-Mormon position on women has changed little since the early 1800's, when the official view was that "woman's primary place is in the home, where she is to rear children and abide by the righteous counsel of her husband"
-Mormonism has created an ingenious system of oppression, in which opposition towards men is tantamount to arguing with God.
-At age twelve, boys become members of the Aaronic, or lesser priesthood, and at nineteen become eligible for the Melchezedek, or higher priesthood. Members of either priesthood are higher authorities on everything than are non-members. Women are, of course, excluded from the priesthood. This practice in effect says that a woman's prepubescent son is more qualified to advise her than she is to advise him.
If Romney is elected President, how will this effect the rights of women in this country?
Posted by Arroyo, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Oct 4, 2012 at 8:04 am
I know a few mormons and while I don't accept their religion, they are among some of the finest people I've met. This post is obviously meant to be divisive and the writer hopes it will pass muster because it ends in a question.
I have a question --
Gail, were you scared by a mormon when you were a child?
Posted by Gail, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Oct 4, 2012 at 8:19 am
No, but the thought of Romney as president does. This article from a couple of days ago also discusses the second class citizen status of women in the Mormon church, the Mormon church's opposition to the equal rights amendment, and its extraordinary effort to ban same sex marriage [article-jim lehrer ask mitt romney if he stands by mormon views of women] Web Link
Posted by ?, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Oct 4, 2012 at 8:44 am
Senate leader Harry Reid is a mormon. Does this make him one of the bad guys too? The Catholic church is very pro male. Does this make all Catholics bad people too?
Your comments are shallow and idiotic. Remember separation of church and state?
Also, I love the selective hearing of some above and repeating half of what you hear. Yes, Romney wants to repeal some of the dysfunctional parts of Dodd Frank. But he also agrees with many of its aspects and wants to improve the parts that aren't working.
I sure hope the American populace can apply better critical thinking to the issues at hand rather than what is evident on this blog.
Posted by Paul (Your Pal) Ryan, a resident of another community, on Oct 4, 2012 at 9:57 am
Yes, who cares about the rights of women when the economy needs to be brought back to pre-Obama status, with added tax breaks for the wealthy and the corporations? It is fascism that we need: the needs of corporate capitalsm must trump women's human rights claims. Doesn't everybody know that? And women? So what if Roe v. Wade gets repealed? Your forfeiture of the right to choose will be for the greater good --- an unregulated Wall Street. Get back into the kitchen woman!
Posted by Paul (Your Pal) Ryan, a resident of another community, on Oct 4, 2012 at 10:25 am
We all know the PW reaches well beyond California's boundaries, reaching tens of thousands of readers elsewhere. One is living in Texas, for example ... or claims to be, or intends to be, or something.
And the point is, why worry about women's right to choose? I mean, I'm willing to completely overlook that it is the Supreme Court that can overturn Roe v. Wade, not Congress, no matter what party is in the majority.
Trust us. We want to grow capitalism (with regulation where appropriate, but truth be told who needs it?). And the tax cuts for the rich and corporations. Trust us. We don't want middle-class Americans footing the bill, unless it's absolutely necessary.
Posted by ?, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Oct 4, 2012 at 10:45 am
Funny thing, I agree with your point regarding womens' right to choose. I just don't think there is much risk of that right being rolled back.
Fixing the economy is a higher priority for me and hands down Romeny won that portion of the debate last night and I agree with his approach.
The more I think about it, the more I was impressed with Romney's command of the economic issue and associated facts - e.g. his rationale for not raising the top tax rate which would essentially be raising taxes on the one group of small businesses that generate most of the jobs in this country.
BTW, I do disagree with Romney and believe that the capital gains rate needs to be raised.
Net, Romney demonstrated his depth and command of economic issues and all Obama could do was through out campaign sound bits that he couldn't defend.
Posted by voter, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Oct 4, 2012 at 12:07 pm
Gail - you have been duped by DNC & OFA talking points - not favoring public funding of abortions, public funding of Planned Parenthood, and public funding of contraceptives is NOT the same as banning or getting rid of them.
And taxpayers favor eliminating public funding of these things.
Romney wants to get rid of Planned Parenthood in this clip Web Link
Romney will work to overturn Roe v. Wade. He has supported bills banning abortion even in cases of rape and incest.
Posted by voter, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Oct 4, 2012 at 12:20 pm
And you can claim that a pro life President will try to overturn Roe v Wade, but how many pro life Presidents have we had since 1974? How many justices have they appointed? And how many of those justices would vote to overturn it? I mean, lets be real.
As for Romney's views, I believe they are mainstream:
“I would love the Supreme Court to say, ‘Let’s send this back to the states,’” he said. “Rather than having a federal mandate through Roe v. Wade, let the states again consider this issue state by state.”
“But I’m pro-life, that’s my view. I believe there is a sanctity of human life,” Romney added.
Posted by Gail, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Oct 4, 2012 at 4:59 pm
No, but thanks for asking. Arroyo, you could join eHarmony to sync up with 29 Dimensions® of Compatibility to find your ideal right-wing, Bain Capital LLC loving, tax-avoidance loving mate. May need to look offshore though.
Posted by Gail, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Oct 4, 2012 at 9:11 pm
I haven't mentioned Romney's family. You are focusing on the demeaning activity with the still single comments, Arroyo.
I wonder whether the second debate Romney will talk about issues regarding women. In their neverending quest to alienate the women voters of America (hope Romney doesn't try to repeal the right for women to vote), Romney's campaign senior campaign advisor Eric Fehrnstrom on ABC's This Week and during a roundtable on the fabled "women's vote" said women's issues were "Shiny Objects" meant as some sort of distraction.
Arroyo, you can look up: romney women issues shiny object for the background (if you can be dragged away for a second from your eHarmony look-ups).
When will Romney actually address women's issues rather than call them "Shiny Objects"?
Posted by Resident, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Oct 5, 2012 at 8:49 am
I don't like Romney's and Ryan's views on social issues, and I could not vote for them (not that it matters what we do in CA, where Obama will win for sure).
That said, Romney did very well on the debate and Obama did not know how to reply to Romney.
I liked when Romney accused Obama of giving the green energy companies 90 billion in incentives/tax breaks and Obama could not say anything, especially when Romeny mentioned the Solyndra fiasco. (it was a reply to Obama's claim that Romney wanted to give tax breaks to big oil companies)
I think that it will be a very tight race because Romney is not a good choice but Obama has not done a good job and is finding it hard to defend his record (or lack of)
Posted by liberalism is a disease, a resident of the Birdland neighborhood, on Oct 5, 2012 at 8:57 am liberalism is a disease is a member (registered user) of PleasantonWeekly.com
Religious bigotry...the last accepted prejudice condoned by our increasingly immoral leftist menebrs of society...unless of course you're talking about Muslims...no, you can never offend them or their 'religion'.
Gail probably performed the same with hunt in the 60's when Kennedy was running for president: He swears allegiance to the Pope...he'll turn us all into God fearing Catholics. Geez, grow up, you whiney beeyatch.
Posted by Arroyo, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Oct 5, 2012 at 10:57 am
If we want a President strong on social issues alone, Obama wins hands down.
If we want an invidivual who can get our economy booming again -- restore vision from the private sector of the business community --and most importantly get people back to work, Romney wins hands down.
I'm convinced that over the next 4 years, if Obama is reelected, his most important goal will continue to be his personal agenda for reshaping America. If you agree with the job he's done these past 4 years, share his vision for the future, then he's your man.
I feel he's done a terrible job, don't agree with his personal agenda, and I will be voting for Romney.
Romney was not my first choice for President. But, given the current choices I believe he's America's best hope for recovery. If he's not up to the task, we'll make another change in 2016.
Posted by Resident, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Oct 5, 2012 at 1:10 pm
"I feel he's done a terrible job, don't agree with his personal agenda, and I will be voting for Romney."
I agree Obama has done an awful job, but I am not convinced Romney is the answer. Luckily for me, I don't have to think much about my vote, because in CA Obama will win no matter how we vote. I would hate to be in one of the swing states, a friend who lives in Florida still does not how to vote: does not like either and like me, she is not sure that Romney would be better.
So is giving states the right to decide their rules and regulations a good thing? And when is the federal govt supposed to step in? People died as a result of the lack of regulations, a company in MA did not have sufficient monitoring from the feds, and look what happened!