WAR on WOMEN??

[kid4dinar]

Women, please, dinar vet women tell me if you honestly feel that republicans have a war against women.

I would truely like to understand where and on what primise this party has established this so called war.

I find it insulting to women for democrates to think women are not independant people.

I heard 1 woman on tv claim that she felt like she was a 2 ranked person.

I will like to see some true honest comments. (from women please)

Thank you.

[FlintNPebbles]

I feel the Democrats listened to us when the Lily Ledbetter legislation was signed. I don't think it is a PARTY discrimination but rather an individual's discrimination. And YES, I feel Romney does not have women's rights in the forefront. Does that stop me from supporting a candidate? It may, or may not, depending on the rest of their platform. But a WAR on women, no, that is not what I would call it with the Republican party.

I have seen many times women get passed over for advancement even though she was as qualified or more qualified than a man, but the person making the decision decided that they didn't want to "deal" with women's issues. Really?? I know many, many women who can, and do, a better job than a man in the same position. But get less pay. I have a pharmacist friend who works with other male pharmacists, the company offers shares in the company to the men....none of the women have ever been offered shares. Fair?

[i_musician77]

Whereas I appreciate your post, I believe it is posted in the wrong section. I lean republican on economic issues and I love women....for the record! lol

[Rayzur]

I personally haven't noticed one way or the other, though would have to say I don't typically notice that issue specifically. I could venture a guess, but won't as there is too much bashing and trashing going on subsequent to political discussions (arguments), and there's not a whole lot of room or openess for dialogue without invoking a lot of emotion filled name calling, polarization, ridicule, and disenfranchizement, if one doesn't voice the majority opinion. I woudl however say I dont believe the Republican party as individuals has a war per se as such against women, however I do intellectually understand why some might assert that. (and please for the Love of G-d, note that I said I intellectually understand why, versus I am asserting it myself).

BTW I voted 2 weeks ago. Do most states allow that? I noticed that Iowa has over a 3rd of their votes already in. Wonder how many others are already in and being counted?

[i_musician77]

I feel the Democrats listened to us when the Lily Ledbetter legislation was signed. I don't think it is a PARTY discrimination but rather an individual's discrimination. And YES, I feel Romney does not have women's rights in the forefront. Does that stop me from supporting a candidate? It may, or may not, depending on the rest of their platform. But a WAR on women, no, that is not what I would call it with the Republican party.

I have seen many times women get passed over for advancement even though she was as qualified or more qualified than a man, but the person making the decision decided that they didn't want to "deal" with women's issues. Really?? I know many, many women who can, and do, a better job than a man in the same position. But get less pay. I have a pharmacist friend who works with other male pharmacists, the company offers shares in the company to the men....none of the women have ever been offered shares. Fair?

A little fact: Under the Obama administration, Women salaries in the Whitehouse are 18% lower than that of mens performing similar duties. I DO agree, this is not a party issue. I do believe that Romney has fundamental Womens rights more front and center than does Obama. Romney did advocate equality in the workplace and equal opportunites for financial success. I lived in Massachusetts while he was Governor and did experience the effects. This belief is a misnomer in my opinion.

[Rayzur]

Musician... I always thought you were a guy lol lol lol just goes to show ya that ole expression about assumption Apologies, guess I'll have to pay more attention.

I've seen similar statements to yours about women making x% less than men for the same job... and I don't really understand it when it comes to working for the government. As a government person I know that jobs have salaries atteched to them, and have nothign to do with gender (promoting into is another story)... I dont know that Obama or Romney can in anyway influence or change what someone makes in an government job in terms of making it unequal in pay. There's no descriptor or caveat in government jobs that says if you are a woman, you will get less.

And I am NOT arguing that it isnt the case, I am just wondering how it can be the case for government employment?

I'm also curious as to how you benefited as a woman under Romney's watch as Governor... (or any Governor for that matter, this is not about Romney per se). Was it a matter of a more equalized employment field, or more available work programs for single parents (or day care programs or education programs) or something like that? I'm just trying to understand how a specific group knows that a candidate benefits them or not... OR is it the policies of the party that's in office that matters in terms of benefiting? I can see given Romney's specific background where he as an individual could well be more supportative of children in families which could well benefit the single parent, the majority of whom are women taking responsibility to rear the offspring of a union... so I am wondering if that is what you meant....

It might be a matter of the individual versus the party? I don't know... and I'm trying to figure out how one knows...

Thanks for indulging my curiosity and questions.... appreciate it :D

[kid4dinar]

Thank you for such honest input..

Please share and please no bashing answers.

Us men might learn some important matters.

[i_musician77]

Musician... I always thought you were a guy lol lol lol just goes to show ya that ole expression about assumption Apologies, guess I'll have to pay more attention.

I've seen similar statements to yours about women making x% less than men for the same job... and I don't really understand it when it comes to working for the government. As a government person I know that jobs have salaries atteched to them, and have nothign to do with gender (promoting into is another story)... I dont know that Obama or Romney can in anyway influence or change what someone makes in an government job in terms of making it unequal in pay. There's no descriptor or caveat in government jobs that says if you are a woman, you will get less.

And I am NOT arguing that it isnt the case, I am just wondering how it can be the case for government employment?

I'm also curious as to how you benefited as a woman under Romney's watch as Governor... (or any Governor for that matter, this is not about Romney per se). Was it a matter of a more equalized employment field, or more available work programs for single parents (or day care programs or education programs) or something like that? I'm just trying to understand how a specific group knows that a candidate benefits them or not... OR is it the policies of the party that's in office that matters in terms of benefiting? I can see given Romney's specific background where he as an individual could well be more supportative of children in families which could well benefit the single parent, the majority of whom are women taking responsibility to rear the offspring of a union... so I am wondering if that is what you meant....

It might be a matter of the individual versus the party? I don't know... and I'm trying to figure out how one knows...

Thanks for indulging my curiosity and questions.... appreciate it :D

I am a guy! lol....I was deep in Corporate America and subsequentially, a business owner in the state. State mandates came down on numerous occasions referencing overall equality across the board specifically on the qualifications of the candidate and the assessed average pay per position. Masachusetts has been and perhaps always will be progressive in it's workforce. On the flip side, I have experienced the a-typical southern sentiment of the 'good ole' boy' mentality which is more of a who you know mandates opportunity and pay, and historically has almost always been preferential towasrd men. So this is perhaps more a of Geographical issue than a political party issue.

Edited October 19, 2012 by i_musician77

[Maggie123]

I will like to see some true honest comments. (from women please)

Thank you.

Kid4dinar Thank You For A Great Idea!!!

I am a guy! lol....

i_musician... Ladies Only Please.

This is great... let's as laidies of DV hold a higher road and Communicate!

You all know we excell in that Dept.

Let's be kind to one another and talk without being bothered by a whole bunch of posturing.

Hugs Maggie

Musician... I always thought you were a guy lol lol lol just goes to show ya that ole expression about assumption Apologies, guess I'll have to pay more attention.

I've seen similar statements to yours about women making x% less than men for the same job... and I don't really understand it when it comes to working for the government. As a government person I know that jobs have salaries atteched to them, and have nothign to do with gender (promoting into is another story)... I dont know that Obama or Romney can in anyway influence or change what someone makes in an government job in terms of making it unequal in pay. There's no descriptor or caveat in government jobs that says if you are a woman, you will get less.

And I am NOT arguing that it isnt the case, I am just wondering how it can be the case for government employment?

I'm also curious as to how you benefited as a woman under Romney's watch as Governor... (or any Governor for that matter, this is not about Romney per se). Was it a matter of a more equalized employment field, or more available work programs for single parents (or day care programs or education programs) or something like that? I'm just trying to understand how a specific group knows that a candidate benefits them or not... OR is it the policies of the party that's in office that matters in terms of benefiting? I can see given Romney's specific background where he as an individual could well be more supportative of children in families which could well benefit the single parent, the majority of whom are women taking responsibility to rear the offspring of a union... so I am wondering if that is what you meant....

It might be a matter of the individual versus the party? I don't know... and I'm trying to figure out how one knows...

Thanks for indulging my curiosity and questions.... appreciate it

+ 1 Rayzur

[FlintNPebbles]

Musician... I always thought you were a guy lol lol lol just goes to show ya that ole expression about assumption Apologies, guess I'll have to pay more attention.

I've seen similar statements to yours about women making x% less than men for the same job... and I don't really understand it when it comes to working for the government. As a government person I know that jobs have salaries atteched to them, and have nothign to do with gender (promoting into is another story)... I dont know that Obama or Romney can in anyway influence or change what someone makes in an government job in terms of making it unequal in pay. There's no descriptor or caveat in government jobs that says if you are a woman, you will get less.

And I am NOT arguing that it isnt the case, I am just wondering how it can be the case for government employment?

I'm also curious as to how you benefited as a woman under Romney's watch as Governor... (or any Governor for that matter, this is not about Romney per se). Was it a matter of a more equalized employment field, or more available work programs for single parents (or day care programs or education programs) or something like that? I'm just trying to understand how a specific group knows that a candidate benefits them or not... OR is it the policies of the party that's in office that matters in terms of benefiting? I can see given Romney's specific background where he as an individual could well be more supportative of children in families which could well benefit the single parent, the majority of whom are women taking responsibility to rear the offspring of a union... so I am wondering if that is what you meant....

It might be a matter of the individual versus the party? I don't know... and I'm trying to figure out how one knows...

Thanks for indulging my curiosity and questions.... appreciate it :D

My experience as an elected official was the same....there is a mandate on salaries, doesn't matter if it is a woman or man, it's the same salary dicated by the state statute. I believe the private practice is where you see the obvious differences. Although, in government you do see people getting passed over for advancement due to their gender and with that the inability to advance their wages.

[Texas1]

Whoops, sorry ladies.......I'm on the wrong post

fart

[crnamiss]

I am in a medical field where we get paid equally for our work and gender does not apply in my particular field.

I also do not see any evidence of a war on women, i dont feel like that would be an intelligent move on their part, what would be the reason for it and what would they gain?

I do not believe in the democrats strategy for forcing all insurance companies to pay for contraceptives as if they do not have many brands at pharmacies for $4.00.

I worked at a partially federally funded clinic for 8 years and there are many ways women can be seen, these clinics, health departments and such and be able to afford contraceptives, you are given them at many of these establishments. As many entitlements as are out there today and many still want to say there are those with limited access. What there are is a large number of people who do not want to help themselves and these are the ones being touted as having no access. Its just not true...... Sorry that part may be off topic but I just had to get that out there!!

[Francie26]

I understood that Governor Romeny asked for names of qualified women so he could appoint and equal number of both men and women to government posts when he was acting governor. That may be how a disparity is shown, in the imbalance of the numbers of men and women appointed to positions rather than in the amount of pay for equal jobs being different.

[FlintNPebbles]

I am in a medical field where we get paid equally for our work and gender does not apply in my particular field.

I also do not see any evidence of a war on women, i dont feel like that would be an intelligent move on their part, what would be the reason for it and what would they gain?

I do not believe in the democrats strategy for forcing all insurance companies to pay for contraceptives as if they do not have many brands at pharmacies for $4.00.

I worked at a partially federally funded clinic for 8 years and there are many ways women can be seen, these clinics, health departments and such and be able to afford contraceptives, you are given them at many of these establishments. As many entitlements as are out there today and many still want to say there are those with limited access. What there are is a large number of people who do not want to help themselves and these are the ones being touted as having no access. Its just not true...... Sorry that part may be off topic but I just had to get that out there!!

off topic with you....I used to use the planned parenthood type clinic for my birth control. It was 45 miles from my house. Convenient....not at all. I was struggling financially back then and all I could afford was 2 months at a time, even with the sliding fee. Granted, there are a lot of those who do not want to help themselves, however, sometimes it is logistics. If my insurance would have covered a portion I could have gotten them right there in the same town I lived in. Sure there are brands that are available for $4 but as we all know, what works for one does not work for another. I had many many side effects from different brands, strengths and combinations before we found one that worked and it was not the $4 one.

Now, my life is better financially and I am able to purchase my birth control at my local pharmacy. Still costs me $45 a month but I am able to pay out of pocket. And I don't use it for birth control but for controlling symptoms of another matter. But my insurance company does not care that it is not used for birth control and will not cover it even if it is for another medical condition.

[SgtFuryUSCZ]

***///

3 votes from Ladies for Romney...

U.S. Military Veterans :salute:

(2 have children & grandchildren,

of which 5 are young Ladies of voting age and ALL are voting for Romney)

That's 3 generations of American Patriot Women for Romney/Ryan!

[kid4dinar]

This is good stuff ..

Thank you ladies.

Good comment crnmiss

[SgtFuryUSCZ]

***///

Yer welcome, kiddo!

Thanks fer askin'....

***///

Edited October 20, 2012 by SgtFuryUSCZ

[kid4dinar]

I feel the Democrats listened to us when the Lily Ledbetter legislation was signed. I don't think it is a PARTY discrimination but rather an individual's discrimination. And YES, I feel Romney does not have women's rights in the forefront. Does that stop me from supporting a candidate? It may, or may not, depending on the rest of their platform. But a WAR on women, no, that is not what I would call it with the Republican party.

I have seen many times women get passed over for advancement even though she was as qualified or more qualified than a man, but the person making the decision decided that they didn't want to "deal" with women's issues. Really?? I know many, many women who can, and do, a better job than a man in the same position. But get less pay. I have a pharmacist friend who works with other male pharmacists, the company offers shares in the company to the men....none of the women have ever been offered shares. Fair?

Sorry I over looked your comment.

I could see how you think that, but as a man and a republican fear not.

Many republican men and women have your back. Mostly not true stuff only scare tactics from the left. Thank you.

[crnamiss]

off topic with you....I used to use the planned parenthood type clinic for my birth control. It was 45 miles from my house. Convenient....not at all. I was struggling financially back then and all I could afford was 2 months at a time, even with the sliding fee. Granted, there are a lot of those who do not want to help themselves, however, sometimes it is logistics. If my insurance would have covered a portion I could have gotten them right there in the same town I lived in. Sure there are brands that are available for $4 but as we all know, what works for one does not work for another. I had many many side effects from different brands, strengths and combinations before we found one that worked and it was not the $4 one.

Now, my life is better financially and I am able to purchase my birth control at my local pharmacy. Still costs me $45 a month but I am able to pay out of pocket. And I don't use it for birth control but for controlling symptoms of another matter. But my insurance company does not care that it is not used for birth control and will not cover it even if it is for another medical condition.

Flint,

I am glad you have found something that worked for you

I can understand your point but there are so many who are in the not willing to help themselves group. I also do not believe in the forced mandate for birth control for Catholic institutions.

I am not Catholic but I do not believe you should force them to pay for something their church is fundamentally against. I do not agree with the Catholic Churches

stance on birth control but I do respect their stand. I have several friends who are Catholic and those who choose birth control choose it quietly and many use their insurance

company to pay for it although none work for Catholic institutions. Those that do need to understand that their company may not pay for it and be willing to make other arrangements

or consider that when choosing to work for that company.

Just my own personal opinion

[jobug38]

I worked at casino hotel was working as a maid, Porter, laundry worker, carpet cleaner, and sometimes inspected the rooms. Isaac in training to become an inspector. The women who was my boss was fired and the man that took her place was nice enough but when it came time for my promotion it didn't happen cause he put his Guy friend in the position making 40,000 a year and he had no experience. I needed my job so I asked if I could get a reasonable raise at the beginning of the year and he says sure your saving us so much by doing all these jobs for us. When it come to raise time I got .25 , and some guys working there got .50 to 1.00. So yes I have been screwed .

[Francie26]

I am in a medical field where we get paid equally for our work and gender does not apply in my particular field.

I also do not see any evidence of a war on women, i dont feel like that would be an intelligent move on their part, what would be the reason for it and what would they gain?

I do not believe in the democrats strategy for forcing all insurance companies to pay for contraceptives as if they do not have many brands at pharmacies for $4.00.

I worked at a partially federally funded clinic for 8 years and there are many ways women can be seen, these clinics, health departments and such and be able to afford contraceptives, you are given them at many of these establishments. As many entitlements as are out there today and many still want to say there are those with limited access. What there are is a large number of people who do not want to help themselves and these are the ones being touted as having no access. Its just not true...... Sorry that part may be off topic but I just had to get that out there!!

I'm glad you said it. I have long believed that was true, and even if it weren't, I didn't want to pay for someone else's birth control. That's like they are charging me for their sex life. haha If they can't afford to protect themselves, they need to abstain. I know. I know.. That would be far to mature for some of them, but they need to either pay for it themselves or give it up. Some things are just best staying between a woman and her partner or God, one of the two. As to a war on women, I have experienced it, but that was many years ago, back when the battle raged about women's pay being equal. In the 50's I could only earn 35-50 cents an hour. They thought women worked for entertainment back then. haha

[SgtFuryUSCZ]

***///

FRANCIE FOR PRESIDENT...!

[kid4dinar]

So, I'm not seeing a WAR on WOMEN at least not here on Dinarvets.

Thanks for the few comments,

Be sure to vote for who will bring a friendly work enviroment, to small businesses..

[dog53]

Sorry I cant help myself

[Muleslayer]

Bad dog ! Snicker- Snicker