State of the Union

Four. More. Years!

 

I heard snatches on NPR this morning. Ol' Joe always seems at his best baiting Republicans in Congress. Well, why not. It's his home turf.

 

People forget (and the media does abysmal job reminding them) that the job of a President is not merely to run for office. The President laid out his accomplishments and concrete, actionable plans for the future. I really want to see Four More Years of that.

 

Tommy Tuberville said the kitchen setting for Katie Britt's response was okay because “she was picked as a housewife, not just a senator.”

He called a sitting U.S. Senator (the senior senator from his own state) a housewife. Amazing.

 

Heard snatches of Britt's "response" as well...best description is "cringe-worthy".

 

Feisty is a good summary, I think of the way that Biden came across. I thought he did well overall. Biden was very assertive in his attacks against his "predecessor". I don't think I've ever seen such an aggressive State of the Union Address. I enjoyed watching Mike Johnson seem to squirm down in an apparent attempt to hide at times.

 

And they staged her in a kitchen. No one spoke up about the absurd optics?

 

I think that the Republicans are rightly concerned about the female vote due to Roe v Wade being overturned. The absurd optics show how badly they misunderstand women.

I know that the above second sentence sounds like a ridiculous conclusion. I just can't figure out any other explanation. Any help sinking this ridiculous conclusion would be much appreciated.

 

They truly believe a woman is at her best as a married housewife and mother. It's tacit and nearly universal. That's why Tuberville said what he did--there wasn't anything at all objectionable (to them) about it. It goes without saying. And it is why they could stage her talk in a kitchen without giving it a second thought. Or a first thought, even. She was being her best self.

 

Yes, she even explicitly said that at the beginning of her speech!

 

Well, that depends, I guess, on whether you think a Senator should be a Senator first, having undertaken the obligation to serve in high office. I don't see why any such comment is even necessary; nothing keeps Britt from doing BOTH.

 

I think many people highly value the contributions, and sacrifices, that women make to society as mothers. As an active duty military member I know my family would not be successful without the immense contributions from my wife. Should I value her more if she worked full time and a babysitter raised our children? Would that be more beneficial for society? We both consider it a blessing that we have balanced things the way we have.

Others, including apparently some in this thread, often talk out of both sides of their mouths trying not to diminish stay at home moms but thinking they “could be so much more.” The contributions made at home are likely more impactful to society than the absent time making a corporation a few more dollars. I see the negative impact to children every day of not having key folks present, or rarely present, at home and it ripples out in society in devastating ways. Could dads stay at home too? Certainly. Especially in early development it absolutely isn’t the same. Then there is always that pesky gender pay gap.

Thank goodness women in America have the opportunity to be a “house wife” and/or a Senator.

 

All very true BUT this PARTICULAR housewife and mom chose to serve the country as a U.S. Senator. Not the same thing at all.

 

When giving her speech, Britt, was acting in her capacity as a senator not as a mother. The impression it gave me was that she was demeaning her role as a women by implying that she couldn't be both a mother and a senator. If that was the only thing wrong with her speech then it wouldn't have probably registered so much. The whole speech just seemed off. Like a mediocre performance in a high school acting class or something.

https://apple.news/AOcJ7JHEtQ3mtLD0Vj3mEqw

 

It is unacceptable to believe women only have value as a “house wife” and not actively support a woman’s career, vocation, or education that they desire. My overall point is that in a perfect world when women are provided opportunities, education, and options and choose to be mothers, they aren’t viewed as “lesser than” women that choose other paths. We need all of them operating in the way they choose to contribute to society for us to be successful.

She chose to be many things and was elected as a Senator. She gets to choose how to present herself to be best positioned for success. It is up to everyone else to decide how it resonates.

Just based on this thread, the Senator they chose (woman, young, family, etc.), and the chosen setting makes me think the goal may have been to “market” a Senator in a way that also highlights the values they want people to believe they represent. The general message from the Republican Party was probably we value women (we chose a woman to do the speech), we value family and mothers (elevate those roles and highlight them), and she is a woman “just like you” that loves her family but is fed up with the way things are and chose to become a Senator to make them better.

Regardless if anyone disagrees with the party’s beliefs or the “truth” behind the message, I don’t think it is accurate to say that the messaging during and following the speech is meant to diminish women as has been said in this thread. It was meant to showcase something else.

For Bill’s post, the point may be that being a mother is central to her identity and beliefs that guide her as a Senator. It was to connect to others that can identify with her.

 

I replied to you partly right before this post, I hear you. I can’t sit through 20 minutes of it and definitely didn’t go out of my way to look for the response after the SOTU. My participation in this thread was really on the singular issue of whether the setting of the speech or being called a “housewife” was “diminishing” to Senator Britt and I elaborated more about what I think was the tactical messaging to connect her with the voters and to highlight values they think will resonate with them. I think she was highlighting she can do both, she doesn’t have to compartmentalize them to be successful.