikeLike
Obama won.
Oh, c’mon Brent, say it like you really mean it! 🙂
LikeLike
“okiegirl, on October 16, 2012 at 8:51 pm said: Edit Comment
jnc, read the atlantic.com piece. It did not at all speak to Romney’s tax plan and how the numbers play out with that definition. But it does correctly point out that Romney’s definition is essentially the same as Obama’s.
Is there any such data factored by cost of living? An income of $200,000+ is significant in Oklahoma, much less so for example in the northeast.”
The quote was from a discussion of said tax plan, specifically about where the line would be drawn on who would be held harmless in any phaseout of deductions that “wouldn’t hurt the middle class”.
I doubt cost of living is taken into account as it is irrelevant for the tax brackets as well. You either make $200 k plus a year or you don’t regardless of where you live. As noted by the pie chart, that puts one in the top 5% of income.
The article address this directly:
“If you make $200,000, you are, essentially, the 5%. A $200,000 salary will go a lot further in North Dakota than in Manhattan, of course, but it doesn’t change the overall distribution.”
My own approach would be to eliminate the deductions and let the distributional effects fall where they may. I don’t believe that a principle of tax reform should be “protecting” those making $200k or less from ever having to pay more, given the current size of federal spending. As Milton Friedman noted “To Spend is to Tax.”
LikeLike
I’m surprised I made it through the debate. Got up at 4 this morning to prepare for my big interview at the NSF. Feeling good overall, but punchy.
A good night for Obama overall. Kinda sad to see both candidates ignoring direct questions, but that’s inevitable.
BB
LikeLike
jnc, thanks, I’ll reread.
Remind me, please, of your approach. I’m tired right now and about out, but I always follow up your links (not to say I always agree, but frequently so). I’m recalling that you support a flat tax, while I support something more progressive.
LikeLike
You are correct about my supporting a flat tax with no deductions or exemptions for anything. Where I part ways with the proposals the Republicans floated in the primaries is by including the capital gains taxes and the payroll taxes in the flat tax which has the effect of equalizing the treatment of those with wage income and removing the income cap on Social Security tax.
LikeLike
jnc, thanks. To be clear, can you restate your position on capital gains and payroll taxes and removing income cap on SS?
LikeLike
Tigers damn near gave me a heart attack
LikeLike
Brent:
Woop! Woop! Woop!!!!!
I think the last time they were this close I was in college (and they won that year).
LikeLike
I did not get to watch any of the debate unfortunately. But for what it’s worth, I have had to worry about and pay capital gains taxes since i was about 18… And not because my dad was wealthy. But because I have always been an investor.
I have also found the argument of how much salary makes you wealthy/middle class/etc quite tedious because of the cost of living. Being in the 5% does not make you anything other than a point on a graph. For tax purposes however, nobody should be exempt from ever having to pay taxes. We might be able to balance the budget on the backs of the ‘rich'(and trimming spending) but there is no way in hell that we will tackle the debt without a lot more people paying a lot more in taxes at some point. It is in the neigborhood of 13 trillion dollars – there are not enough rich people in the US to fix that. I realize a trillion isn’t what it used to be but if we keep running deficits, pretty soon we’ll be talking some serious money:-) Joking aside, the class warfare strategy of the Democrats just makes it that much harder to fix our debt and budget issues.
LikeLike
Dave–you’re outside the norm (re CG tax). Congrats!
LikeLike
Morning After Reaction: Obama came to this debate much better prepared (He couldn’t do worse than the first one, could he?) and ready to take on individual Romney points. He had several mini-zingers he used, especially on taxes and the economy.
On Libya, perhaps his weakest topic, he played the statesman game and did a good job at indignantly dismissing Romney’s attack.
Tactics which worked for Romney in the first debate, badgering the moderator and directly questioning Obama, backfired terribly on him. In particular during the off-shore investing and the oil and gas permit issues he came off as petty and bullying.
However, the biggest landmine he stepped on was about his benevolent hiring of women while governor. This anecdote is part of his stump speech but in this forum it came off a patriarchal and patronizing.
Obama won’t regain all the ground he lost to Romney in the past two weeks but it did staunch the bleeding. In the spin cycle, Republicans are going to look silly trying to parse ‘acts of terror’ to mean something other than what Obama meant. And the ‘binders of women’ is this week’s mini-meme to ridicule Romney with and it could hurt. A laughingstock can’t get elected.
LikeLike
binders of women just sounds old fashioned, to me. I don’t hear it as laughable. WMR lost, but did appear to be comfortable as a leader, and I think the gain for BHO will be that those marginally inclined to support him will be encouraged.
The binders of women anecdote may lead some conservatives to criticize WMR’s commitment to affirmative action, but probably in quiet conversations, as conservatives don’t turn on their nominee as readily as liberals turn on theirs.
Verlander, however, is unequivocally the best, with command of all his pitches and a high hard one that blows hitters back off the plate. Tigers let Verlander go 8+ innings and he threw a lot of pitches. If the Yankees come back, he may not be able to go until the 7th game, which would put him out of the WS until game 3, and if the Tigers sweep, then they should hope for a six or seven game NLCS.
Addenda: How they were both right on oil and gas.
BHO’s Admin has had far more drilling and production in his first three years than GWB had in his last three, from public land. But 2010 was the peak year so production was down by the amount WMR suggested since then.
NPR just pointed out that the BP blowout caused the temporary drop in permitting in 2011.
BHO missed an opportunity to make hay that WMR twice said he would hold the % of revenue collected from the rich steady. Probably didn’t need to.
LikeLike
binders of women just sounds old fashioned
I thought his focus on women needing “flexible” time so they can get home and cook and take care of the kids was more old fashioned than the binders of women comment. I had a colleague make nearly identical comments in my firm during some recent interviews at law schools. Ummm…I cook nearly as often as my wife and I desperately want to be home with my son. My married friends who both work need both spouses to have flexible job schedules so they can take turns picking up their kids from day care or staying home with a sick baby. It’s probably my liberal side showing through, but it seems way out of touch.
WMR lost, but did appear to be comfortable as a leader…
I agree. I did not watch any of the first debate and didn’t watch much of this debate, but I thought Romney made a better presentation than I would have anticipated. Mostly I was reminded that debates are a waste of time. Both candidates would go entire minutes without saying anything beyond platitudes and rarely answered a question.
Tigers let Verlander go 8+ innings and he threw a lot of pitches. If the Yankees come back, he may not be able to go until the 7th game,
I don’t think he would have gone until the 7th game regardless of how many pitches he threw last night. It’s not uncommon for him to throw 120+ pitches. Your comments about the WS are also true regardless of whether he threw 100 or 130 pitches. But most importantly, concerns about what to do in the WS are 1) only a problem if you get there; and 2) a good problem in the grand scheme of things.
LikeLike
I thought his focus on women needing “flexible” time so they can get home and cook and take care of the kids was more old fashioned than the binders of women comment.
Agreed.
I was the primary parent for my first two kids. The logistics of that and trial work at the same time sure was tough, but in our firm we had several active parents and we had an informal “day care room” in our building. That was in the late 70s and the 80s. Just had to cope. The notion it was a “woman’s problem” already seemed quaint to me by 1980.
LikeLike
The logistics of that and trial work at the same time sure was tough
Yeah, I’m certainly lucky that my wife can stay at home and wants to stay at home. I have trouble finding the right balance as is. Your kids were lucky to have a Dad who worked so hard, including working as a Dad. I also thought Obama’s answer talking about how these “women’s issues” are really family issues provided a particularly stark contrast on the topic.
All that said, it really does not matter that much if Romney holds such an old-fashioned view. He does not have much say in whether my employer is flexible or which parent takes care of the kids. It is also doesn’t necessarily follow that he does holds an old-fashioned view, although he probably does (particularly since the bit about hiring women in his admin is part of his stump speech).
LikeLike
yello:
This anecdote is part of his stump speech but in this forum it came off a patriarchal and patronizing.
Interesting. In fact it was a conglomeration of so-called womens’ groups in Massachusetts, called MassGAP and specifically formed to “address the problem of few women in senior leadership positions in state government”, that independently produced quite literally a binder full of the name’s of women qualified to serve in senior government positions and then presented it to newly elected Governor Romney.
Somehow I’m guessing it would never occur to the left to describe the production of this binder by a bunch of ‘women’s groups” as “patriarchal and patronizing” (or even just “old fashioned” as per Mark), but that’s what it suddenly becomes if a Republican suggests that it was his idea.
LikeLike
I don’t disagree with any of the issues you three have raised, but (and this will irritate Scott, no doubt), as a woman he sounded condescending and patronizing to me and a few of my friends I’ve heard from since the debate. It smacked of giving women special treatment since they’re “special.”
He lost all the women he might have gained with the first debate.
As a woman who spent time in one of the most male-dominated fields in the world I wanted to take him out to a dark alley and show him what it’s like to be in a binder. 🙂
LikeLike
Kelley:
Teehee
LikeLike
He lost all the women he might have gained with the first debate.
Agreed. I couldn’t find the quote but there was another point in his discussion that Romney patted himself on the back for giving opportunites to women. I’m sure he didn’t mean it quite that way (although perhaps he did) but the implication was that they did not earn the opportunities.
Look, Scott is right that the idea of “women’s issues” is silly because women disagree on these issue as much as men. There is no consensus among women on abortion or how to get women equal pay (I assueme all women thing women should get equal pay for equal work). However, what you point out, michi, is not exclusive to Democrats. Jon Stewart showed several clips after the VP debate where female commentators on Fox News talked about how Biden’s performace turned them off or how “as a woman” they were offended (that occurred only when someone on Fox wasn’t saying Biden seemed drunk or may have dementia or looked like a musk ox).
LikeLike
Another good one
EDIT: Blast. Right click on it, since I can’t get it to link right.
LikeLike
Ash – were you remembering this one?
We’re going to have employers that are so anxious to get good workers that they are going to be anxious to hire women.
Kelley – I got a “null” on your comment Another good one.
LikeLike
We’re going to have employers that are so anxious to get good workers that they are going to be anxious to hire women.
If anything that strikes me as offensive to men, not women. But in general I think that people who profess to be offended by such things are usually looking for a reason to be offended. Which I suspect is probably true of lots of hardcore, liberal feminists with regard to anything a Republican might say about so-called women’s issues.
LikeLike
ashot:
So does that make the idea of “conservative issues” silly because conservatives disagree on them?
LikeLike
Michi
I should have not used the word silly. Bad word choice by me not because it may offend you or other women here (although I’m sorry if it did) but because it’s not what I meant. I’m just saying it is an inaccurate framing of the issue. Framing something as a conservative issue is also inaccurate to some extent, but less so than by gender.
Mark- I do think that was the comment I had in mind. Reading the transcript, this quote also jumps out “adapting to a flexible work schedule that gives women opportunities that they would otherwise not be able to afford.” Employers need to do this for parents. They also need to do it for people who are taking care of their aging parents.
LikeLike
I’m going to get smacked around for this, but sometimes this is what it feels like talking to you guys:
LikeLike
Mark:
Tigers let Verlander go 8+ innings and he threw a lot of pitches.
Like ashot said, Verlander usually throws a lot of pitches. He averaged ~114 pitches/start for 33 starts.
If the Yankees come back
The Yankees are in such disarray that their captain is out for the season, their star 3B is sitting on the bench, and their #4 starter tweaked his back and had to come out of the game last night. They’ve scored 3 runs against the Tigers’ starting pitching and they’re up against Scherzer tonight, who had a pretty good year for a #2 starter. The only Tiger pitcher the Yanks have hit hard is Valverde, and given his last two appearances, I think Leyland will have a quick hook if he puts him in again.
It’s not hockey (2009 Flyers, 1974 Islanders, 1941 Maple Leafs) and I don’t see these Yankees pulling a 2004 Red Sox comeback.
LikeLike
“Employers need to do this for parents. They also need to do it for people who are taking care of their aging parents.”
Mr. Burns: “I’ll keep it short and sweet. Family, religion, friendship … these are the three demons you must slay if you wish to succeed in business”
LikeLike
Scott:
Quit with the bs. It wasn’t his idea.
LikeLike
I thought his focus on women needing “flexible” time so they can get home and cook and take care of the kids was more old fashioned than the binders of women comment.
I was the nominal breadwinner (I’m an engineer and my wife is a teacher) and I cooked all the dinners as well as did the daycare pick-up two nights a week. Mitt’s Ozzie and Harriet fantasy is a few decades out of date. Even stranger was his assumption that a two-parent household would end gun violence in our country. Tell that to the Menendez brothers. He lives in this strange sepia-toned world.
Somehow I’m guessing it would never occur to the left to describe the production of this binder by a bunch of ‘women’s groups” as “patriarchal and patronizing” (or even just “old fashioned” as per Mark), but that’s what it suddenly becomes if a Republican suggests that it was his idea.
So which looks worse for him, that he took upon himself to deliberately advance women and give them evenings off to cook dinner or that he bowed to the demands of a bunch of feminists when making his appointments? If you are assuming that I see this issue as no-win for him, I do.
LikeLike
Yello and Scott- Were WMR Jack Kemp, he would have said pay differentials are the tail end evidence of a social change. Kemp might have said: When I was elected governor of Mass., we were still dealing with a world where men had seniority by reason of having been there first. I worked hard with women’s groups to overcome that in my office and on my staff, and I did. Today more than half of Harvard’s LS class is female and while it may be ten years before that kind of number impacts pay scales, it certainly will. What will help women equalize on pay most is that as the economy recovers under my administration, good jobs will open, and from what we see in universities around the nation, more than half of these good new jobs will be filled by women. I don’t know if we will have pay equality in four years, but you will watch the gap narrow during my administration, as the social change that has been occurring completes its cycle, and while the closed doors and glass ceilings of the past disappear.
LikeLike
yello:
So which looks worse for him…
Depends entirely on who is doing the looking.
But this notion that portraying flexible working hours as a “women’s issue” is somehow retrograde and paints Romney in a bad light is really just partisan attempts to make it so. The issue of balancing work and family life is portrayed as a “women’s” issue all the time, by women. See here and here for very recent examples. It’s only the fact that Romney has done it that suddenly makes the portrayal problematic to liberals/feminists.
LikeLike
ashot:
Framing something as a conservative issue is also inaccurate to some extent, but less so than by gender.
You’re clearly wrong, as there are clearly issues that resonate with women (the two of us who are left, btw) more than men on this board.
Think about that for a bit.
LikeLike
The biggest factor in gun violence is poverty. Whether or not poverty can be addressed by family arrangement is debatable — meaning that while single parents are more likely to be poor, i’m not sold on the idea that getting them married is solving that. there’s no question that divorce ruins a family’s finances, but that’s a cost that must be balanced with the benefits that are unique to each case.
Regardless, gun control is not moving any votes. Those votes are firmly in their respective camps.
LikeLike
The biggest factor in gun violence is poverty.
Is that true today? It was not true at one time. As late as 1990 the biggest factor in gun violence was drug manufacturing, importing, dealing, acquiring, and using. At one time, decriminalizing all drugs and abolishing paper money in favor of debit cards, credit cards, checks, and coinage would have wiped out gun violence in America, or so it was thought in the criminal justice community.
Edit: Corked by JNC.
LikeLike
via sue on the PL:
From The Dish.
LikeLike
“ashot, on October 17, 2012 at 7:43 am said:
Michi
I should have not used the word silly. Bad word choice by me not because it may offend you or other women here (although I’m sorry if it did) but because it’s not what I meant. I’m just saying it is an inaccurate framing of the issue. Framing something as a conservative issue is also inaccurate to some extent, but less so than by gender.
Mark- I do think that was the comment I had in mind. Reading the transcript, this quote also jumps out “adapting to a flexible work schedule that gives women opportunities that they would otherwise not be able to afford.” Employers need to do this for parents. They also need to do it for people who are taking care of their aging parents.”
Be aware that the people who are willing to work longer hours and forgo the flexible work schedule will be paid more and receive more promotion opportunities than those who make other choices. This is not discrimination, but rather merit.
LikeLike
Be aware that the people who are willing to work longer hours and forgo the flexible work schedule will be paid more and receive more promotion opportunities than those who make other choices.
This is a non-sequitor, but I’ll respond anyway. I agree that they should be paid more. There will undoubtedly be associates at my firm who make partenr faster than me because they spend more time working than I do. I’m fine with that. I’ll take making a partner a year or two later in exchange for seeing more of my son.
So which looks worse for him, that he took upon himself to deliberately advance women and give them evenings off to cook dinner or that he bowed to the demands of a bunch of feminists when making his appointments?
What a load of crap.
Michi- there are clearly issues that resonate with women
I’m honestly not trying to be too Scott-like here. But where did I say otherwise? Not to continually back-track, but in thinking about it more, I less oppose framing something as a women’s issue than I do with calling someone pro-women or anti-women.
LikeLike
“novahockey, on October 17, 2012 at 9:01 am said:
The biggest factor in gun violence is poverty. “
No. The biggest issue in gun violence is the war on drugs.
LikeLike
jnc:
Be aware that the people who are willing to work longer hours and forgo the flexible work schedule will be paid more and receive more promotion opportunities than those who make other choices. This is not discrimination, but rather merit.
Wrong. I’ve done this my whole working life (and I’m not claiming discrimination, rather reality) and it hasn’t done shit for me. The reality is that probably half the people who do this aren’t rewarded.
LikeLike
that’s true, jnc.
LikeLike
Domestic violence gives the drug trade a good run for its money when it comes to gun violence. Being in a relationship with a gun owner is a huge risk factor. I’m not sure how a guns for wedding bands trade-in program would affect that.
LikeLike
Just saw this:
“okiegirl, on October 16, 2012 at 9:36 pm said:
jnc, thanks. To be clear, can you restate your position on capital gains and payroll taxes and removing income cap on SS?”
Capital gains (& other “unearned” income such as dividends) should be taxed at the same flat rate as regular wage income. Payroll taxes should be rolled into the main income tax rather than separated out. This would remove the income cap on SS.
I think those two components are essential to being able to make an argument for the flat tax on the basis of “fairness”, which admittedly is subjective. The end result is Romney pays the same rate as me, you, Warren Buffett, & Buffett’s secretary.
LikeLike
ashot:
All that said, it really does not matter that much if Romney holds such an old-fashioned view. He does not have much say in whether my employer is flexible or which parent takes care of the kids. It is also doesn’t necessarily follow that he does holds an old-fashioned view, although he probably does (particularly since the bit about hiring women in his admin is part of his stump speech).
Yes, it does. DOL is a cabinet office (flexible schedules, among other issues). HHS is a cabinet office (healthcare). You don’t want to, but you and all the men on this board try to pretend that there isn’t anything like a “woman’s issue”. The fact of the matter is that there are, and your constant dismissal of them doesn’t make them go away.
LikeLike
Yes, it does
Sorry, Michi, I’m just being a lawyer here. Politicians says stupid things sometimes. I think Romney accurately expressed his perspective, so I don’t think this is one of those times. The conservative partner who always discusses these issues with me candidly admitted that of course Romney has these old-fashioned views because he’s a conservative, old, white guy. So at least there is one conservative willing to acknwoledge it.
The fact of the matter is that there are, and your constant dismissal of them doesn’t make them go away.
I don’t deny that some issues impact women more than men and are more important to women then men. Likewise, I don’t deny that abortion is an important issue and equal pay for equal work is an issue etc.
**Edit*** There are some who are disputing the idea that Romney asked to be given a binder of qualified women rather it was just given to him without any such request.
LikeLike
Anyone see any statistics about how many of those “undecided” questioners voted for obama last time?
I can’t imagine CNN not asking them that question…
LikeLike
“yellojkt, on October 17, 2012 at 9:22 am said:
Domestic violence gives the drug trade a good run for its money when it comes to gun violence. Being in a relationship with a gun owner is a huge risk factor. I’m not sure how a guns for wedding bands trade-in program would affect that.”
My understanding from the statistics is that suicide, not domestic violence is what gives the drug trade a run for it’s money in terms of total gun deaths but for homicides the drug trade is the leading cause in the US.
http://webappa.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/mortrate10_us.html
Of course in Mexico, there’s no question at all.
LikeLike
Anyone see any statistics about how many of those “undecided” questioners voted for obama last time?
Gallup was responsible for finding them with certain demographic requirements. Crowley curated the questions so the the randomness of the audience and the questions was minimal.
Fox was holding a panel discussion of 2008 Obama voters and they were unanimously supporting Romney this time around. Imagine the odds of that.
LikeLike
This isn’t the CNN questioners — but a focus group that gets into that issue. the one i think yellow is referring to .
LikeLike
My understanding from the statistics is that suicide, not domestic violence is what gives the drug trade a run for it’s money in terms of total gun deaths…
Probably, but there is a distinction between gun deaths (including suicide) and gun violence. I was referring to the latter with the supposition that suicide is not a crime, or at least not measured as such. I have spent hours before on the internet trying to find unbiased statistics but they are very hard to find. Everybody has an ax to grind.
LikeLike
“Michigoose, on October 17, 2012 at 9:44 am said:
“You don’t want to, but you and all the men on this board try to pretend that there isn’t anything like a “woman’s issue”. “
I don’t claim that. I believe it’s pretty obvious that restrictions on abortion to give the biggest example is considerably more of a women’s issue than it is one for the entire general population.
When it comes to flex work, I tend to view the break down as more of families with kids vs single people. Leaving pay aside, the single people are expected to cover for the married people when they are out due to their kids being sick, school functions, etc. That’s fine, but it
willmay impact pay differences.LikeLike
jnc:
I believe it’s pretty obvious that restrictions on abortion to give the biggest example is considerably more of a women’s issue than it is one for the entire general population.
What makes this “obvious” to you? It isn’t obvious to me.
It is obvious that there is no “women’s perspective” on the issue of abortion as women are about evenly split with regard to whether legal restrictions on abortion should exist, although I do think that references to abortion as a “women’s issue” are designed to imply that just such a “women’s perspective” does exist. But beyond that I don’t think it is even fair to say that women as a whole are especially passionate about the issue. According to one CBS poll, only 38% of women said that they could not vote for a candidate who disagreed with them on abortion. This was only marginally higher than the 29% of men who said the same.
Interestingly, this mirrored the Dem/Rep breakdown on the same question, 37%/27%. So if the disparity between men and women on this question justifies calling it a “women’s issue”, it might just as well be labelled a “Democrat’s issue”. Or maybe it is really just a Democratic women’s issue.
I think the whole “women’s issue” terminology is largely used by those in favor of legal abortion (led by feminists) in order to frame the debate in a way advantageous to their views. They want the abortion debate to be centered around “women’s rights” rather than the moral status of the embryo/fetus/baby being aborted, because defending women’s rights in the abstract is a whole lot easier and less controversial than discussing the issue of when exactly rights inhere in humans, and at what point the state gains an interest in protecting those rights, which are the real issues underlying the abortion issue. Getting popular culture and media to continually refer to abortion as a “women’s issue” goes a long way towards achieving this.
Anecdotally, I never hear pro-life women (of which there are about as many as pro-choice women) call abortion a “women’s issue”, but I hear pro-choice women do it all the time. Indeed, they can be quite sensitive about even contesting the label. This just reinforces my sense that the whole “women’s issue” framing is neither an accurate nor a benign label, but is instead intended to advance a particular political view.
LikeLike
Leaving pay aside, the single people are expected to cover for the married people when they are out due to their kids being sick, school functions, etc.
That is a legitimate workplace issue. As an emptynester I am subtly pressured to do more work related travel than coworkers with children at home.
When it comes to career advancement married men do better than single men who do better than single women who do better than married women. Clearly there are lifestyle decisions at work here but there are other factors as well but it’s an interesting hierarchy.
LikeLike
When it comes to flex work, I tend to view the break down as more of families with kids vs single people. Leaving pay aside, the single people are expected to cover for the married people when they are out due to their kids being sick, school functions, etc. That’s fine, but it
willmay impact pay differences.And you should. But it still doesn’t apply in any world I’ve occupied. In my world, and this covers both public and private sector, men are given the benefit of the doubt and given raises.
This is just my reality, and from what I can see it’s also Mitt’s.
LikeLike
The fact of the matter remains: there are such things as “women’s issues”.
You guys can choose to debate them amongst yourselves, or include okie and me. And when I say “include”, I mean take us seriously.
LikeLike
so I don’t think this is one of those times.
My point, exactly, ashot.
BULLSHIT.
His perspective, as a prospective President, will affect me through his choice of cabinet officers, Supreme Court justices, etc. His opinion can impact my life. And that impact won’t affect men as much as it will me.
How many times and how many ways do I have to say that??
LikeLike
THERE ARE OBVIOUS WOMEN’S ISSUES as well as issues that affect women inordinately but also affect men a great deal.
Singling out Rx contraceptives for no med insurance coverage is discriminatory against women, b/c they are the ones who can get Rx contraceptives. It is like saying that refusal to cover a vasectomy would not be a male issue.
Discrimination against women in the workplace is a women’s issue, by definition.
but flex hours is a family issue in that women and other parents and other caretakers of the elderly all have a stake.
.
So before we get too far afield again, let us acknowledge that there are obvious women’s issues.
LikeLike
I think if you’re being not be treated as you like, you have to be prepared to walk. And in my admittedly bubblicious circle, women just won’t do that. and it drive me nuts as they’re all way smarter and more talented and capable than I am. almost all the guys here have walked on a job. all the women here have dotted the Is, crossed the t’s and followed the firm’s path. but i’ve walked on jobs twice. it’s at will employment. my first employer didn’t’ want to promote me. meet all the objective criteria, but he didn’t’ think i was ready but i suspect he just wanted me in my current position.
so i said, “i understand, I’ve learned a lot here, thanks for the opportunity, and unfortunately I think I’ve outgrown my role here so i’ll have to give you my 2 weeks.” shocked the hell out of him. next day he said he reconsidered and wanted to offer me the promotion. too late. nothing acrimonious about it. the arrangement ceased to be a benefit, so i ended it. he was looking out for his interests and I was doing the same. unfortunately, those could no longer be reconciled and a mutually beneficial manner.
the career path is set at the interest of the employer. i’ve no interest in following their prescribed way forward, as it’s set for their benefit, not mine.
LikeLike
nova:
i did that once and it was a good thing I was ready to walk.
because my boss told me that i was being “a grade-a-bitch” and let me go because I asked for a raise.
LikeLike
“Michigoose, on October 17, 2012 at 10:06 am said:
…
In my world, and this covers both public and private sector, men are given the benefit of the doubt and given raises.
This is just my reality, and from what I can see it’s also Mitt’s.”
For what it’s worth, my background is IT, and I’ve pretty much only been employed at two companies. One was a Fortune 500 with a lot of bureaucracy surrounding performance reviews & raises etc. and the other was at a smaller company that was privately held.
At the larger company, a lot of us (men & women) would compare notes about pay & raises etc when the annual reviews were done, usually while drinking. What came out was that the main disparity wasn’t between men and women but rather between veterans and new hires. This was during the 1990’s and 2000’s when the IT labor market was tight so those who had been with the company a while had only gotten the annual raise of about 3 – 4% per year while new hires came in at market rates, which typically were higher. The longer the time with the company, the greater the disparity as they never went through a full salary reevaluation. The overall increase for regular raises was allocated by department, and then each manager had discretion on about a 1% variation. I.e. a general 4% raise would produce a range of 3% – 5% for those who got raises, based on individual performance reviews.
The net result was experienced “senior” staff training the new hires who were making 25% – 50% more than the senior people were. Once this came out, it caused a huge mess for the HR & overall management as the running commentary from most of the senior people was that the best way for them to get a raise was to quit and reapply for their old position.
At the smaller company ironically, performance & cash compensation is based almost entirely on production metrics which they were very good at capturing. The notable addition was the full health insurance coverage for spouses and dependents (i.e. no employee portion) and a matching scholarship program for the children of employees for college, up to a fixed amount.
I suspect that like many things, our world views on these issues are shaped in large part by our personal experiences. Being in IT in the 1990’s was very conducive to developing a libertarian view of how the world worked.
LikeLike
Thank you, mark.
Cannot spend time here today due to work deadlines, but for the record agree with Michi’s point(s).
Something that seems to be left out of this discussion is how many households with children in this country are headed by single women. This does indeed make flex hours, etc. an issue that affects women more than men (which is not at all to denigrate the men who do take a role in childcare, household duties, etc.). And nova, those women cannot afford to take the risk of walking, especially in the current employment climate. You seem to be blaming the women for not responding the same way a man might respond; shades of the 60’s.
LikeLike
“novahockey, on October 17, 2012 at 10:59 am said:
the career path is set at the interest of the employer. i’ve no interest in following their prescribed way forward, as it’s set for their benefit, not mine.”
I have a trite phrase for this that I use on friends who grouse about their career choices:
“You can control your career, or someone else can control it for you. It’s better if you do it.”
LikeLike
“markinaustin, on October 17, 2012 at 11:05 am said:
THERE ARE OBVIOUS WOMEN’S ISSUES as well as issues that affect women inordinately but also affect men a great deal.
Singling out Rx contraceptives for no med insurance coverage is discriminatory against women, b/c they are the ones who can get Rx contraceptives. It is like saying that refusal to cover a vasectomy would not be a male issue.”
Hard ass libertarian that I am, I would cover neither as both are predictable events and thus should not be covered by insurance under the standard model of covering for unforeseen catastrophic events the same way that homeowners and auto insurance works.
As noted previously, I’d make birth control pill available over the counter to help drive down costs and increase access while also nicely resolving the issue of who pays for it.
http://articles.latimes.com/2012/feb/20/opinion/la-oe-potts-the-pill-revisited-20120220
LikeLike
“okiegirl, on October 17, 2012 at 11:18 am said:
Something that seems to be left out of this discussion is how many households with children in this country are headed by single women. This does indeed make flex hours, etc. an issue that affects women more than men (which is not at all to denigrate the men who do take a role in childcare, household duties, etc.). And nova, those women cannot afford to take the risk of walking, especially in the current employment climate. You seem to be blaming the women for not responding the same way a man might respond; shades of the 60′s.”
I’ll concede this. In part, it has to do with how much you consider the decision to have kids as a choice or not and therefore how much it should be supported by society & work.
This is an area where conservatives split with libertarians.
LikeLike
“because my boss told me that i was being “a grade-a-bitch” and let me go because I asked for a raise.”
screw that guy. he lost a good person. but you have to be prepared to walk.
i have to run. someone on the neighborhood listserv is floating the idea of having the county install license plate readers on our streets. we’ve had a rash of break ins.
LikeLike
And both jnc and nova miss the point, also.
You are both good men, but you just don’t get it. In American society, women are left holding the bag.
LikeLike
nova:
someone on the neighborhood listserv is floating the idea of having the county install license plate readers on our streets
“Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.”
LikeLike
“ScottC, on October 17, 2012 at 12:20 pm said:
jnc:
I believe it’s pretty obvious that restrictions on abortion to give the biggest example is considerably more of a women’s issue than it is one for the entire general population.
What makes this “obvious” to you? It isn’t obvious to me.”
By definition, only a woman can get an abortion.
LikeLike
jnc:
By definition, only a woman can get an abortion.
That’s not right. Young girls (not yet women) can get an abortion. And of course post-menopausal or infertile women cannot. So I guess we should be calling it a “fertile female issue”.
On the other hand, I suppose we could also call it a “abortion provider’s issue”, since by definition only abortion providers can provide an abortion. Somehow, though, I don’t think either of these will suffice for those who insist on calling it a “women’s issue”, since the real reason for the label is political, not logical.
LikeLike
those women cannot afford to take the risk of walking, especially in the current employment climate. You seem to be blaming the women for not responding the same way a man might respond; shades of the 60′s.”
not my intent. but i can see why you thought it was, and i apologize for that.
LikeLike
“You can control your career, or someone else can control it for you. It’s better if you do it.”
But if women are generally or often overlooked for promotion/raises, then quiting just puts them into the exact same situation but in a new job. The woman also loses the goodwill, seniority and other benefits that come along with being at a job for a long period of time. That’s the point Michi is making. If the playing field is uneven, and statistics seem to suggest that it is, then switching jobs just puts you in a different place on the same uneven field.
LikeLike
Huzzah! The license plate reader advocates have been routed and are fleeing. But i fear they’ll soon be back, and in greater numbers.
LikeLike
“ashot, on October 17, 2012 at 12:26 pm said:
“You can control your career, or someone else can control it for you. It’s better if you do it.”
But if women are generally or often overlooked for promotion/raises, then quiting just puts them into the exact same situation but in a new job. The woman also loses the goodwill, seniority and other benefits that come along with being at a job for a long period of time. That’s the point Michi is making. If the playing field is uneven, and statistics seem to suggest that it is, then switching jobs just puts you in a different place on the same uneven field.”
Fair enough. My experience and the experience of women who are reasonably close personal friends of mine have been different. We are all in the 40 – 50 age bracket and my observation is that our life choices have had more to do with where we ended up than external factors. We all started with about the same level of undergraduate education and are social peers but some went into the hospitality business and other retail type areas and are struggling, some went into technical fields such as web design or accounting and are about at my level, and two are accomplished executives at two major drug companies (Novo Nordisk and Johnson & Johnson) who will earn way more than I can ever hope to. They are the ones that Jack Welsh talks about when he discussed work/life choices vs work life balance. Of the six people I’m thinking about, only two have children and none are (currently) married so this sample is obviously not representative of the population as a whole. Due to this mix, my world view has been shaped in part by listening to art history majors wonder why they don’t have as good of a career as accounting majors.
However, I haven’t walked a mile in Michi’s shoes (or boots) so I can’t speak to her experiences or anyone else’s.
LikeLike
nova;
“Now go away or I shall taunt you a second time”
LikeLike
I don’t think the neighborhood was prepared for an ATiM-style argument .. with links! You’ll have trained me well.
LikeLike
Scott, abortion is not by any stretch the only issue I would call a “women’s issue.” You are proving one of Michi’s previous points here, i.e., you are trivializing IMO.
LikeLike
okie:
abortion is not by any stretch the only issue I would call a “women’s issue.”
Of that there is no doubt. But abortion is the issue jnc and I were/are discussing.
You are proving one of Michi’s previous points here, i.e., you are trivializing IMO.
Quite the contrary. I think the attempt to politically define abortion as a “women’s issue”, and thereby increase the moral authority of those who arrogate to themselves the position of speaking on behalf of women (ie liberal feminists), is far from trivial. That is precisely why I object to it. If I thought it was trivial, I wouldn’t care.
LikeLike
That’s not right.
By that token, gender pay discrimination in the workplace is not a “woman’s issue” because girls (not yet women) can be paid less than boys. And of course unemployed women don’t get paid for work. So we should call it a “employed female” issue.
On the other hand, we could also call it a “hiring supervisor” or “management” issue, since by definition only someone in a position of power can set a female employee’s pay in a discriminatory fashion.
LikeLike
Mike:
By that token….
Yes, exactly. Or we could just call it pay discrimination and avoid the (to be sure, politically useful) euphemisms that make talking about it less, not more, clear.
LikeLike
“ScottC, on October 17, 2012 at 1:24 pm said:
jnc:
By definition, only a woman can get an abortion.
That’s not right. Young girls (not yet women) can get an abortion. And of course post-menopausal or infertile women cannot. So I guess we should be calling it a “fertile female issue”.”
We can also go with “non-male” if you prefer. Regardless, this issue is always going to affect females more so than males. To argue otherwise is not, in my view, particularly persuasive.
LikeLike
jnc:
Regardless, this issue is always going to affect females more so than males.
I believe the sex ratio at birth for the US is slightly in favor of males, ie a baby is slightly more likely to be a boy than a girl. If that ratio holds true for aborted babies as well, then actually I would say it affects males more. However, to whatever extent babies are being aborted because of their sex, as happens in places like China, then what you say above is probably correct.
Either way, this should go some way towards demonstrating why I think calling this a “women’s issue” is an attempt to assume away the very thing that is at the heart of the issue with regard to the politics of abortion.
LikeLike
Michi wrote: “The fact of the matter remains: there are such things as “women’s issues”.
You guys can choose to debate them amongst yourselves, or include okie and me. And when I say “include”, I mean take us seriously..”
This has come up before and I need help here. What if a person disagrees with you, can they take you seriously while not agreeing? What I mean is can a person, who believes that there is not such thing as “women”s issues,” but also believes that you do believe in them, be seen as taking you and your opinions seriously? Or does not believing in women’s issues mean you are not being taken seriously? No snark her, I honestly do not understand and want to function without being seen as intentionally dismissive of you and your opinions when I disagree with them and want to state the disagreement.
LikeLike
Thank you, okie, Mike and jnc.
You all did far better than I do at clarifying my point.
LikeLike
Scott:
Abortion is not the only women’s issue out there.
In fact, it’s not even close to the original issue that started this discussion. But thanks for trivializing things again.
McWing: You were asking how you could address these issues seriously so that I wouldn’t take offense. . .
Exhibit one.
LikeLike
“ScottC, on October 17, 2012 at 3:29 pm said:
Either way, this should go some way towards demonstrating why I think calling this a “women’s issue” is an attempt to assume away the very thing that is at the heart of the issue with regard to the politics of abortion.”
It’s not. No matter which way the situation turns out, it’s either the woman getting the abortion, or in the vast majority of cases dealing with the consequences of taking the pregnancy to term.
As a libertarian I’m fundamentally unwilling to substitute the states judgement of what’s best, which I find lacking in so many other areas, over that of the responsible party who is most directly involved, i.e. the woman herself. Leaving that aside, from a utilitarian social policy perspective widespread access to safe, legal abortion solves more problems than it creates. This should not be taken as an argument over it’s constitutionality, but merely in favor of a specific view of good public policy.
LikeLike
jnc:
No matter which way the situation turns out, it’s either the woman getting the abortion, or in the vast majority of cases dealing with the consequences of taking the pregnancy to term.
And it is the unborn baby that is getting aborted.
As a libertarian I’m fundamentally unwilling to substitute the states judgement of what’s best, which I find lacking in so many other areas, over that of the responsible party who is most directly involved, i.e. the woman herself.
But this is surely not the case when it comes to the judgement of a person responsible for taking the life of another. Indeed, I imagine that, as a libertarian, that is one of the few instances in which you agree the state’s judgement is most needed. You are ignoring the real issue, which is not who’s judgment is better, but is rather whether or not the fetus has a right to life, and if so at what point the state gains an interest in protecting it. This question is not a “women’s issue”, but is instead one that is relevant to all of us as members of society.
Leaving that aside, from a utilitarian social policy perspective widespread access to safe, legal abortion solves more problems than it creates.
That’s a reasonable argument, but it too shows that the issue is not a “women’s issue”, but is instead a societal issue.
LikeLike
Michi, in what way did Scott trivialize things?
LikeLike
McWing:
Perhaps a better question would be, in what way didn’t he?
LikeLike
Or we could just call it pay discrimination
You would still have to call it “gender-based” pay discrimination to be accurate because there is “race-based” and “age-based” pay discrimination as well. Which brings us back to political issues based on gender, since gender-based pay discrimination disproportionately affects females.
LikeLike
What has he written that trivializes things?
LikeLike
Try reading the comments, McWing.
LikeLike
I have. That is why this is a problem for me and why I’m asking. What specifically is trivializing so I can, if possible, avoid doing it.
LikeLike
That’s a reasonable argument, but it too shows that the issue is not a “women’s issue”, but is instead a societal issue.
Women, particularly those with an unplanned pregnancy, have the greatest disruption to their life, particularly if they bring it to term. While men have some nominal financial responsibility (which is sometimes honored only in the breach), it is far easier for them to absolve themselves of the day to day requirements for care, either through abandonment or indifference. To argue otherwise is to be disingenuous.
Similarly, the ghettoization of women’s work is a real measurable phenomenon. It has always struck me as intriguing that it is only now that medical schools graduate more than 50% women that we are looking at the salary structures in the medical field as being out of line.
LikeLike
Troll, against my better judgment, I’ll bite.
Do you take the position (as it appears to me Scott is doing) that there is no such thing as “women’s issues,” which I define as issues of particular interest to women?
LikeLike
as it appears to me Scott is doing
What I am saying is:
1) Women’s political interests are not monolithic. For example, some women have a political interest in seeing abortion remain legal. Some women have a political interest in seeing abortion outlawed entirely. Some women have a political interest in seeing it somewhat restricted. And other women have no political interest in abortion whatsoever.
2) In terms of the politics of some of these issues, men can have just as much legitimate interest in them as women. For example, for opponents of legally unrestricted abortion, both men and women, the politics of it revolve around the status of the thing being aborted, not the person getting the abortion. So from that perspective, interest in it is unrelated to gender.
For both of these reasons, insisting on referring to these issues generically as “women’s issues” does nothing to advance political discussions of them, and to the extent that it is used to imply (as it often times is) 1) the existence of a generic women’s position or 2) that a man’s position is less worthy of consideration because it is a man’s view (“you’re a man, you just don’t get it”), it is not just useless but in fact detrimental to advancing discussions of them.
LikeLike
McWing–
I have no interest in following your “gotcha” questions down rabbit holes that will end up insulting me. You can find someone else to play your game this time.
EDIT: sorry, okie; go for it.
LikeLike
Scott, what you have asserted is no different than what I asked ashot about earlier.
By saying that there is no such thing as “women’s issues” you claim that there are no “conservative issues”, “liberal issues”, or “libertarian issues”.
Do you really mean that?
LikeLike
Yes. Being paid more than their equally qualified female coworkers is an issue men have been rallying around for decades.
LikeLike
yello:
Being paid more than their equally qualified female coworkers is an issue men have been rallying around for decades.
You have? Shame on you.
LikeLike
Scott:
1) I don’t believe anyone asserted that women’s political interests are monolithic.
2) I don’t believe anyone asserted that men cannot have just as much legitimate interest in them as women. In fact, I posted early in the discussion in a comment directed specifically to you: “[I]t seems to me that males should want to pay attention to issues that are of particular interest to females.”
I have already defined “women’s issues” as those issues of particular interest to women. I would add to that: those issues which disproportionately affect women.
This discussion started with your snarky response to my comment regarding last night’s debate. I do not recall the word “abortion” being mentioned once in that debate, and it certainly was not mentioned in my original comment. There’s a whole other world of issues important to women besides abortion, and I do not believe a discussion of abortion is particularly productive here. All of us made up our minds about it years ago. So it seems that you are trivializing by continuously discussing just that one issue.
LikeLike
okie:
So it seems that you are trivializing by continuously discussing just that one issue.
I can’t make any sense of this under any understanding of “trivializing” that I am aware of.
(BTW, jnc introduced the issue of abortion, not me. I just disagreed with what he said, and explained why.)
LikeLike
Scott, I am no more interested in a tug of war over the definition of “trivializing” than I am in a discussion of abortion. So carry on, as always.
LikeLike
Okie, does not believing in women’s issues but believing that others do in a sincere way, trivialize the other persons opinion? That’s what I’m asking. For example, does an atheist telling me, a Christian, they do not beleive in the existence if a deity, trivialize Christianity?
For the record, I do believe that some women have a heightened interest in certain subjects. I don’t know if that makes me a believer in women’s issues. If I as a politician take a position that abortion should be illegal under all circumstances, I am going to not receive the votes of some women if that is the only, or most important issue. Just as I would probably receive the votes of the women that are ardently pro-life if they are single issue voters or pro-life is their most important issue.
Do I believe that there is a issue or issues that are of interest exclusively to a significant majority of all voting women? No, I do not.
Michi, I am trying to find out if not believing in the above constitutes trivializing of the issue, that is all, if not, then what is it that Scott (and I or others) writes that constitutes trivializing? Is it perceived tone? Men speaking about abortion or contraception? My perception is that mere disagreement when it involves issues of contraception or abortion, or even equal pay, constitutes the perception of trivializing. If that’s the case, so be it and I will forgo discussing them on the site. As I wrote earlier, I know that in the past I, Scott and perhaps others have offended some women posters here when the discussion involves abortion and/or contraception and I cannot understand why. No snark, just a desire to understand and avoid if I can, pitfalls that are perceived as trivializing.
LikeLike
“ScottC, on October 17, 2012 at 4:45 pm said:
…
But this is surely not the case when it comes to the judgement of a person responsible for taking the life of another. Indeed, I imagine that, as a libertarian, that is one of the few instances in which you agree the state’s judgement is most needed. You are ignoring the real issue, which is not who’s judgment is better, but is rather whether or not the fetus has a right to life, and if so at what point the state gains an interest in protecting it. This question is not a “women’s issue”, but is instead one that is relevant to all of us as members of society.”
The argument about when rights attach is a fair one, and the whole “viability” debate is an attempt to bridge the gap between the extremes of banning the day after pill on one hand and allowing unlimited late term abortions on the other.
However, I don’t believe that I’m ignoring the real issue, I just answer it differently than you do. I believe that a big reason why is because I’m an atheist and I suspect you aren’t and I agree with Ayn Rand’s view of both atheism as a prerequisite for objectivism and an internally consistent libertarianism.
From this naturally flows her (and my) view of abortion rights.
I do believe that who is best qualified to make the decision is just as much an issue as when rights attach. In that, I’m consistent with my approach to abortion, smoking pot, and a plethora of other issues about “big government” vs individual judgement.
“2) In terms of the politics of some of these issues, men can have just as much legitimate interest in them as women. For example, for opponents of legally unrestricted abortion, both men and women, the politics of it revolve around the status of the thing being aborted, not the person getting the abortion. So from that perspective, interest in it is unrelated to gender.”
The other competing interest is that of the pregnant woman. And at the end of the day, I believe that a fair argument can be made to characterize these as “women’s issues” as a short hand term vs say broader issues such as the deficit, the size of the defense budget, etc. If you prefer, you can describe them as “issues of particular interest to women” or “issues having particular impact on women”.
LikeLike
jnc:
I believe that a big reason why is because I’m an atheist and I suspect you aren’t…
Nope. I am as well.
…and I agree with Ayn Rand’s view of both atheism as a prerequisite for objectivism and an internally consistent libertarianism.
So do I, for the most part.
However, on abortion Ayn Rand needed to heed her own oft-intoned advice….check your premises. Her argument, with which I am well familiar, rests on premises, both implicit and explicit, that are not grounded in anything other than bald assertion, some of which defy plain facts. An embryo is not an actual being? If it is not a being, what is it? A child cannot acquire rights until it is born? Why? On what does one base the belief that the moral status of a baby one day before it emerges from the uterus is entirely different from that of a baby one day after it emerges? What is it about passage through the birth canal that conveys rights upon a baby? Does Rand really believe (do you really believe), as is implicit in her argument, that a 9 month old baby that has not yet been born is not an “actual being”, but that an 8 month old baby that has been born prematurely is an “actual being”?
Rand asks “Who can conceivably have the right to dictate to her what disposition she is to make of the functions of her own body?”. This is a non sequitur. It is not her disposition of her own body that is at issue, but rather her disposition of someone else’s body that is at issue.
Rand may be simply a victim of her times, but her problem was that she could not in her mind reconcile the rights of a woman to be free of this human being growing inside of her with the rights of the being itself, so she simply asserted away the rights (indeed, the very existence) of the being. But the fact is that those rights can be reconciled. Rand assumed that the only way for a woman to exercise the right to be free of the being inside of her is to destroy it. That is not a valid premise. The being can be removed without actively trying to destroy it, and thus both the rights of the mother and the rights of the baby can be reconciled. There is no need to (bizarrely, I think) assert away the “beingness” of the embryo/fetus/baby, nor to assert that rights suddenly inhere in the being simply by virtue of being separated physically from its mother.
I do believe that who is best qualified to make the decision is just as much an issue as when rights attach.
I don’t see how it possibly can be. Certainly it is an issue, which relates to the way in which children might exercise their rights and the position that parents hold as proxy exercises of those rights. (Rand’s thinking was never entirely clear or convincing to me with regard to children and the relationship between their rights and parental control of them.) But the most fundamental right of any human being, the right from which springs forth all others, is the right to life. Not even a parent, whose judgment is required for the exercise of all manner of other rights, can legitimately exercise the “judgement” to take away that most fundamental of rights. A parent is supposed to act as a guardian of, not a destroyer of, that right.
And so, I think that the issue of when rights attach is very much primary to any discussion of who’s judgment is best. Because if rights have not attached, then there is no need for any discussion of whose judgment, the state’s or the woman’s, is best. The woman has an unqualified right to destroy it if rights have not attached. However, if rights have attached, the question of whose judgment is best centers around the welfare of the being itself, not the welfare of woman. Certainly if the welfare of the mother conflicts with that of the fetus/baby, that makes the situation even more complex, but suggests to me an even greater reason for the state to play a role as a rights protector.
LikeLike
“Okie, does not believing in women’s issues but believing that others do in a sincere way, trivialize the other persons opinion?”
No, troll, but the key phrase is “in a sincere way.” When snarky comments are posted, it does trivialize. But you knew that.
LikeLike
What comments of Scott’s were perceived as snarky?
LikeLike
McWing:
What comments of Scott’s were perceived as snarky?
She’s probably talking about this one, which I went on to explain here.
So because of this single sentence, every other thing I have said since is apparently “trivializing”, well, something. The mind boggles.
LikeLike
Scott, I will not dignify that with a response.
LikeLike
No, Scott, it was not that one single sentence. More everything leading up to that sentence. Part of which is your refusing to engage in conversation except with the men around here until you do throw out that sentence.
LikeLike
Part of which is your refusing to engage in conversation except with the men around here…
Not everything is about your womanhood, Mich. Sometimes I think saying nothing is better than what you would say if you were to say something. Advice I am trying to follow, although not always successfully.
LikeLike
I’m late for the gym.
George – the labels should not be a hindrance to conversation. If when you read “women’s issues” you can think to yourself “yes, I see how funding Planned Parenthood, a major provider of public health services for poor women, affects women directly”, you can than discuss how you oppose governmental funding for health services for everyone because you think health services are a private and not a public good. You can say you see how in this instance you understand it affects women alone, but you would not single out women for denial of services. The response to you would be that you were singling out women by agreeing with a bill that only singled out women. That until all public health services were unfunded, women’s health should not be singled out for defunding.
From there, you would have to walk carefully not to be insulting. Perhaps you could say you opposed public health funding in principle, but you would broaden the attack rather than accept the defunding only of women’s public health. Saying “it’s a start – a move in the right direction” would be insulting, because it is not an across the board start. That’s about as clear as I can get on the line between disagreement and insulting, while wanting to run to the gym.
LikeLike
I can’t help but conclude that denying the premise if women’s issues is seen as trivializing.
LikeLike
George – I thought that you did not deny that some issues affect women far more than men. If that is true, than you can accept the label “women’s issues”, at least for the purpose of discussion. But if you think men are equally affected by the issues I laid out at 5:54 AM, please explain.
LikeLike
I can’t help but conclude that denying the premise [of] women’s issues is seen as trivializing.
That would be correct.
LikeLike
“Michigoose, on October 18, 2012 at 5:04 am said:
No, Scott, it was not that one single sentence. More everything leading up to that sentence. Part of which is your refusing to engage in conversation except with the men around here until you do throw out that sentence.”
Scott seems to be in a “damned if he does or damned if he doesn’t” in this regard. If he posts what he really thinks and challenges premises he catches flak. If he doesn’t, then he’s “refusing to engage in conversation”.
If collectively “women’s issues” are too sensitive a topic to discuss dispassionately, then we should probably just cease bringing the topic up.
LikeLike
JNC you can discuss “women’s issues” dispassionately because you recognize that matters pertaining primarily to women can be labeled “women’s issues” without distorting the English language. When Scott and George deny that there are “women’s issues” then dispassionate discussion of them is limited because – poof – they don’t exist, or -pow – women are unfairly asking to be included in the conversation.
We do not yet have to fear that labeling an issue of primary concern to women a “women’s issue” prohibits males from writing opinions about their substance.
LikeLike
jnc-
I don’t think Michi’s comment was that Scott refuses to engage in a discussion of womens issues. I think she is saying he refuses to engage with women on topics in general. Michi and Okie both discuss lots of topics beyond womens issues.
I’ll also echo what Mark has said. I dont’ see why, even if you insist that labeling something as a women’s issue is a strictly for political purposes, people can’t accept the label of women’s issues simply for the purpose of discussion.
LikeLike
My observation is that Scott tends to challenge the underlying premise of an argument in a way that can often come across as excessively pedantic. I usually take the framing as I find it. However, this isn’t limited to women’s issues or with certain posters. He does it in discussions with me all the time, especially about financial issues and what constitutes a “free market” vs “crony capitalism”.
LikeLike
Rule 5. We’re all discussing in good faith. that’s the important thing to keep in mind. Nobody here is deliberately attempting to insult or offend anyone.
LikeLike