New Posts
  • Hi there guest! Welcome to PoliticalJack.com. Register for free to join our community?

"War On Women" Update

Zam-Zam

Senator
There will be no outrage from liberal women this time, they'll just accept it like good little girls. They know their place:


WASHINGTON — In an Oval Office meeting on Dec. 29, 11 of President Obama’s top advisers stood before him discussing the heated fiscal negotiations. The 10 visible in a White House photo are men.

In the days since, Mr. Obama has put together a national security team dominated by men, with Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts nominated to succeed Hillary Rodham Clinton as the secretary of state, Chuck Hagel chosen to be the defense secretary and John O. Brennan nominated as the director of the Central Intelligence Agency. Given the leading contenders for other top jobs, including chief of staff and Treasury secretary, Mr. Obama’s inner circle will continue to be dominated by men well into his second term.

From the White House down the ranks, the Obama administration has compiled a broad appointment record that has significantly exceeded the Bush administration in appointing women but has done no better than the Clinton administration, according to an analysis of personnel data by The New York Times. About 43 percent of Mr. Obama’s appointees have been women, about the same proportion as in the Clinton administration, but up from the roughly one-third appointed by George W. Bush.

The skew was widespread: male appointees under Mr. Obama outnumbered female appointees at 11 of the 15 federal departments, for instance. In some cases, the skew was also deep. At the Departments of Justice, Defense, Veterans Affairs and Energy, male appointees outnumbered female appointees by about two to one.





Complete text: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/09/us/politics/under-obama-a-skew-toward-male-appointees.html?_r=2&



There's talking the talk, and then there's walking the walk. This administration is very good at the former, not so much the latter.
 
There will be no outrage from liberal women this time, they'll just accept it like good little girls. They know their place:


WASHINGTON — In an Oval Office meeting on Dec. 29, 11 of President Obama’s top advisers stood before him discussing the heated fiscal negotiations. The 10 visible in a White House photo are men.

In the days since, Mr. Obama has put together a national security team dominated by men, with Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts nominated to succeed Hillary Rodham Clinton as the secretary of state, Chuck Hagel chosen to be the defense secretary and John O. Brennan nominated as the director of the Central Intelligence Agency. Given the leading contenders for other top jobs, including chief of staff and Treasury secretary, Mr. Obama’s inner circle will continue to be dominated by men well into his second term.

From the White House down the ranks, the Obama administration has compiled a broad appointment record that has significantly exceeded the Bush administration in appointing women but has done no better than the Clinton administration, according to an analysis of personnel data by The New York Times. About 43 percent of Mr. Obama’s appointees have been women, about the same proportion as in the Clinton administration, but up from the roughly one-third appointed by George W. Bush.

The skew was widespread: male appointees under Mr. Obama outnumbered female appointees at 11 of the 15 federal departments, for instance. In some cases, the skew was also deep. At the Departments of Justice, Defense, Veterans Affairs and Energy, male appointees outnumbered female appointees by about two to one.





Complete text: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/09/us/politics/under-obama-a-skew-toward-male-appointees.html?_r=2&



There's talking the talk, and then there's walking the walk. This administration is very good at the former, not so much the latter.

I saw this paragraph...


From the White House down the ranks, the Obama administration has compiled a broad appointment record that has significantly exceeded the Bush administration in appointing women but has done no better than the Clinton administration, according to an analysis of personnel data by The New York Times. About 43 percent of Mr. Obama’s appointees have been women, about the same proportion as in the Clinton administration, but up from the roughly one-third appointed by George W. Bush.
 
About 43 percent of Mr. Obama’s appointees have been women, about the same proportion as in the Clinton administration, but up from the roughly one-third appointed by George W. Bush.

Lets discuss this point.
 
So why is it that women voted for President Obama...and not Romney, Zam?


You should all ask that question very seriously.

The first time I saw Obama I knew he was the next Prez of the USA. Clever, I thought very very clever. Never at any point did I doubt that he would win the Primaries nor the Election.

A most Perfectly produced and advertised Product. I leave you to answer why it is seemingly though not actually so perfect for you as a Nation at this time and why America bought this perfect Product as that which will cleanse your troubled souls ...............

Obama-Nation
 
As a woman I am so sick of this nonsense. It is honestly beneath me to be considered anyone's special interest group. And, I certainly don't judge any employer by their willingness to hire women for the sake of hiring women. I EXPECT that an employer hires the best person for the job. And, who is best can include a lot of factors. It may not be simply who is best on paper as far as a resume of experience, but it may include ideas of who is the best fit for an organization. And, in some cases that may mean a man is a better fit.

I find it irritating because I don't want anyone to hand me anything. I certainly don't to be hired because I am a woman or receive special treatment because I am a woman. I don't think its fair I get to scream sexual harrasment if my boss checks out my ass - while I go out of my way to dress provactively and attractively particularly to attract attention and to be recognized as attractive by others. I think its silly.

As long as we count on or expect others to give us something - we are relegating ourselves to second class citizenship. No one can give me anything or give me more rights -that implys they were theirs to give and puts them in a power position. They rights, the opportunities are mine to take. Like anything in life, the more something is worth, the harder you have to work for it. And, if I still have to work harder to get ahead, if my daughter still has to work harder, longer hours than every man she knows to get ahead, that is all ok. I would rather we systematically beat down the down the stereotypes than be given a pass.

So, I don't care how many women Obama has, and I don't care how many women Bush had as advisors and leaders in each of their organization. I expect that each President nominated people for whatever reasons they had at the time, and many of them probably were for repayment of favors. And, it is what it is.

connie
 
As a woman I am so sick of this nonsense. It is honestly beneath me to be considered anyone's special interest group. And, I certainly don't judge any employer by their willingness to hire women for the sake of hiring women. I EXPECT that an employer hires the best person for the job. And, who is best can include a lot of factors. It may not be simply who is best on paper as far as a resume of experience, but it may include ideas of who is the best fit for an organization. And, in some cases that may mean a man is a better fit.

I find it irritating because I don't want anyone to hand me anything. I certainly don't to be hired because I am a woman or receive special treatment because I am a woman. I don't think its fair I get to scream sexual harrasment if my boss checks out my ass - while I go out of my way to dress provactively and attractively particularly to attract attention and to be recognized as attractive by others. I think its silly.

As long as we count on or expect others to give us something - we are relegating ourselves to second class citizenship. No one can give me anything or give me more rights -that implys they were theirs to give and puts them in a power position. They rights, the opportunities are mine to take. Like anything in life, the more something is worth, the harder you have to work for it. And, if I still have to work harder to get ahead, if my daughter still has to work harder, longer hours than every man she knows to get ahead, that is all ok. I would rather we systematically beat down the down the stereotypes than be given a pass.

So, I don't care how many women Obama has, and I don't care how many women Bush had as advisors and leaders in each of their organization. I expect that each President nominated people for whatever reasons they had at the time, and many of them probably were for repayment of favors. And, it is what it is.

connie

So you would be ok for women to be overlooked because they might get pregnant and that would cause an employer to have to do without them for a period of time? Or to have a weight restriction that most women could not pick up that men could as a reason for not hiring a person, even though it would never come into the job. Would you require an employer to provide a machine to lift the weight? Or would you do as you say, and say it's just tough shit, learn to deal with it if your a woman.

And I know a lot of women who don't dress that way who still have a very nice ass to look at, should it be OK for the boss to gaze at them also? What about co workers who sneak a gaze?
If a woman is looking towards a man's ass, do you think everyone is thinking that she is a pig? I know many women think that about men. But I can tell you right now Connie, most guys would be happy to go with your beliefs.
 
Yes, I am ok with a woman being overlooked because she may get pregnant. I know that I have not been given opportunties in my career and I didn't take opportunities in my career because I knew they would not be compatible with my family life. The reality is that as a mom - I am NOT as reliable an employee as my male counterparts. I am the one in my household who stays home with the kids. I am the one who can't come in early in the morning because I take the kids to daycare and to school. Being a mom has impacted my job performance in many ways that my male counterparts have not been impacted because they have SAHMS that do my job. I would expect in an interview process that if my husband was a SAHD or if my boss knew I had a SAHD for a husband, that ultimately it would not affect compensation or opportunities for advancement because I will have already proven my dedication to career over family life. But, I have no problem that that is part of what employers decide when they make hiring decisions. Hiring the wrong person, hiring a person who would want to get pregnant and leave employee later is expensive to companies. They are in business to make a profit, not worry about my career goals.

If you are attractive you will garner attention from your gender and the opposite sex. It is a fact of nature. Do I have a problem with it if someone think that I am attractive and has noticed it and checks me out. No, not really. Do I have a problem if I am expected to perform sexual favors to get a job or to keep my job. Yes, I do. But, that should exist whether man or woman. So, I don't think that is unique to being a woman. It may be more prevalent with women but it is not unique.

connie
 
If PoliticalJack came with sound effects, you would hear thunderous applause for this.

The day will never dawn when I need Republicans, Democrats, the government or anyone else to legislate that I am equal to any man - I already assume this is the case.
 
The day will never dawn when I need Republicans, Democrats, the government or anyone else to legislate that I am equal to any man - I already assume this is the case.

You said succinctly what I took a book to write. I think I am going to quote you!
 
Back
Top