Elizabeth Warren's Pregnant Pause

[Teallaura]

My mother doesn't like the term "Pocahontas" either so she refers to her as "Pokey."

What'd Pokey ever do to her?

pokey.jpg

[Juvenal]

You inspired me ... I mean whoever did it .... to change the thread title!

So with that issue cleared up, and taking on board the additional information that NJ required an "automatic resignation" for women teaching when they reach their fifth month of pregnancy, what is it you find troubling about Warren's reference to how that policy impacted her personally?

[Juvenal]

So with that issue cleared up, and taking on board the additional information that NJ required an "automatic resignation" for women teaching when they reach their fifth month of pregnancy, what is it you find troubling about Warren's reference to how that policy impacted her personally?

To be more clear, while the policy did affect her personally, I'm not seeing evidence that she took it personally. "... did what principals did at the time ..." says she didn't even blame the principal, personally. To me, the decades-later references in her interviews and now her stump speeches show an evolution from accepting the policy at the time to an awareness that the policy was always wrong, as is generally acknowledged today.

I'm not seeing anything wrong with that.

[Mountain Man]

To be more clear, while the policy did affect her personally, I'm not seeing evidence that she took it personally. "... did what principals did at the time ..." says she didn't even blame the principal, personally. To me, the decades-later references in her interviews and now her stump speeches show an evolution from accepting the policy at the time to an awareness that the policy was always wrong, as is generally acknowledged today.

I'm not seeing anything wrong with that.

There's no doubt that her story went through an "evolution", but it evolved from one where she willingly made the decision on her own to resign because teaching just wasn't doing it for her, to one where she loved teaching but was forced to resign because she was pregnant. As I said, it is impossible for both stories to be true, and I'm inclined to think the recent version is the "embellishment".

[Roy]

Um... no. My assumption are based on Warren's own statements. She quite clearly lied because her story from 2007 is irreconcilable with her story in 2019. The only question is whether she was lying then, or lying now, and since she has more reason to lie now, that's where I'm putting my money.

So if two statements are irreconcilable, that's a lie, even if made more than a decade apart? No allowance made for error or misremembering or context or even subsequent corrections?

That's ridiculously harsh.

[Cow Poke]

So with that issue cleared up, and taking on board the additional information that NJ required an "automatic resignation" for women teaching when they reach their fifth month of pregnancy, what is it you find troubling about Warren's reference to how that policy impacted her personally?

That she has a flair for embellishment and inconsistency. But that's OK - Run Liz, Run!

[Teallaura]

So if two statements are irreconcilable, that's a lie, even if made more than a decade apart? No allowance made for error or misremembering or context or even subsequent corrections?

That's ridiculously harsh.

Both statements are decades removed from the event - error and recalling incorrectly defy credulity. Were either the case, the 2007 and 2019 statements should agree with each other and differ with the reality of what happened in 1971. Instead, the statements conflict and the undisputed facts of the event aren't in conflict with either statement.

That condition is consistent with lying, not making a mistake.

[oxmixmudd]

So if two statements are irreconcilable, that's a lie, even if made more than a decade apart? No allowance made for error or misremembering or context or even subsequent corrections?

That's ridiculously harsh.

Yep - it's kinda crazy. When telling about an event, we don't usually give every detail, depending on why we are telling the story. The people we are telling usually don't care about ancillary details that don't contribute to the purpose of telling it unless they just have time to kill. And some times we just don't remember some aspect of the story - especially later. And our own understanding of the event and what was significant about it changes over time. To go through someone's account of an event over decades and demand every telling be identical and complete is absurd.


Jim

[oxmixmudd]

To be more clear, while the policy did affect her personally, I'm not seeing evidence that she took it personally. "... did what principals did at the time ..." says she didn't even blame the principal, personally. To me, the decades-later references in her interviews and now her stump speeches show an evolution from accepting the policy at the time to an awareness that the policy was always wrong, as is generally acknowledged today.

I'm not seeing anything wrong with that.

I have one rather major event in my life I never understood was wrong until I was in my 40's. I tell that story very differently now than when I was 30.

Jim

[Cow Poke]

I have one rather major event in my life I never understood was wrong until I was in my 40's. I tell that story very differently now than when I was 30.

Jim

And it would be quite easy for you to reconcile that difference.

[Sam]

Both statements are decades removed from the event - error and recalling incorrectly defy credulity. Were either the case, the 2007 and 2019 statements should agree with each other and differ with the reality of what happened in 1971. Instead, the statements conflict and the undisputed facts of the event aren't in conflict with either statement.

That condition is consistent with lying, not making a mistake.

The statements do not conflict, as detailed extensively in this thread.

--Sam

[Juvenal]

That she has a flair for embellishment and inconsistency. But that's OK - Run Liz, Run!

Where ever your politics might be leading you, the facts don't support this. And as I've been trying to highlight in my own stumbling but well-meaning way, I don't think embellishing the facts to advance a political cause is consistent with what I'm thinking you'd prefer to think of as your primary mission, giving folks reasons to accept and agree with your belief in God.

Oh, and just by the way, you're wrong about that, too, but I'm okay with letting you wear your hat the way that suits you, and willing to tolerate your belief that it's not okay for me to wear mine the way it suits me. Not pleased, you understand, but willing, in the interest of maintaining civility. Still, it would be better if I didn't have to bend over backwards for you on that.

Anyhoo ...

I'm not seeing evidence she's been inconsistent, with the facts that is, or is embellishing them. Back in the 70s, women were either teachers or nurses or secretaries, and mostly single if they were working at all. If they were married and working, when they got pregnant, they quit and stayed home to take care of the kids. And it makes sense that back in the 70s, she accepted that, like everyone else. It was, after all, an "automatic resignation" scenario at the time. She didn't complain about it then, because that's not who she was then.

People have the right, and maybe even the obligation, to re-examine their opinions about things they accepted in the past. It's not right to call her out on a lack of consistency in her beliefs across a span of nearly 50 years.

In 2019, our entire society has rejected the idea a woman should have to resign because she's pregnant, and that's worth pointing out. No doubt, she uses this episode as a segue or support for her position on abortion rights, which is where I suspect your actual opposition lies.

I can certainly understand a principled, or even religiously-inspired, opposition to her stance on abortion rights, or even the entire Democratic Party's similar stance. But if that's the actual motivation, I'm not seeing how that opposition is advanced by promoting clearly partisan-inspired attacks lacking objective support.

Doesn't take a whole lot of that before folks begin to wonder if your support for other issues, like your personal religious beliefs, might be just as contentious.

[Cow Poke]

That she has a flair for embellishment and inconsistency. But that's OK - Run Liz, Run!

Where ever your politics might be leading you, the facts don't support this.

Actually, the facts DO support this. Just not necessarily the facts relating to her 'pregnancy' story. It's her "Native American" claims that demonstrate her flair for embellishment and inconsistency, and that's probably why people were so quick to jump on her 'pregnancy' story as suspect.

Not only have I backed off my use of Pocahontas as a name for her, I've also backed off this particular issue. I will, therefore, not be responding to the rest of your chastisement.

ETA: It looks like your entire screed is seriously flawed, since I'm no longer holding Warren to this particular offense.

[Cow Poke]

Oh, and just by the way, you're wrong about that, too, but I'm okay with letting you wear your hat the way that suits you, and willing to tolerate your belief that it's not okay for me to wear mine the way it suits me.

Wait, WHAT? What "hat" am I not "okay" with you wearing? I don't think that's a legitimate charge.

[oxmixmudd]

Actually, the facts DO support this. Just not necessarily the facts relating to her 'pregnancy' story. It's her "Native American" claims that demonstrate her flair for embellishment and inconsistency, and that's probably why people were so quick to jump on her 'pregnancy' story as suspect.

Not only have I backed off my use of Pocahontas as a name for her, I've also backed off this particular issue. I will, therefore, not be responding to the rest of your chastisement.

ETA: It looks like your entire screed is seriously flawed, since I'm no longer holding Warren to this particular offense.

Would it not be fair to say it was accurate up until the point you officially informed him you had stopped holding Warren to the offense?

Jim