Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

CptJake wrote:

Manchu wrote:What "never worked a day in her life" actually means in this case is clear from the context of the conversation. That Mrs. Romney is "a slacker" is clearly not implied. Again, the implication is that Mrs. Romney is not representative of American women.

And it is clear from the context of my post that she HAS worked. So it is inaccurate to claim otherwise, regardless of the context.

It's clear that she volunteered (which, although can be hard work, isn't the same as a job) and sat on a few boards (which is just a cushy position where you show up 4 times a year). Did she ever actually hold a job?

CptJake wrote:

Manchu wrote:What "never worked a day in her life" actually means in this case is clear from the context of the conversation. That Mrs. Romney is "a slacker" is clearly not implied. Again, the implication is that Mrs. Romney is not representative of American women.

And it is clear from the context of my post that she HAS worked. So it is inaccurate to claim otherwise, regardless of the context.

Did any of those occupations actually paid her a salary and required her to keep up with a 9-to-5 work schedule?

Because, while worthy causes, most of them, just look like "rich wife occupations" to me. And that would be the same thing that me saying that assembling and painting toy soldiers would be my idea of working...

@Grakmar

I'm just curious but have you ever been on a board for an active program? Not saying the boards she was on were but I'm curious if you have been. Because if even 1/4 of the boards she was a member of were active boards it's quite a bit of time that has to be put in.

@Thread

With the volunteer work that Mrs. Romney does and her exposure to people going through hardship I think that it's understandable that she would be able to raise the point with her husband that women are concerned with the economy even though she has never had to worry about money.

@CptJake: It is clear from what you posted that Mrs. Romney has not worked. Presumably you have a job and know the difference between what she has done and working a job. If not, I can be of no further assistance to you.

Manchu wrote:@d-usa:
Content should not be subordinate to presentation. This a great illustration of what is wrong and broken about political discourse in our culture -- that anyone could with a straight face interpret this commentator's remarks as an attack on stay-at-home moms.

Would this include interpreting The Right's resistance to providing free condoms to sexually active college girls as a War on Women?

Best,

Hulksmash wrote:@Grakmar

I'm just curious but have you ever been on a board for an active program? Not saying the boards she was on were but I'm curious if you have been. Because if even 1/4 of the boards she was a member of were active boards it's quite a bit of time that has to be put in.

@Thread

With the volunteer work that Mrs. Romney does and her exposure to people going through hardship I think that it's understandable that she would be able to raise the point with her husband that women are concerned with the economy even though she has never had to worry about money.

True that. it depends on the board. Some boards do only meet occasionally. Other boards are basically jobs.

Hulksmash wrote:With the volunteer work that Mrs. Romney does and her exposure to people going through hardship I think that it's understandable that she would be able to raise the point with her husband that women are concerned with the economy even though she has never had to worry about money.

The issue is about Mitt Romney, not Ann Romney. If Mitt Romney wants to know what American women are concerned about he should be talking to American women -- namely women who have to work at jobs rather than who can afford to donate their time to political and charitable causes instead of holding jobs. But what he says, according to the commentator, is that he knows what American women want based on talking to his wife. For one thing, he's claiming to be more in-touch by talking to someone who is just as out-of-touch. For another, it shows that he doesn't take women seriously as they actually exist in the United States in 2012.

Frazzled wrote:

Hulksmash wrote:@Grakmar

I'm just curious but have you ever been on a board for an active program? Not saying the boards she was on were but I'm curious if you have been. Because if even 1/4 of the boards she was a member of were active boards it's quite a bit of time that has to be put in.

@Thread

With the volunteer work that Mrs. Romney does and her exposure to people going through hardship I think that it's understandable that she would be able to raise the point with her husband that women are concerned with the economy even though she has never had to worry about money.

True that. it depends on the board. Some boards do only meet occasionally. Other boards are basically jobs.

AS an aside, with Phanatak and myself posting, with a few more dog faces we can turn this from Dakka into DakkaHund!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Manchu wrote:

Hulksmash wrote:With the volunteer work that Mrs. Romney does and her exposure to people going through hardship I think that it's understandable that she would be able to raise the point with her husband that women are concerned with the economy even though she has never had to worry about money.

The issue is about Mitt Romney, not Ann Romney. If Mitt Romney wants to know what American women are concerned about he should be talking to American women -- namely women who have to work at jobs rather than who can afford to donate their time to political and charitable causes instead of holding jobs. But what he says, according to the commentator, is that he knows what American women want based on talking to his wife. For one thing, he's claiming to be more in-touch by talking to someone who is just as out-of-touch. For another, it shows that he doesn't take women seriously as they actually exist in the United States in 2012.

interesting how I don't think this argument was made about Eleanor Roosevelt...

Phanatik wrote:Would this include interpreting The Right's resistance to providing free condoms to sexually active college girls as a War on Women?

Yes absolutely! Peddling a slogan like "the War on Women" in reference to that issue is despicable.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:interesting how I don't think this argument was made about Eleanor Roosevelt...

If you have an argument, could you please just spare the time to express it as more than an insinuation or jibe?

Manchu wrote:@CptJake: It is clear from what you posted that Mrs. Romney has not worked. Presumably you have a job and know the difference between what she has done and working a job. If not, I can be of no further assistance to you.

So volunteer work isn't work. Got it.


Thank you Mr MOD.

Again though, these are volunteer and appointed positions. The context of discussion surrounded less women being able to find their way back into the working world, positions requiring interviews, experience, resumes and all the jazz that surrounds that.

These are things, regardless of her volunteer and council positions, that Ann Romney has never had to deal with.

I'm not calling her lazy. I'm not saying she's a slacker. I'm not saying she sits around a mansion all day watching soaps and eating bonbons.

I am saying that (assuming this commentator is correct) she has no experience pertaining to the matters of finding a paid position through the normal channels that your "average" working woman has at her disposal. As such, "never worked a day in her life" is a valid statement.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Phanatik wrote:Would this include interpreting The Right's resistance to providing free condoms to sexually active college girls as a War on Women?

So The Right only has an issue providing free condoms to sexually active girls, and not sexually active men? So you're saying that The Right is blatantly sexist?

CptJake wrote:So volunteer work isn't work.

Volunteering is not a job.

Manchu wrote:

Phanatik wrote:Would this include interpreting The Right's resistance to providing free condoms to sexually active college girls as a War on Women?

Yes absolutely! Peddling a slogan like "the War on Women" in reference to that issue is despicable.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:interesting how I don't think this argument was made about Eleanor Roosevelt...

If you have an argument, could you please just spare the time to express it as more than an insinuation or jibe?

No I'd rather just bring up Eleanor Roosevelt, who also was wealthy and never worked but was viewed as an icon of knowledge on women's issues. But that was then and this is now.

Having said that, if she is brought in as a major player then, to me, she's fair game. Just like Michelle Obama and just completely unlike Jacqueline Kennedy or Barbara Bush.

She has worked. To state she has not is inaccurate. You can't spin it differently.

streamdragon wrote:I'm not calling her lazy. I'm not saying she's a slacker. I'm not saying she sits around a mansion all day watching soaps and eating bonbons.

It does not matter what you do or do not actually say. All that matters is the implication. And by implication, I mean something that has nothing whatsoever to do with the things that you actually said.

streamdragon wrote:Again though, these are volunteer and appointed positions. The context of discussion surrounded less women being able to find their way back into the working world, positions requiring interviews, experience, resumes and all the jazz that surrounds that.

These are things, regardless of her volunteer and council positions, that Ann Romney has never had to deal with.

I'm not calling her lazy. I'm not saying she's a slacker. I'm not saying she sits around a mansion all day watching soaps and eating bonbons.

I am saying that (assuming this commentator is correct) she has no experience pertaining to the matters of finding a paid position through the normal channels that your "average" working woman has at her disposal. As such, "never worked a day in her life" is a valid statement.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Phanatik wrote:Would this include interpreting The Right's resistance to providing free condoms to sexually active college girls as a War on Women?

So The Right only has an issue providing free condoms to sexually active girls, and not sexually active men? So you're saying that The Right is blatantly sexist?

Posts like these exuding reasoned argument have no place here young man.

Frazzled wrote:AS an aside, with Phanatak and myself posting, with a few more dog faces we can turn this from Dakka into DakkaHund!

Despite any socio-economic or political differences, dog lovers should always be able to unite together to fight those pernicious cat people!

Regards,

Manchu wrote:

CptJake wrote:So volunteer work isn't work.

Volunteering is not a job.

Was the statement made she never held a job otr 'She never worked a day in her life"

Mr. Mod, please clarify that for me. Also clarify how Mr. Mod sees volunteer work as non-work.

Manchu wrote:

CptJake wrote:So volunteer work isn't work.

Volunteering is not a job.

Ok thats just completely wrong. In the public sector there are a variety of full time volunteer positions. indeed many charities and private social agencies could not exist without them.

in a previous life one of She Who Must Be Obeyed's primary management duties was handling the volunteer employees, many who were actively full time.

Indeed, when I win the Lotto (come on baby Jebus test me on this!) this is my future route.

CptJake wrote:She has worked. To state she has not is inaccurate. You can't spin it differently.

It's not about spin. It's about context. "I hit the roof" can mean that I punched the top of someone's house or that I got very angry. "She's never worked a day in her life" can mean that she's has literally never performed any kind of action to achieve a result or it can mean that she has never held a job.

Phanatik wrote:

Frazzled wrote:AS an aside, with Phanatak and myself posting, with a few more dog faces we can turn this from Dakka into DakkaHund!

Despite any socio-economic or political differences, dog lovers should always be able to unite together to fight those pernicious cat people!

Regards,

True dat!

Frazzled wrote:

Manchu wrote:

CptJake wrote:So volunteer work isn't work.

Volunteering is not a job.

Ok thats just completely wrong.

No it's not.

The fact that some people are able to spend most of their time volunteering does not mean that volunteering is a job.

Manchu wrote:Peddling a slogan like "the War on Women" in reference to that issue is despicable.

Yes, who ever heard of slogans being allowed in politics?

Ciao,

Frazzled wrote:

Manchu wrote:

CptJake wrote:So volunteer work isn't work.

Volunteering is not a job.

Ok thats just completely wrong. In the public sector there are a variety of full time volunteer positions. indeed many charities and private social agencies could not exist without them.

in a previous life one of She Who Must Be Obeyed's primary management duties was handling the volunteer employees, many who were actively full time.

Indeed, when I win the Lotto (come on baby Jebus test me on this!) this is my future route.

You just argued yourself out... if you don't receive a salary for it then it is not a job in the traditional sense of the word and so "Never worked" is a valid statement in that context.

Phanatik wrote:Yes, who ever heard of slogans being allowed in politics?

I get that you will criticize everything that I say, no matter what it is. What I don't get is why.

I just have to say that some of you probably have very little experience with major charity work boards or programs. The amount of time and work that can go into these is insane and can make my work hours look like I'm slacking.

I'm not saying that all of her organizations she has/or currently works with are this intensive. Just that if 1/4 of them are the woman has worked.

A lot of boards also do interview for new board members similar to a job interview because....sometimes these are just unpaid jobs with screwed up hours.

Just because someone hasn't had to work 9-5 to feed her family doesn't mean she doesn't work or hasn't had a job.

Also the constant exposure to people in financially hard situations (which most of her charities seem to revolve around) would indicate she probably has a better pulse on large scale worries of the modern woman. So why shouldn't Mitt use a resource like that as an advisor instead of wasting time during an election to talk to individual women.

Sidenote are women not worried about the economy? Every woman I know is even if it's only about how it will effect schools.

Manchu wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Manchu wrote:

CptJake wrote:So volunteer work isn't work.

Volunteering is not a job.

Ok thats just completely wrong.

No it's not.

The fact that some people are able to spend most of their time volunteering does not mean that volunteering is a job.

yea it can actually. A job is an employment assignment. It can be paid or nonpaid. It can be full time or part time.

You've just not been esxposed to that you capitalist dog!



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Hulksmash wrote:I just have to say that some of you probably have very little experience with major charity work boards or programs. The amount of time and work that can go into these is insane and can make my work hours look like I'm slacking.

I'm not saying that all of her organizations she has/or currently works with are this intensive. Just that if 1/4 of them are the woman has worked.

A lot of boards also do interview for new board members similar to a job interview because....sometimes these are just unpaid jobs with screwed up hours.

Just because someone hasn't had to work 9-5 to feed her family doesn't mean she doesn't work or hasn't had a job.

Also the constant exposure to people in financially hard situations (which most of her charities seem to revolve around) would indicate she probably has a better pulse on large scale worries of the modern woman. So why shouldn't Mitt use a resource like that as an advisor instead of wasting time during an election to talk to individual women.

Sidenote are women not worried about the economy? Every woman I know is even if it's only about how it will effect schools.

This!

I was of the running capitalist dog Manchu's view until I ran into the Wife (curse you sippy cups full of margaritas!) and her commie pinko socialist ways (well she is from Illinois). the world of charity/for public welfare organizations is a completely different animal.

Manchu wrote:

Phanatik wrote:Yes, who ever heard of slogans being allowed in politics?

I get that you will criticize everything that I say, no matter what it is. What I don't get is why.

That is an absolute statement which I would not subscribe to. I've no doubt that in this space-time continuum there must be at least a couple of things we could agree on.

Frankly, I believe Democrats and the left-leaning media are responsible for the contentious nature of politics today. Your side is overly quick to b-slap anyone on the right that forgets to cross or dot as needed, while those on the left can say the most heinous things with nary a whisper other than Fox News. So, many on my side have taken the stance that what's good for the goose is good and will rise to the occasion.

Cheerio!

Hulksmash wrote:I just have to say that some of you probably have very little experience with major charity work boards or programs. The amount of time and work that can go into these is insane and can make my work hours look like I'm slacking.

It does not matter how many hours Mrs. Romney donated to these organizations or how much effort those hours entailed. All that matters is that she did not work to earn money to survive and for that reason she is not representative of women who do so.

Frazzled wrote:A job is an employment assignment.

I can do that, too: a job is a dog that has short legs, an elongated body, and a bad attitude. T-bone is a wicked job.

Phanatik wrote:Frankly, I believe Democrats and the left-leaning media are responsible for the contentious nature of politics today. [...] So, many on my side have taken the stance that what's good for the goose is good and will rise to the occasion.

Fighting fire with fire to put out the fire seems like a bad strategy. Fighting fire with fire is a good strategy, however, if you just want everything to burn.

Hulksmash wrote:Also the constant exposure to people in financially hard situations (which most of her charities seem to revolve around) would indicate she probably has a better pulse on large scale worries of the modern woman.

There are some people who believe that rich people who don't hold jobs know what is best for people who are not rich who do hold jobs. MItt Romney is clearly one of them.

So why shouldn't Mitt use a resource like that as an advisor instead of wasting time during an election to talk to individual women.

The idea that talking to individual women "is a waste of time" that can be avoided by listening to your wife (who has more in common with you than any of them, ovaries aside) is exactly what the commentator was criticizing.

Manchu wrote:

Hulksmash wrote:I just have to say that some of you probably have very little experience with major charity work boards or programs. The amount of time and work that can go into these is insane and can make my work hours look like I'm slacking.

It does not matter how many hours Mrs. Romney donated to these organizations or how much effort those hours entailed. All that matters is that she did not work to earn money to survive and for that reason she is not representative of women who do so.

Frazzled wrote:A job is an employment assignment.

I can do that, too: a job is a dog that has short legs, an elongated body, and a bad attitude. T-bone is a wicked job.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Phanatik wrote:Frankly, I believe Democrats and the left-leaning media are responsible for the contentious nature of politics today. [...] So, many on my side have taken the stance that what's good for the goose is good and will rise to the occasion.

Fighting fire with fire to put out the fire seems like a bad strategy. Fighting fire with fire is a good strategy, however, if you just want everything to burn.

Son, you better think about that definition before you get married. Your wife will terminate your ass if you tell her only making money is a job, that raising the kids is not a job. I know. I KNOW!