• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Petitioners paint Obama as ‘misogynist’ who’s ‘alienating’ women

Actually, we've been through this before, the pill is not prescribed anymore in the vast majority of these cases. And even in the small amount it is, it is not the majority of why the pill is used. You know that, but like most arguments that surround this sort of issue, the left latches on to the 1 in 100K example to justify the broad coverage, and deflect why the standard application is what they want.

I don't know that. All I know is I was prescribed it for severe pain when nothing else worked, why should people like me be denied it in a healthcare plan because other people are upset if someone else uses it for sex?
 
I don't know that. All I know is I was prescribed it for severe pain when nothing else worked, why should people like me be denied it in a healthcare plan because other people are upset if someone else uses it for sex?

You wouldn't have been denied it when prescribed for treatment other than BC, because the codes, and prescription itself, although chemically the same, it is not billed the same as BC. So, the argument is moot.
 
This sometimes is why the super-femme-nazi's get on my last nerve . . . they lose their ability to logically reason through **** - look:

This is what he said:


Just how should that reworded to be 'not-offensive' because when you're talking about sexual discrimination in the workplace it's obvious he's addressing men who DO the discriminating . . . and he's trying to get these stupid men to think of these women as someone's mother, someone's wife, someone's daughter - etc . . . You know - see them as people and respect them. It's a negotiation tactic, actually.

Just what exactly do they want to hear instead?

You know - since they're so much smarter than me on this maybe they can give an example of what's acceptable.

Uh no - they just want it to be said, "We know of economy is stronger when women can live their lives free from discrimination in the workplace and free from the fear of domestic violence."

Well call me a retarded rock - because that just doesn't deliver the same personal message to me. It's cold and distant - merely defining women by their gender alone and nothing more, don't you think? :roll:

LOL - but I am laughing at the 'we know our economy is stronger' - what the **** does sexual discrimination have to do with the economy?
LOL - not a damn thing.

Well, he was pandering to all facets of the base, and women are the kingmakers of late. Just a few points--women can be vicious with each other in the workplace too; in the age with so many single moms, women making less does adversely impact our economy via the need for more welfare, less economic velocity, etc; and financial woes are the leading cause of divorce so it would seem logical that they contribute to domestic violence that precedes divorce in some cases and it would be harder for some to seek that divorce if they did not think they could survive on their own. Either way, it was nothing more than pandering for applause.
 
There's actually a very good point being made here that is getting lost in the partisan debate. It is demeaning for women to be defined by their relationships to men. It shouldn't matter at all that a woman is someone's wife or mother or daughter. It implies that an unmarried orphan woman is somehow less valuable.

If the emotional appeal being used undermines the logical position being promoted, the emotional appeal is a terrible one.
 
You wouldn't have been denied it when prescribed for treatment other than BC, because the codes, and prescription itself, although chemically the same, it is not billed the same as BC. So, the argument is moot.

...but we're talking about future universal healthcare that everyone would be paying for and birth control comes up time and time again as something that they would not want covered so I don't think the argument is moot that Obama is for women in at least some way by being for a health care plan that includes healthcare specific to women.
 
Just how should that reworded to be 'not-offensive' because when you're talking about sexual discrimination in the workplace it's obvious he's addressing men who DO the discriminating . . . and he's trying to get these stupid men to think of these women as someone's mother, someone's wife, someone's daughter - etc . . . You know - see them as people and respect them. It's a negotiation tactic, actually.

The problem is that those stupid men who commit sexual discrimination already view women as inferior possessions. His appeal to emotion reinforces that position, at least subconsciously.

Those stupid men won't be swayed by emotional appeals like this, either. Anyone who is already willing to subjugate others doesn't give a **** about other people's feelings. they care about "My wife, my mother, my daughter", not anyone else's mother wife or daughter.

It's a self-defeating tactic. The only way that a man like that would change is if it WAS his own wife, mother, or daughter who was directly affected, and even then, the daughter would be the best bet since most of those types have wives and mothers who fit with their worldview already. The daughter is the most likely to "rebel" against that kind of thing.
 
...but we're talking about future universal healthcare that everyone would be paying for and birth control comes up time and time again as something that they would not want covered so I don't think the argument is moot that Obama is for women in at least some way by being for a health care plan that includes healthcare specific to women.

Birth control is a tool used in a political rhetoric filled wedge from the administration to force religious institutions, and people of faith to cover something they are morally opposed to paying for. It is a measure of control, nothing more. Why should I as a taxpayer be forced to cover your BC for you, so that you can engage in an elective practice with no responsibility on your part to protect yourself in the matter?

What is the nature of the debt from me to you, that I should pay for that?

You want to have sex? pay for the BC yourself.
 
Good.

I don't necessarily think that he's a misogynist -- probably just careless -- but this kind of language referring to women is prevalent and it's demeaning. Women are more than simply whatever domestic role they happen to be involved in.

Women are always "mother" or "wife." They're never just "women." On the other hand, men are always men, in ADDITION to be a father, husband, whatever. And a man who's a father can also be a businessman, but women who are mothers are still just mothers even if they're businesswomen.

Men are prefaced as "a man," and then it might say, "who is a father of ___ with his loving wife, and works at a local business" For women, it's just "a mother/wife."

Men are recognized as multifaceted, and women are routinely pegged as one-dimensional. For men, their independent identity is always mentioned first (man), and their relational identities second. For women, their independent identities are rarely mentioned at all.

Whatever relationship women are involved in is forced on her as the totality of her identity, as though she has nothing outside of those roles to others, which are implied to be servile.

Seriously. Take a look at the front page of whatever local news organization you prefer. Look at five stories about men, and five about women -- people who are not famous, and who are not themselves criminals.

Tell me how many of them refer to a woman as "mother/wife" right off the bat, and how many refer to men as "father/husband" right off the bat. For fun, count up how many of them never say "woman" at all. For even more fun, look up some articles about female criminals and count up how many times they say "woman" (hint: it's a lot more).
 
Last edited:
Good.

I don't necessarily think that he's a misogynist -- probably just careless -- but this kind of language referring to women is prevalent and it's demeaning. Women are more than simply whatever domestic role they happen to be involved in.

Women are always "mother" or "wife." They're never just "women." On the other hand, men are always men, in ADDITION to be a father, husband, whatever. And a man who's a father can also be a businessman, but women who are mothers are still just mothers even if they're businesswomen.

Men are prefaced as "a man," and then it might say, "who is a father of ___ with his loving wife, and works at a local business" For women, it's just "a mother/wife."

Men are recognized as multifaceted, and women are routinely pegged as one-dimensional. For men, their independent identity is always mentioned first (man), and their relational identities second. For women, their independent identities are rarely mentioned at all.

Whatever relationship women are involved in is forced on her as the totality of her identity, as though she has nothing outside of those roles to others, which are implied to be servile.

Seriously. Take a look at the front page of whatever local news organization you prefer. Look at five stories about men, and five about women -- people who are not famous, and who are not themselves criminals.

Tell me how many of them refer to a woman as "mother/wife" right off the bat, and how many refer to men as "father/husband" right off the bat. For fun, count up how many of them never say "woman" at all. For even more fun, look up some articles about female criminals and count up how many times they say "woman" (hint: it's a lot more).


Nonsense in search of outrage. Listen, women should take pride in carrying the title of the primary raiser of this nations children....I can hardly think of a more important job, or a tougher one.
 
The problem is that those stupid men who commit sexual discrimination already view women as inferior possessions. His appeal to emotion reinforces that position, at least subconsciously.

Those stupid men won't be swayed by emotional appeals like this, either. Anyone who is already willing to subjugate others doesn't give a **** about other people's feelings. they care about "My wife, my mother, my daughter", not anyone else's mother wife or daughter.

It's a self-defeating tactic. The only way that a man like that would change is if it WAS his own wife, mother, or daughter who was directly affected, and even then, the daughter would be the best bet since most of those types have wives and mothers who fit with their worldview already. The daughter is the most likely to "rebel" against that kind of thing.

Well, he was pandering to all facets of the base, and women are the kingmakers of late. Just a few points--women can be vicious with each other in the workplace too; in the age with so many single moms, women making less does adversely impact our economy via the need for more welfare, less economic velocity, etc; and financial woes are the leading cause of divorce so it would seem logical that they contribute to domestic violence that precedes divorce in some cases and it would be harder for some to seek that divorce if they did not think they could survive on their own. Either way, it was nothing more than pandering for applause.

I still don't see how saying someone is a wife/mother/daughter defines them by their relationship to MEN.

Wife = could be a homosexual marriage as is permitted in several states.
Mother = no men need to be around for this. She could be single with all girls, even.
Daughter = again - doesn't need a male figure there - could just have a mom.

This is stating your relationship to OTHERS in your life - just relationships . . . if people cared in general about that then they'd have issues with the opposite. Yet I've never heard someone get pissed when they say "our husbands, fathers and sons" . . . it's just a common phrasing. Definitely no petitions go around when this is used, here.

It's a non-issue.

They should save the petitions for real ****.

And of all the things he did SAY in that speech - I'm kind of pissed that women who are supposed to be more active when it comes time to vote only give a **** about his reference to women in that regard - and nothing else?

This is why many women still have a problem getting said men to take them seriously: all the women doing the 'representation' are birthing cows over relationship references and not the **** that matters like the economy and cost of shoes. (snide joke - not serious about the shoes)
 
Last edited:
I still don't see how saying someone is a wife/mother/daughter defines them by their relationship to MEN.

Wife = could be a homosexual marriage as is permitted in several states.
Mother = no men need to be around for this. She could be single with all girls, even.
Daughter = again - doesn't need a male figure there - could just have a mom.

This is stating your relationship to OTHERS in your life - just relationships . . . if people cared in general about that then they'd have issues with the opposite. Yet I've never heard someone get pissed when they say "our husbands, fathers and sons" . . . it's just a common phrasing. Definitely no petitions go around when this is used, here.

As you pointed out yourself, it was obviously targeting men. Women do not define other women relationally, only men do that. Women define each other as "us", not wives, mothers, and daughters. That's a part of who they are, but they are so much more than just that.

And people do NOT use the term "our husbands, father, and sons" in discussions about equal treatment of men. Those kinds of comments about men are almost exclusively used in discussions of war where the attempt is being made, specifically, to humanize the soldiers who die in war. It's not really comparable because it has a different goal. It isn't used as a replacement of the term "men", it is used as a replacement of the word "soldiers". "Men" is far more humanizing than soldiers is.

Obama used wives, mothers, and daughters to replace the word "women". It wasn't done to humanize women in the workforce, it was used to appeal to the emotions of those who would subjugate them, and as such, he was, inadvertently, lowering himself to their level. You yourself have made note of that, so there's no point in backtracking now by pointing out that there was no necessity for men to be present in any of the relationships described. The fact of the matter is that it was an attempt to appeal to the emotions of men, and as such, the words were intended to define women by their relationships to men.

Now, do I think it was petition-worthy? No, not at all. Do I think that it eradicates the value of his other comments? Absolutely not.

Do I think that it acts as a convenient means to engage in a legitimate discussion about the way that language affects inequality? Most certainly.
 
As you pointed out yourself, it was obviously targeting men. Women do not define other women relationally, only men do that. Women define each other as "us", not wives, mothers, and daughters. That's a part of who they are, but they are so much more than just that.
It's ok - you know - for a president to refer to men or women. It was obvious who he was directing that to.

Also - where'd you come up with this notion of "women don't refer to people by their relationships - but as us" ?? Is there research on this? Strawman argument.

And people do NOT use the term "our husbands, father, and sons" in discussions about equal treatment of men. Those kinds of comments about men are almost exclusively used in discussions of war where the attempt is being made, specifically, to humanize the soldiers who die in war. It's not really comparable because it has a different goal. It isn't used as a replacement of the term "men", it is used as a replacement of the word "soldiers". "Men" is far more humanizing than soldiers is.

I've heard it countless times and not even in regard to 'soldiers' - I guess it depends on what we're tuning into, hunh?

Obama used wives, mothers, and daughters to replace the word "women". It wasn't done to humanize women in the workforce, it was used to appeal to the emotions of those who would subjugate them, and as such, he was, inadvertently, lowering himself to their level. You yourself have made note of that, so there's no point in backtracking now by pointing out that there was no necessity for men to be present in any of the relationships described. The fact of the matter is that it was an attempt to appeal to the emotions of men, and as such, the words were intended to define women by their relationships to men.

And I'm supposed to get my panties in a twist and sign a petition because of it? You don't have to like it - but it's ridiculous to explode it into something it's NOT. It was not meant to be offensive - and if anyone felt 'degraded' they (I say again) need to get their head out of their ass.

Now, do I think it was petition-worthy? No, not at all. Do I think that it eradicates the value of his other comments? Absolutely not.

Well we agree.

Do I think that it acts as a convenient means to engage in a legitimate discussion about the way that language affects inequality? Most certainly.

I promise you that his language *in that regard* had no effect on inequality - he was trying to deliver a point . . . and people got distracted from the point and instead focused on semantics.

Per usual overdramatics.

I'm going to continue to not care - not get pissy - and not get my wittle fewing hurt . . . 'cause I'm a big girl. I don't need a single reference in a speech to be what gives me a conniption fit.
 
Nonsense in search of outrage. Listen, women should take pride in carrying the title of the primary raiser of this nations children....I can hardly think of a more important job, or a tougher one.

Oh, please.

Women should get to carry the titles they like. Why shouldn't daddies be proud to have that title forced on them as the only thing of meaning they do?

Because it isn't. That's why. And the same applies to women.
 
It's ok - you know - for a president to refer to men or women. It was obvious who he was directing that to.

Also - where'd you come up with this notion of "women don't refer to people by their relationships - but as us" ?? Is there research on this? Strawman argument.

Don't use the term "strawman argument" if you don't know what it means, Aunt Spiker. I didn't attribute anything to you in that statement, I was supporting the point that he was targeting men with his reference to women. You agree with that point even before it was made.

you can't say in one breath that he was targeting men with the comment and then attempt to negate the fact that he was targeting men in the next. Be consistent.





I've heard it countless times and not even in regard to 'soldiers' - I guess it depends on what we're tuning into, hunh?

I suppose so. Any examples where it is being used outside of the context I mentioned, or is your argument purely anecdotal?



And I'm supposed to get my panties in a twist and sign a petition because of it?

See, if you actually knew what a straman argument was, you'd know that you just committed one.


It was not meant to be offensive

At what point did "offensive" come into the discussion?

and if anyone felt 'degraded' they (I say again) need to get their head out of their ass.

Whether or not people feel degraded is utterly irrelevant to any point I have made. I do believe that my point was entirely about reinforcing existing stereotypes that certain men have and how it acts to undermine the President's stated position to do this. I was really rather clear on that.

Perhaps you were simply projecting your own tendencies on to me when you started on about strawman arguments in an perfectly incomprehensible fashion.




I promise you that his language *in that regard* had no effect on inequality

You are incorrect on that point, though. Study after studfy has shown the effects of language choices on inequality. Just because you have arbitrarily decided that ther ei sno effect does not mean that there actually isn't any effect.


- he was trying to deliver a point . . . and people got distracted from the point and instead focused on semantics.

As am I, but sometimes when you deliver a point, some overdramatic person comes on in and ****s all over it by pretending that you said things which aren't even remotely akin to that which you have said.

I'm going to continue to not care - not get pissy - and not get my wittle fewing hurt

Bully for you. And why, exactly, would I or should I give a **** about your emotional reaction to it?


I don't need a single reference in a speech to be what gives me a conniption fit.

Yet here you are, fitting your conniption all over the place, simply because someone had the audacity to attempt to have a rational discussion on the effects of language choices on inequality and you just didn't wike it that they did that.
 
Don't use the term "strawman argument" if you don't know what it means, Aunt Spiker. I didn't attribute anything to you in that statement, I was supporting the point that he was targeting men with his reference to women. You agree with that point even before it was made.

I'll just respond with a clarification - your strawman argument was how you presumed women talk . . . claiming we don't use 'relationship labels' to identify people and instead we always say 'us'

It was a ridiculous declaration.

Per the rest of your post - we just disagree - you think he shouldn't and I don't care if he does. Apparently the difference is how we interpret his meaning.
 
I'll just respond with a clarification - your strawman argument was how you presumed women talk . . . claiming we don't use 'relationship labels' to identify people and instead we always say 'us'

Again, look up strawman argument before tossing it around as a claim. At worst, my claim is a false one. False claim =/= strawman argument. Terms like that have specific meanings, and it is your duty to make sure you know what they are before you accuse people of presenting a fallacy of that nature.


But to prove my point, which of the following sentences would a woman use:

"We know our economy is stronger when our wives, mothers, and daughters can live their lives free from discrimination in the workplace and free from the fear of domestic violence."

or

"We know our economy is stronger when women can live their lives free from discrimination in the workplace and free from the fear of domestic violence."

or even better, if one wishes to also make the emotional point along with the logical one (as it drives the point home better than Obama's and forces men to think of women as fully equal to themselves):

"We know our economy is stronger when WE live OUR lives free from discrimination in the workplace and free from the fear of domestic violence."

Which one(s) would a woman be most likely to use? I'm sure that there are some women who would use the first one, but I guaran-****ing-tee that the second and third are more likely to come form a woman than the first one would be.

And you know what, if Obama had picked the third one himself, he'd have done a hell of a lot better at driving his point home because if he had done that, he would have used language that made women fully equal to men. That's the one I would choose as a man. Everyone would know I was specifically referring to struggles that are primarily faced by women, but I'd have used language that made it very clear that everyone suffers when any of us are treated this way.

And let's go a little bit further on this. Obama's word choice was made worse by saying "our economy" in the same sentence as saying "our wives". While it is certainly possible for a woman to be married to another woman, the immediate assumption about "wives" is that they are married to men. thus, the economy is possessed by the same people who have wives, rather than being possessed by the women who are wives as well. It's a pronoun agreement thing. The second "our" implies men, so that causes the first our to imply men subconsciously. It's subtle, but it's present.

Now, god knows I'm guilty of using sexist language myself (things like saying someone who is brave has balls and such) so I'm not even really criticizing Obama so much as I am reflecting on the point that is being made by the people with this petition. They do have a valid point, even if their approach to making that point is a little bit overdramatic. Ultimately, I'm far more concerned with discussing the point they are making as I think there is some real value to having that discussion.

Of course, that discussion is impossible if people are so overly offended by their approach to making the point that they are totally uninterested in exploring the point rationally.

It was a ridiculous declaration.

No, calling it a strawman argument is a ridiculous declaration. At worst, my statement is false. Common sense appears to indicate that it is not false, though.

Your best evidence that it is false is to call it something which it clearly is not. My best evidence to prove it true is to point out that the statement would more than likely have used very different terminology if uttered by a woman. That's significantly more evidence than a demonstrably false claim about my statement being a "strawman argument", though.

Per the rest of your post - we just disagree - you think he shouldn't and I don't care if he does. Apparently the difference is how we interpret his meaning.

I think the discussion is worth having, and you don't. I see how the terminology has effects and you don't. I think he certainly could have done a much more effective job of choosing his words than he did, you apparently do not.

I don't care if he chooses to continue using that terminology though. When you say "I think he shouldn't" you are in fact creating another strawman, since I also do not care if he does. You've arbitrarily decided that I am making an argument which I am not making and then you are debating against that figment of your own imagination. That is a strawman.

I am saying that he could use far more effective language and that his choice of language actually undermines his position, but I do not really give a **** if he does that. There are far better voices for women's equality than his.

I can see why some women might dislike it, though. And the petition does kind of make sense since it's the only way for a normal woman to really bring the point to Obama's attention. I'm not as offended by it as you appear to be.
 
Last edited:
There's no point in trying to convince me as to why I should be offended.

I'm just not.

It's quite simple.

My status as a woman/wife/mother/daughter has been affected none by his words. Since I was a child things have improved for women all around.

I see no issue here. . . and I'm moving on less the 1K word essay.
 
There's no point in trying to convince me as to why I should be offended.

Who's trying to do that? Oh, yeah, nobody's doing that. It's a paranoid delusion of your own creation. :doh

Seriously, though, it's incredibly hypocritical of you to pretend I was making a strawman argument when you haven't done a ****ing thing BUT make them.
 
Until he claims women's vagina repel rape sperm, I think he'll be ok. Luckily for him, dumber people (republicans) distract enough to keep most of the feminists off of him.

And Tucker... that's ridiculous man. You want to play semantics over whether he says "our" or refers to them directly? So, people are being derrogitory when they say "Support our troops" instead of "the troops"?

Worst. Argument. Ever.
 
Birth control is a tool used in a political rhetoric filled wedge from the administration to force religious institutions, and people of faith to cover something they are morally opposed to paying for. It is a measure of control, nothing more. Why should I as a taxpayer be forced to cover your BC for you, so that you can engage in an elective practice with no responsibility on your part to protect yourself in the matter?

What is the nature of the debt from me to you, that I should pay for that?

You want to have sex? pay for the BC yourself.

All politicians have their platforms. Birth Control is a big issue for a lot of women and Romney clearly failed at getting his perspective and concerns across to the vast majority of women voters who have placed that high on their lists of what's important to them.

I currently pay for my healthcare on my own and the taxes I pay go to other people and their health care in my state so I'm going to take the 'you' in your post as being a generalized 'you' and not aimed specifically at me. In any case I don't see why it's so difficult for anyone to understand why a woman would be more interested in Obama's platform then Romney's, they're not "Bimbo's" as one poster put it for voting for someone who is pandering to their needs and the GOP needs to either get a handle on this and better understand it or find a way to get around losing all those votes from women.
 
Oh, please.

Women should get to carry the titles they like.

Who said they shouldn't? Not me....

Why shouldn't daddies be proud to have that title forced on them as the only thing of meaning they do?

Why indeed, and who said they aren't? As a father of three, one who is Master's holder in Or. and two going through collage now, I am proud to have had a hand in raising three outstanding citizens, and proud of my wife, their mother for her role in raising them. And I can tell you that she takes her title as a "Mother" very seriously, in addition to the other things she did/does as a career. She always put the family first, so in addition to being a mother, she is also a graphic designer. So, who is holding her back? She would say no one.

Because it isn't. That's why. And the same applies to women.

Raising well adjusted, focused, and centered children to be productive, successful citizens in today's world is a tough job. And it takes BOTH parents IMHO. Now is that to say that single parents can't succeed in this? No, but that makes it harder, and the odds are against the future success of the child.
 
All politicians have their platforms. Birth Control is a big issue for a lot of women and Romney clearly failed at getting his perspective and concerns across to the vast majority of women voters who have placed that high on their lists of what's important to them.

I don't think you can be so general. Romney got more married women than did Obama, but fewer single women. Much of this was due to the manufactured "war on women" cooked up by slick liberal strategists, and you fell for it.

I currently pay for my healthcare on my own and the taxes I pay go to other people and their health care in my state so I'm going to take the 'you' in your post as being a generalized 'you' and not aimed specifically at me. In any case I don't see why it's so difficult for anyone to understand why a woman would be more interested in Obama's platform then Romney's, they're not "Bimbo's" as one poster put it for voting for someone who is pandering to their needs and the GOP needs to either get a handle on this and better understand it or find a way to get around losing all those votes from women.

I don't think that they, or you, are "Bimbo's" or anything of the sort. I do however believe that most of the single women vote we are talking about here going to Obama was due to a slick campaign by Obama's team, and targeted toward women between the ages of 18 to 35, single, and predisposed to vote liberal anyway. They were easily led by the promise of "free" stuff, including BC, and turned out masterfully by the Obama campaign. That doesn't mean that he BS spewed by the Obama campaign was correct, or truthful, but rather that Obama's campaign was better at targeting, and messaging....Don't conflate the two.
 
Oh, please.

Women should get to carry the titles they like. Why shouldn't daddies be proud to have that title forced on them as the only thing of meaning they do?

Because it isn't. That's why. And the same applies to women.


Because it isn't "manly" to raise children. That's the little womans job. Come on, this isnt 2013!!


/sarcasm
 
Because it isn't "manly" to raise children.

Since you made it clear that you are being sarcastic, I am not sure whether you are mocking, or basically saying this as a statement on how society has boxed men out.

That's the little womans job. Come on, this isnt 2013!!

Is that any justification for why the administration would continue a policy of paying women in the WH 16% less than men doing the exact same job? Then not even thinking that the American people are smart enough to see through the talking point platitudes?
 
Since you made it clear that you are being sarcastic, I am not sure whether you are mocking, or basically saying this as a statement on how society has boxed men out.



Is that any justification for why the administration would continue a policy of paying women in the WH 16% less than men doing the exact same job? Then not even thinking that the American people are smart enough to see through the talking point platitudes?


It was 100% MOCK!

I have not heard of any pay discrepancies in the Whitehouse. Do you have some sort of credible link to show this?
 
Back
Top Bottom