The issue is whether women who choose to seek an education and a career should
have the encouragment and support to pursue their dream or should they be
restricted in their choices and made to fit a historical stereotype of
conformity. Certainly, there is that vast majority of women how would like to
build lives that encompasses both worlds, but usually this is only until the
demands of traditional roles exert an influence.However, there is
very little support for women who want to pursue a career, even rejecting the
traditional role within which society may demand they accept. These women
(career women with the skills and experience necessary for the highest levels of
business and government) are usually cast as undesirable and threatening.Romney's conservative background may affect his perspective of
professional women and whether they are competent since he may, at his core,
believe that a woman's place, first and foremost, is in the home.
Nonetheless, providing that path to excellence in career remains a major
challenge for young women today.
Some women want careers; some women want to stay home; some women want both.
Some men want careers; some men want to stay home; some men want both. True
workplace equality would allow each person the career path he or she wishes, and
would allow both men and women flex time if that is what their career paths
would need. This isn't just a women's issue, despite the way Romney
tries to "dress" it.
Employers should hire the best person for the job? If they don't surely
they will do less well than employers who do. Why all the furor and the clamor
for government interference?
I attended a dinner last week. At my table of strangers was a Baby Boomer who
recounted that when she was in college, the only career options for an educated
woman were teacher and nurse. Also at my table was a young SLCC student who had
recently switched from pre-med to nursing (she said she was intellectually
capable of being a doctor, but her heart took her to the hands-on care of
nursing). One generation had a choice; the other didn't.Ms.
Erickson seems to be faulting feminists for not supporting employment reforms
that enable choice (like flex schedules, telecommuting, etc.). Yet if she were
to look at history, it was the women's movement that championed these
changes and brought them into the workplace (look through Ms. magazines from the
70s-80s). Gov. Romney is a Johnny-come-lately to the issue. His binders were
prepared for him by progressive feminist groups. The ones limiting choice are
those reactionary elements who believe that a woman's primary obligation is
to be a mother first and foremost and would limit the opportunities of women to
do otherwise. A certain avian forum locally comes to mind.
When feminists bash Ann Romney for supporting her husband - while excusing
Clinton for molesting women - it is clear who the real misogynists in America
Counter IntelligenceSalt Lake City, UTAre you quoting
Rush Limbaugh verbatim here? Where else does this nonsense originate?To hear Mitt Romny extol his support for women, one would think that he was a
major supporter of the Equal Rights Amendment instead of opposing its
ratification. Somehow he has morphed into this champion of women's rights.
Perhaps he is really only a proponent of traditional women's roles and
only reluctantly accepts change because the world around him has changed.Have you ever notice that in the famous picture of Mitt and his
associates standing with money falling out of their pockets, there are no women?
Kind of tells you in a nutshell what he thinks about women in the workplace.
@SalseroAnyone who dissents from your bloated politically correct
dogma must listen to Limbaugh?Really?That is the best you can do?If you really want to know - I never listen to AM radio let alone
Limbaugh.My image of feminist hypocrisy is mostly derived from
listening to Stephanie Cutter (Obama assistant campaign manager) Sandra Fluke,
Hillary Rosen, Gloria Steinem, and our own Furry1993 (as well as the famous
misogynists at MSNBC)It is telling that you made a personal attack
against me in order to cover for the fact that you were unable to ignore the
reality that feminists have attacked Ann Romney for being a full-time mother
(specifically; attacks from Hilary Rosen and Furry) AND feminists have largely
ignored Clinton's abuse of women (including credible serious allegation
regarding Juanita Broderick); instead awarding him a sort of giddy feminist
"bad boy" statusSo in direct answer to your question: This
"nonsense" directly originates with YOU and your hypocritical cohorts
Your attempt to disown that reality with a diversionary
"Limbaugh assault" merely make it that much more laughable.
Now that the Ameriban women's movement has done its thing, exactly what
choices are America's women lacking?
All those clamoring for equality and flexibility are really clamoring for
government to make those choices for them, an irony indeed for those who want
more 'flexibility' and 'choice', but only through government
mandates and interference!
Hey guess what, men can't have it all either. I would love to spend more
time with my family, and have a successful career, and pursue my own business.
Guess what? I can't do it all. I have to make choices and sacrifices. The
idea that women can have it all is just as ridiculous as the notion that men can
have it all.