Except that Conservatives have traditionally opposed women's rights.

As far as the issue is concerned, there are several ways to look at it. First, there's a more local way. I've known women who were very good and dedicated. My first wife is now a Professor of Internal Medicine at a prestigious medical school. I've known women carpenters who were the most competent on their crews, who got promoted to foremen and then general foremen. One of the things about Unions, though, is that an apprentice is an apprentice, a journeyman is a journeyman, and the wages are the same.

And I've known women who took an option not available to men. Their jobs were secondary to their relationships, and their main focus was their home. That is understandable. Men, however, because of societal pressures, tend to make their job more important. I'm aware I am speaking in generalities, there are endless examples of this not being true, and I'll still stand by it. Many men live off their wives income, and that's not the norm, yet.

I think women may tend to get paid less because they are considered to be more casual labor, rather than dedicated employees. I won't defend that, I'll just propose it as a traditional view, one which is gradually being overcome as families get more and more desperate for an income, any income.

With her husbands net worth of around $250 million, I'm sure Mrs. Romney can stay home and raise children. Supervise the help, pick the menus and so on. Her biggest problem may be in finding good help, male or female. Mr. Romney's view on women working and getting paid may not relate well to the general population.

Overall, I believe women should get paid equally. What will transpire, though, in some industries, is that fewer women will get hired.