US Rep Brittany Snow seems confused. She seems to think that the rules on voting in the House should be changed to accommodate her. I'm a little confused. Was she not aware of the whole in person voting rule when she decided to run for congress? Was she unaware of this when she got pregnant? Was she unaware of the fact that millions of women with children go to work on a daily basis? Was she unaware of things like hotels and babysitters? It appears as though she feels so privileged that she can demand that the rules be changed for her. By all means, let's open up remote voting for everyone in congress. That means that they don't even need to bother rolling Pelosi's corpse onto the floor and make one of her aides lift her hand up to mash the button. What's to stop an ancient congressman or woman from staying at home to hide their Alzheimer's and "vote" remotely.
I get it, children are a wonderful blessing and we absolutely need to raise the birthrate ( I guess we should be glad she didn't un-alive the fetus), but why try to get a job if you are just going to demand that things be changed to accommodate you? Sounds selfish as hell, and the message it sends to the millions of working women with children doesn't seem like one that's in line with the feminist manifesto.
13 comments:
Women who want a reasonable accommodation that doesn't interfere with the job sounds "selfish " to you. But men like you voicing opposition to it, that DOESN'T sound selfish to you?
Go figure.
Dan
Given the fact that part of "the job" involves voting IN PERSON, then yes. That she can bring the baby into congress as a PROP seems to invalidate her whole claim.
As I understand it, she wants to stay in her home state and vote from there. Again, as "the job" involves actually being physically present, she's asking for more than "an accommodation".
My "opposition" to this is based less on her circumstance than it is on the increasing number of ancient senators and representatives showing signs of cognitive decline. and the potential for abuse. For example, how do we know with 100% certainty, that it's actually Rep Snow voting remotely?
I know it's a crazy notion, it seems strange to go through the process to get a job, when you know that you can't or won't actually do the job you tried to get.
Further, the message to millions of feminist women who bought the "you can have it all" message pushed since the '70s, is just more "do as I say, not as I do" because I'm one of those with a privilege you don't have. It's hypocritical to tell other mothers of young children that they need to stuff their kids in child care or preschool so they can go back to work, while she tries to manipulate the system for her own benefit. Just like it's hypocritical to tell the majority of parents in the US that their kids must go to a public school in their neighborhood, while those that govern us enroll their kids in elite private schools.
Is this the same bill promoted by Rep Luna, in which all Dems and six Republicans supported? I agree, and Luna ranks really high (98%) on Heritage Foundation's conservative ranking list. In addition to their obligation to vote in person, the probability that vote would take place right as a woman is giving birth is pretty low. Further, for whatever reason, inability to show up to vote should simply and always mean one simply doesn't vote. In a case like this, if the Speaker is of the same party, it would likely be fairly easy to delay the vote if the outcome was feared to be to much of a nail-biter to have party member unavailable. But in any case, that's life. Sometimes it gets in the way. Boo-hoo. I just hope America doesn't suffer because the Dems got their way. That never ends well for America, but we've suffered worse than losing on a single House vote, as the Obama and Biden administrations clearly demonstrated.
I saw one person in a comments section suggest that allowing the passage of this bill wouldn't necessarily advantage one party of the other, and while that's likely true for this specific situation, I do believe it will make it easier to allow proxy voting for other issues, because why not, right?
The other angle is not electing women of child bearing age. Think what fun that would be to actually have such an effort manifest!
No proxy voting. That's the only intelligent answer.
I'm not sure. As I noted, my objections are around the potential for fraud, and misuse. (What if someone held Rep Snow's child at gunpoint and forced her to vote a certain way on a bill?) Along with the whole notion of not applying for a job when you won't actually do what's required for the job.
Also, what is "an L foe Feminsim?" supposed to mean? Are you doing okay?
While yours is an extreme hypothetical scenario, it paints the picture of the negative potential of proxy voting. And while initially it might not have a great impact for either party, down the road we'd certainly see it being abused. If one can't perform for any reason, they sit out and hope they've convinced enough people of the cause so that their absence won't matter.
It's a typo that didn't get caught in autocorrect, you moron. I've made a choice to ignore your typos, you choose to act as if typos are some big deal. If you'd prefer, I'll start treating you as you choose to treat others.
It is, but allowing them to vote from home, opens up all sorts of potential issues.
It's a genuine question, not a criticism. I'm guessing Foe was supposed to be For, but, An L For Feminism...?
I still don't know what that means.
Also, you regularly use acronyms that are not clear. BoT? Just trying to understand better.
Dan
As always your complete lack of sincerity shines through.
When used in this context the "L" by itself is short of "Loss". In this case another phrase seems appropriate, "Take the L".
I guess being culturally unaware is a thing you're good at.
If you don't understand "BoT", it's because you don't pay attention.
I could be more condescending and spell it out for you, but I'll give you an opportunity to use your vaunted Reason and figure it out all on your own.
In case you're really as dense as you seem, the "L for feminism" is that the whole "women can have it all" narrative is debunked by this congresswoman admitting that she's incapable of doing the job that she sought after (and spend millions to get) according to the job description.
?
Dt
What an astute and erudite response. So eloquent and well reasoned. The improper use of the "?" all on it's own is a spectacular way to respond. I now understand why you are so proud of your education and vaunted Reason. No mortal human could have come up with this devastating riposte.
Post a Comment