New Romney ad geared toward women is a joke

It just gets better. This election season has been like a bloopers reel for a real election, as Romney’s “strategy” unfolds before us. Let’s put aside that in the last two days alone he said half the country is a bunch of ungrateful serfs and said that there is “no hope for Palestine,” his continued attempt at reaching lady voters baffles. This week, the Romney campaign puts out a video targeting the ladiez titled, “hey daughter.”

So is that supposed to be a daughter? Or a daughter’s daughter? I’m so confused!

“Our daughters,” have the most to lose under a Romney presidency. Romney doesn’t support equal pay, so single moms–you will earn less. And don’t forget to remind your daughters that they will get paid less for the same work (don’t really have an explanation–just tell them that!). He wants to block access to critical health care services, including reproductive and family planning services. He will hurt your family if you are poor, suggesting that you are irresponsible and lazy and should have worked harder so you don’t deserve access to health care, unemployment and all the other services we need to for our families to survive in times of need.

It’s hard to reconcile that he is talking to unemployed women while he’s being exposed as admitting he doesn’t give a shit about half the population. There is nothing in the GOP party platform or coming out of Romney’s mouth that indicates he would do anything to make the lives of poor women better. As a voter, it is unclear how you would reconcile such a discrepancy without genuinely just believing women don’t deserve better.

 

and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink. Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed.

2 Comments

  1. Posted September 18, 2012 at 12:46 pm | Permalink

    I do think it is misleading to say that “Romney doesn’t support equal pay, so single moms–you will earn less” simply because he does not support something like the Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act.

    The Act enables women to challenge instances of discrimination/unequal pay in the workplace by extending the statute of 180-statute of limitations. Each paycheck affected by earlier, discriminatory decisions resets that statute of limitations; it doesn’t guarantee that women will be paid equally to their male counterparts in the same title position or that there is always a case for when women are ‘discriminated’ against. Nuance lies in years of experience, qualifications, education, who is asking for the raises, how much and based on evaluation standards of work performance — all of which could be used as basis for pay as well as grounds in which discriminatory decisions could also be made. Single moms at any strata of society — upper, middle, or lower — could be paid less than their male counterparts based on any one of these factors.

    The major question/problem seems to be how do these factors (particularly, work performance evaluation) intersect with gender identity expectations, as most of us well know and understand — e.g. the female mechanic held to a higher or lower standard because she is a minority in the auto repair industry — a traditionally atypical career for a woman; the lady programmer devalued because she ‘only got the job through affirmative action’. This is where the discrimination starts and snakes its way into the reviews, the recommendations, and denial of a raise where it really should not in your average decent worker.

    Lily Ledbetter had quite a strong case, given that she reached retirement — with years of experience and improved work performance at that point — being paid less than the lowest man on the salary totem pole.

    Nevertheless, without such an Act, it would be much harder to prove or argue that discriminatory decisions in the past — particularly the insidiously slow kind that arises over time — affect present pay if the 180-day statute of limitations.

  2. Posted September 20, 2012 at 11:23 am | Permalink

    When Romney was asked, “Do you support equal pay for women and the Lily Ledbetter Act,” he said, “I’ll get back to you on that.” Clearly he does not SUPPORT equal pay for women. He may not give a hang one way or the other, but he clearly does not SUPPORT it. Even if he supported equal pay but thought Ledbetter was not the way to achieve it, he would have given a stronger answer than, “I’ll get back to you.”

    I am chilled the the very bones that the video purportedly to “reach out” to those who don’t support him in droves is still elitist. “Women,” represented by a young white bleached blonde? WHAT THE HELL.

Feministing In Your Inbox

Sign up for our Newsletter to stay in touch with Feministing
and receive regular updates and exclusive content.

158 queries. 0.393 seconds