By Lily Weisberg
With the Presidential Election drawing near, I’ve found it increasingly
necessary to point out Romney’s quiet attacks at women. I want to focus on one
remark made by Governor Romney during the Second Presidential Debate in
Hempstead, New York. When asked what he would do to insure pay equity for
women earning only 72 percent of what their male counterparts earn, the Governor
responded, “I recognized that if you’re going to have women in the workforce, that
they need to be more flexible… [So we said] let’s have a flexible schedule so you can
have hours that work for you. [We need] employers looking to find good
employees… and adapting to a flexible work schedule that gives women the
opportunities that — that they would otherwise not be able to — to afford”. First of
all, the Governor said “if” we are going to have women in the workforce, which
seemed to imply that it is a privilege that we have women working and earning
money in America. Secondly, women do not necessarily need flexible schedules in
order to be able to ‘afford’ to work. It feels as if Romney is trying to create ways for
women to work less. It’s been a very long time since women have been the only
person in a family to cook, pick up children from school or take them to a doctors
appointment, clean their homes, etc. I felt this stereotype had been long expelled, as
it is not 1950, and because men, too, take care of their families just as much as
women do. Some people may need flexible work hours based on their individual
situation, but those people are no more women than they are men. Romney also
says that in his government, there would be employers able to adapt to
these “flexible schedules” to allow women “opportunities that they would otherwise
not be able to afford”. By saying this, Romney is stating he believes women would
not be able to work without special treatment.
Mitt Romney has time after time, regarded women as needing special
treatment, from their husbands, employers, and the government. He has no right to
treat women with this lack of respect–acting as if they are not equal to men. The
only involvement the government should have in women’s lives, is one that makes
sure females are getting paid an equal amount to their professional male
counterparts. Governor Romney has displayed this disrespect again with his plan to
eliminate funding for Planned Parenthood. What women choose to do with their
bodies is not something the government should be able to decide. The Republican
ideal is a government not deeply involved with our daily lives, and yet Romney
wants to make decisions about a woman’s body for her. I respect Mitt Romney’s
opinion on abortion, regardless of whether or not I agree with it, but he does not
have the right to inflict his opinion on the rest of the country. Also, Romney has
failed to acknowledge the fact that women all around the United States, rely on
Planned Parenthood, not only for abortions, but for mammograms and cervical
cancer screenings. Without this, some women wouldn’t be able to afford to see a
doctor about their pregnancy or health. If Romney comes into office, and takes this
kind of action, it could negatively affect families all over the country.
To successfully run and represent a country like America, the president has
to be able to respect the needs and rights of every citizen — rich or poor, male or
female. By cutting Planned Parenthood and not respecting women’s ability to work
without special treatment, Mitt Romney would be poorly representing the country
of freedom that America is.
Acknowledgements: Transcript of the 2nd Presidential Debate http://
www.nytimes.com/2012/10/16/us/politics/transcript-of-the-second-presidential-
debate-in-hempstead-ny.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
4 Comments