CHEAP WOMEN!

I rather doubt that a presidential candidate who was a bishop of a church that does not allow women in it's Temples actually cares about women in general or even women in particular. Add to that the history of polygamy and you can see why he might object to any or all women's issues.

Willard Rmoney's "binders of women" comment at last night's debate was- of course- taken out of context. Context has long been a problem in politics and always will be. There's no getting away from or around that.  If it's true that, as governor, he noticed that there were no women contending for any positions in his regime as governor, it's kind of extremely interesting that Mitt opted for an affirmative action approach to the matter. See, Mitt and the republicans do not like Affirmative Action. I think he was trying to show 'political correctness, then and now. (That's something they hate too!)

I doubt Mitt the Mormon is in favor of women working at all. They should be home, churning butter- all of your wives! Like other Christian conservatives who probably share the same sentiments, I bet these guys didn't much care for the women's liberation movement which began in the 60's. I bet they hated that!

But, do you know who liked the women's lib movement?

Business. Once they figured out that more women could be employed at about half the cost of men, they realized there was big bucks in them thar wimmins!

Mind you, there always was. Women have long been in the workforce and always been underpaid. The deal used to be that a man was paid more because, well, he's a man and, he usually had a family to support. But, I think, in the 70's they realized the opportunity to employ more women and slash payroll while doing it. It was the same with Affirmative Action and, I believe, tied into that, as well. They learned they could slash payroll and use Affirmative Action  to hire less-expensive (and less threatening?) black women, rather than black men. It's business. That's how it works. It's more about the bottom line than it is about adapting to social change.

This is why there was republican outrage towards the Lily Ledbetter Act. How can you object to equal pay for women unless you object to BIG GOVERNMENT forcing business to do it? You sound like a real misogynist asshole if you say: "Fuck them bitches!". So, you go with the ol' "Big Government Is Bad" approach that made the Tea Parties what they are today- a bunch of aimless, anarchist twerps who didn't consider the denotations of their choice of titles for their club.

Today there are more women in the workforce than ever. I cannot (except for combat troops) think of any job that women don't do. Well, OK, president but, that could change in '16. I promise you that I would have voted for Hillary Clinton in '08 and was truly on the fence between her and Obama. And I'm never minding pro sports here for obvious size reasons though I could see a woman kicker in the NFL or maybe a second baseman in the majors. Anyway, there is no good reason for paying a woman less to do the same work as a man. All men do not get paid the same, just because they are men. You come up through the ranks. Skills vary. You are supposed to earn your way. These days, it's quite common for a woman to be the head of household, to be working and raising children. Some men, too. Obama spoke of his mother who had to train men who would advance beyond her at the bank where she worked. She had gone as far as a woman could go at the time. Would you be OK training your next boss? Does that even make sense?

I think business, which shows us each day that they only care about profit, is telling us we are ALL overpaid and expendable. I believe that such is the reason for jobs going overseas where people regardless of gender are willing to work for whatever they are offered, no questions asked. We are all in this together, folks. It is truly US against THEM.