Ferno wrote:tunnelcat wrote:Nearly ever job I've worked at in my life, I was paid less, sometimes way less, than any male counterpart in the current job I had at the time, even though I had the same skills and abilities and never took child leave. Do I resent that fact, yes.
Did you put in the same amount of hours as your male counterparts? Did you take any 'mental health days' off? Any sick days off? Any 'finding yourself' days off? How much vacation time did you take?
Yep. Same amount of time, no more than average sick days, no on-the-rag days, same vacation days, etc. I didn't have any problems that interfered with work until I hit perimenopause, then I had to retire because I couldn't work
at all. That was my decision, not the employer's. I didn't deem it fair to cause an employer problems because I could no longer function at any capacity and medical science couldn't fix the problem.
flip wrote:Heh, before anyone gets me wrong, I am not for Obama so much as I am completely against Romney. I found the way Romney told that story somewhat belittling too. Of course, he was trying not to, but it still came across as "We needed qualified women and they were very hard to find." You can believe that women are not equals in Romney's belief system. In fact, I doubt Romney thinks he has too many equals period and is probably one hard-nosed SOB.
That's my sentiment too. I'm not really a fan of Obama, but I dislike Romney soooooooooo much more. If there was a viable, not crazy third party candidate, I thought had at least a snowball's chance in hell of beating both of the 2 main candidates, I'd vote for them.
woodchip wrote:So let me get this straight. Romney wanted a list of qualified women to staff his cabinet. Got the list in binder form and you and Obama somehow think this is demeaning women? Wow, just wow.
Maybe he had a Freudian slip, but he could have been more diplomatic and said: "Binders full of
qualified women." Instead, he sounded like a pimp looking for his prostitutes.