By now it’s been established that Obama redeemed himself last night. The night’s most effective moment came when Obama scolded Romney for the “offensive” suggestion that his team had played politics with the Libyan attack and then Romney got stuff with a Crowley fact-check when he tried the press the issue. And by now it’s clear that “binders full of women” was last night’s “Big Bird,” lighting up the internet like a Christmas tree—you can check out the best binder memes here.
But for my money the single craziest line wasn’t even the binder line itself but a line wedged right next to it in Romney’s case about women’s equality:
Now one of the reasons I was able to get so many good women to be part of that team was because…I recognized that if you’re going to have women in the workforce that sometimes you need to be more flexible. My chief of staff, for instance, had two kids that were still in school.
She said, I can’t be here until 7 or 8 o’clock at night. I need to be able to get home at 5 o’clock so I can be there for making dinner for my kids and being with them when they get home from school. So we said fine. Let’s have a flexible schedule so you can have hours that work for you.
So, basically what he’s saying is that in order for women to succeed in the corporate workforce they need more flexible hours so they can get home in time to do the cooking and raise the kids, which are more uniquely female responsibilities than male.
This is hardly a vision of equality—both in work and civic terms. If men are expected to be able to work late because they don’t have the extra burden of housework and child-rearing, men and women will continually be cast into different roles both at work and at home. And if the roles are different, why should the pay be equal? Which is the whole problem the voter asking the question in last night’s debate was addressing.
The reality is that statistically there are more single moms out there than single dads. But on principal whether the parents are single or in couples, heterosexual or homosexual, male or female, we need to look at the question of balancing work and family as a human issue and not a male-female issue. If we can’t take a gender-blind approach to this at a cultural level, then signing all the Lilly Ledbetter bills congress can write won’t change the reality of earnings equality.
October 17, 2012 at 2:53 pm, Diane Koistinen said:
What a jerk.
October 17, 2012 at 2:55 pm, Peter Sabol said:
Good point.
October 17, 2012 at 2:59 pm, Jean Hale Goodson said:
I was stunned by that remark…you're all for women's rights aren't cha Gov.
October 17, 2012 at 3:08 pm, Cassie Stephenson said:
Not to mention, when mothers make a choice to be stay-at-home moms, they forfeit contributions to their own social security. Major inequality there.
October 17, 2012 at 3:33 pm, Gail Brockman said:
He perpetuates gender role differences in the workplace. He casts all women in the same light. His ideas are more in keeping with the workforce of the 50s and the 60s. Perhaps he has had little exposure to women in responsible roles except for his term as governor.
October 17, 2012 at 3:59 pm, Mike Mennonno said:
I was with you up until the end. The concluding sentence diminshes the importance of actually signing the Lilly Ledbetter bill into law. It is very important that the president signed this bill into law. Yes, cultural attitudes are important, and maybe your point was that a president with antiquated ideas about gender roles would not have done what Obama did in addressing the issue, but your conclusion ends up (unintentionally?) diminshing what the president did do.
October 17, 2012 at 6:49 pm, Alex Moore said:
Interesting view, thanks for the comment. Certainly hadn't meant to diminish Ledbetter — that was historic and more good legislation like that is definitely needed; was just saying a cultural shift needs to accompany it.
October 17, 2012 at 4:53 pm, Black Jason Statham said:
You'd think that paying women an equal wage, not giving a toss about who marries whom, and just not being a dick are common sense. You'd think, but you'd be wrong.
October 17, 2012 at 5:52 pm, Tami Clarridge Pfarr said:
Then maybe Obama can explain why the women who work for him in the Whie House make 18% less then the men????
October 17, 2012 at 5:56 pm, Black Jason Statham said:
Perhaps he can. The broader issue goes beyond political party lines. Romney, Obama, doesn't matter. This is a world issue. Women are considered less than men all over the world and no one politician is going to change that, no matter what their political affiliation. I don't blame the president: he didn't create sexism. Society did. I blame society.
October 17, 2012 at 6:42 pm, Billie Stirewalt said:
I also take issue with the fact that politicians- and especially conservatives- only look at "women's issues" as those pertaining to motherhood and reproduction. Some of us don't have/don't want/can't have children. Are our political and economic needs supposed to be written off because we don't fit into the concept of "woman as mother?" Just once, I'd like the debate to be about women AS HUMAN BEINGS- kids or no kids.
October 17, 2012 at 6:52 pm, Tami Clarridge Pfarr said:
Wow, Billie, I'm not sure what political ads are running in your state, but here in Ohio the only ads portraying women as only interseted in contraception are the Obama ads. I recently said virtually the same thing you just said except citing the democratic ads here. For me, the economy is my 1st priority and I resent these ads that assume, as a woman, I only care about contraception, abortion, or Planned Parenthood funding.
October 17, 2012 at 6:55 pm, Billie Stirewalt said:
Yeah, because abortion is what I was talking about.
October 18, 2012 at 1:15 am, Brad Erthal said:
The other issues don't require women to be mentioned in particular. Some issues impact women in particular (contraception coverage, abortion, et al.), whereas some have roughly the same impact on everyone. So yes, there should be ads talking about both kinds of issues. I just don't know why an ad on the economy, say, would go out of its way to refer to that as a "women's issue" or something, when men and women probably care about equally about it.
October 17, 2012 at 6:01 pm, Tami Clarridge Pfarr said:
It's a shame that a woman who CHOOSES to be home and do what she wants to do for her family and work outside the home would be used as a pawn for the democrats to label Romney as out of touch and trying to put women back in the 1950's. Most women I know would LOVE to have an employer who would offer flexibility in their work schedule.
October 17, 2012 at 7:12 pm, Kate Spencer O'Brien said:
Whereas most men you know only "love" (no caps) an employer that offers them flexibility? Being home by dinnertime is some uniquely female characteristic, I suppose.
October 17, 2012 at 7:17 pm, Tami Clarridge Pfarr said:
Not sure why so antagonistic Kate. Just trying to voice my opinion that would allow women the right to choose their own paths. Guess you misunderstood my post. We were discussing women.
October 17, 2012 at 8:35 pm, Brad Erthal said:
Again, the whole problem, both from Mitt Romney and Ann Romney's statements about issues like this, is that there is an implicit assumption that women should be the homemakers. Romney said, explicitly, that we need to allow women flexibility with their hours so they can take care of the kids. I don't know how you are so consistently missing the point.
October 17, 2012 at 10:08 pm, Tami Clarridge Pfarr said:
It's all about perspective Brad. Maybe it's you that's missing the point.
October 17, 2012 at 10:09 pm, Kate Spencer O'Brien said:
Tami Clarridge Pfarr Antagonistic because you're missing the point. The fine balance of raising a family and having a successful career is one that applies to all parents, regardless of gender. Women do not need special treatment; parents perhaps do.
October 17, 2012 at 11:50 pm, Kate Martin Corsmeier said:
I believe you mean uppity and the ad hominum statements don't help ur case s'much. Romney's big Eureka moment was that he "recognized if you're going to have women in the workforce that sometimes you need to be more flexible." Who let the women in the workforce?! Mad Men couldn't have said it better. Remarkable as it may seem, in 2012, balancing a j-o-b and time w/ kids is a parent issue not a woman's issue. Sincerely, a Page in the Binder
October 18, 2012 at 1:12 am, Brad Erthal said:
Sometimes it's not all about perspective. Your actual failure to engage with the argument which has actually been put forward demonstrates your failure of understanding.
October 17, 2012 at 6:29 pm, Bob Cadloff said:
He probably made her start at 4 AM to make up for it.
October 17, 2012 at 6:34 pm, Alisa Burton said:
yes in 1952 romney's vision of equality might have made sense.
October 17, 2012 at 9:56 pm, Sharon Dudka said:
Nah Bob – he slashed her wages.
October 17, 2012 at 9:50 pm, Ashley Thomsen said:
He keeps digging his own grave, and supposedly violent kids predominantly come from single mother homes. Ok!???!
October 18, 2012 at 1:30 pm, Rohinton Irani said:
Senior Romney adviser Ed Gillespie told the Huffington Post that, while Romney would not repeal the Lilly Ledbetter Act, he “was opposed to it at the time” and would not have signed it.
————————————————————–
DO YOU WOMEN UNDERSTAND The ABOVE STATEMENT?
WHY? in The Hell would YOU VOTE for Willlard! WHY?
They WANT YOU ' Barefoot & Pregnant! '…..IGNORANT & UN-EDUCATED!
The TREAT YOU like 2nd CLASS CITIZENS!
IF you WOMEN HAVE NOT VOTED Yet?
Then KEEP READING The ABOVE STATEMENT! until in Sinks in! To OVERCOME Whatever HATE you have for The President!
And UNDERSTAND how the republicans FEEL about YOUR GENDER!
———————————————————–
Story Link : http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/10/17/1032001/romney-adviser-romney-would-have-opposed-lilly-ledbetter-in-2009/.
October 18, 2012 at 1:30 pm, Rohinton Irani said:
Romney's Son Tagg Says He Wanted to Punch Obama!
———————————————————————————————-
What's the Old saying? Children are a REFELECTION of their PARENTS!
Story Link : http://politix.topix.com/homepage/2540-romneys-son-tagg-says-he-wanted-to-punch-obama.
————————————————————————————————————–
Threatening the President of the United States is a class D felony under United States Code Title 18, Section 871[1]. It consists of knowingly and willfully mailing or otherwise making "any threat to take the life of, to kidnap, or to inflict bodily harm upon the President of the United States". The United States Secret Service investigates suspected violations of this law and monitors those who have a history of threatening the President.
October 18, 2012 at 9:28 pm, Jen Coe said:
Heard on "morning joe" this morning, that women aren't offended by the binder comment and that it's democrats making something out of nothing. Of course, it was a man who said it. Clueless!
October 27, 2012 at 5:44 am, Vanessa Tang said:
Olders are more charm to Youngers and Olders are usually more stable , Mature and understand better how to treat their Soul Mate.Check out~~~Agelesscupid&(dot com)~~~ # 1 Age Gap Dating Site for Older Men Seeking Younger Women. &. Mature
Women Looking for Younger Men.Over 171,400 quality Members are Seeking their match.If you are ready for a new adventure, give them a try!