A community of 30,000 US Transcriptionist serving Medical Transcription Industry
GOP facepalm
Posted: Oct 31, 2014
Men do tend to talk about things on a much higher level.
We need our male colleagues to understand that if you can bring it down to a woman’s level and what everything that she is balancing in her life – that’s the way to go.
Excerpts from Renee Ellmers (R, NC) recent speech. Apparently at least some GOP women have bought into the conservative nonsense that women aren't as smart as men.
Why would anyone want to be a member of a group that denigrates them so much?
Full text at link.
;
No selective editing there! Here's what she - was saying.
[ In Reply To ..]The words "down to" (women's level) are being grossly misinterpreted. What she was saying was that men tend to view things from the 30,000-foot level while women are concerned with day-to-day issues that affect life "in the small", so to speak.
And, as a woman, I agree with her. Men need to translate their grand, broad visions "down" to the woman in the grocery aisle, the woman who's got to find childcare while she works, who's expected to stay home with a child when they're sick, the woman who helps the kids with their homework, who puts the kids to bed, the women who's usually the parent who attends PTA meetings, who volunteers as a teacher's aide, etc.
The woman who has to "make the money stretch to the end of the month", not in terms of trillions of dollars, but in terms of the family budget, and how to make meals with cheaper cuts of meat.
The message wasn't "Women don't get your pie charts". It was "What's your pie chart going to do for me when it's 6 a.m., I've got 2 kids to get ready for school, myself to get ready for work - and a 3rd kid who's got a fever of 101?" It was "Don't talk to me about increasing educational spending by $200 billion. Tell me what that's going to mean for my child's education."
In short, she was saying (and this is so painfully obvious from a FULL reading of her remarks that I'm embarrassed for you that I need to say it) that women want to know how all those "grand schemes" debated at the top of the mountain are going to impact their daily lives "down" in the village below. That's what was meant by "down to" - meaning, "down to the daily grind, the nitty-gritty". Not "down to" as in "talking down" to someone at a lower intellectual level.
You were quite aware that she herself is a woman, and for that reason alone you should have approached your own (unfiltered) reading of her remarks with considerable skepticism that she would have been standing up - in front of an audience of women - deliberately insulting them, along with herself. Especially when it comes from what amounted to a only a few words that were so exquisitely (slyly?) culled from the complete text of her remarks. If you had done that, which is, incidentally, your responsibility as a citizen, you wouldn't have been so easily deceived - so easily, in fact, that one almost suspect a willing suspension of critical thinking.
But then, that party-line koolade is soooo delicious, isn't it? If only it contained some real nutrition.
I absolutely love your post! - sm
[ In Reply To ..]You are so spot on! And to think that as of this moment, 9 other probable women disliked your post. It is really sad that they cannot see beyond their own party's liberal propaganda.
P.S. The journalist involved in generating this "news" piece should be really embarrassed right about now.
I agree with the poster above me - Mrs. Tingles - sm
[ In Reply To ..]I too think you are spot on. Glad you read the original speech/article. The journalist took it out of context and twisted it around to what she wanted it to say, but was so obviously skewed.
I also agree with the poster that she should be ashamed of herself and be embarrassed for what she wrote.
Your post is well thought out and very accurate. Excellent.