These are wonderful

Inappropriate Clinton Binders of Women

23 responses to “These are wonderful

  1. How can anyone not find that funny!


  2. Virginia Heffernan of Yahoo News wrote an insightful, even amusing, (IMO) critique of the binder flap, the central nugget of which was,

    Before answering the question, Romney had been reminded that women earn about 72 percent what their male counterparts do—and his response was to say, “Exactly! That’s why, given half a chance, I hire women!” Bottom line, Romney recruits women because they look good and they come cheap.

    Heffernan’s essay can be found at this LINK.


  3. Then I suppose that you guys do not believe Ron Suskind’s book about what it was like to be a woman working for Obama’s White House ? It would seem to be a much better job working for Governor Romney . None of them have said they felt like a piece of meat .


  4. And, as usual, everyone ignores the simple fact that women make less than men, more often than not, because of the life and career choices that they make rather than any workplace prejudice or inequity.


  5. I think binders full of women is a very funny figure of speech.

    I think it’s unfair though to suggest the Romney was sexist in his discussion about filling jobs in his Mass. cabinet.


    • Have to disagree, Bruce. When Romney said, “if you’re going to have women in the workforce…sometimes you need to be more flexible” and “She said…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”, he was affirming his sexist belief that childcare and housework are women’s responsibilities, not men’s.

      His statement was also a veiled insult: he was saying men and women in the workplace require different treatment; women need “flexibility”; men don’t. Men are the ones you can count on to be there to get the job done, to put in the 60 and 80 hour weeks; women have to get home to cook the meals and raise the kids. The fact that women in the real world do both–put in long hours at work, then come home to take care of home and family–is not in Romney’s sphere of comprehension.


      • The simple truth, ojmo, is far more women DO need “flexibility” then men and for exactly the reasons that Romney stated.

        You can wax vitriolic on the underlying issue of gender roles in family situations but doing so doesn’t change the fact that those roles are still the norm for our society.


        • Right, and anybody who accepts those roles, and that norm, is sexist–which was my point.


          • OK, so Romney should have either fired those women or otherwise refused to be flexible in their cases?

            It’s almost always useless and harmful to the people involved to try to address or ignore a problem that is based at a much more fundamental level than what one is operating at and those roles exist at a much more fundamental level than the workplace.


            • [Romney should have either fired those women or otherwise refused to be flexible]

              I can only repeat: Bruce asserted Romney’s comments were not sexist. I replied with the reasons I believe his comments were in fact sexist and insulting; I argued nothing beyond that.

              [those roles exist at a much more fundamental level than the workplace]

              Agreed. Romney’s comments were specifically in response to Crowley’s question on “pay equity for women”, which is problematic for the reason you state.


              • How is it sexist or insulting to accept the existence of an issue and work with the people affected to find a way around it within the specific context that one is in?


                • That is what we call circular logic, ojmo. Referring to your original statement as rebuttal to questions of the merit of that statement doesn’t win arguments or debates. It’s certainly not a sign of actually having anything to back up the statement in question.

                  You can do better than that – and better than describing “unstated sexism” to Titfortat when discussing Romney’s statement. Come on! Romney’s statement was sexist but the sexism was unstated?

                  So, one final time; ow is it sexist or insulting to accept the existence of an issue and work with the people affected to find a way around it within the specific context that one is in?


                • That is what we call circular trolling, jonolan. Rephrasing a question–that was already answered–in more general terms, and then claiming it’s a new or different question, doesn’t win arguments or debates.

                  So, one final time: I stated my reasons for my belief that Romney’s remarks were sexist and insulting in my reply to Bruce, and I stand by them.


                • Ah yes. By your standards, anyone who is always actively railing against sexism is sexist. It’s sort of like Bush’s “You’re with us or you’re against us” statement.

                  Gotcha. I understand your position and your attitude now and won’t waste any more effort in discussing the matter with you.


  6. I don’t plan to vote for Romney, and more often than not, I don’t agree Jonolan. This appears to be an exception, but I don’t think I disagree with Ojmo either.

    I think women still being expected to carry more of the weight at home is the norm. Jonolan is right about that, Romney stated he attempted to accomodate his employees in that regard.

    Ojomo states: “anybody who accepts those roles, and that norm, is sexist”. I think I agree here also, if by accept one means: I acknowledge and SUPPORT the way things are.

    But I’m not sure accepting something is tantamount to supporting it, thinking it is a good thing. Accepting can be more resignation to its existence. If I support orphanages, that doesn’t mean I support making children homeless, but I’m resigned to, and accept that it happens.

    Whether or not Romney supports the stay-at-home model isn’t something I can infer from what he said in the debate. His wife appears to have accepted such a role, so he may we be a sexist I suppose.

    But I think the reaction to what he said in the debate on this question is a non-sequitor. If a liberal Democrat made the same remark, I don’t think it would have been received the same way. To take Romney remarks on flexible schedule and in effect affirmative action as proof he’s a sexist, I think you had to assume that before watching the debate.


    • Accepting gender roles and societal norms could mean to acknowledge and support, or it could mean to believe that’s just the way things are, there’s nothing we can do to about it, it’s ordained by God, or it’s hardwired into us by evolution, or there’s some other reason childcare and housework are the exclusive domain of women.

      Romney could have said, “If we want an equitable workplace, we need to have more flexibility for everybody, men as well as women, so women have the time to care for children and home, but also so men can step up and do their fair share of the same. And we need complete pay equality for women and men who do equal work.” Now that would have been a powerful–and antisexist–statement.


  7. @ojmo

    Well, technically, there is this little thing called breast feeding. Regardless if we do have formula there are many women who choose to do it the old evolutionary way. Am I sexist for pointing that out? By the way, Im not saying Romney isnt sexist, but really, it could be that he was just talking about women at that point and it was a simple as that. I know, I know, it is so much more interesting to talk about the sexist stuff though.


    • Yes it’s true, TFT, women breastfeed; and that fact is completely irrelevant to my argument calling attention to the unstated sexism in Romney’s remarks; although I do concur that he was referring to women when he spoke.


      • Other than, sometimes feeding is the exclusive domain of women. 😉


        • Indeed; and if in addition to realistic maternity leave lengths, we institute workplace day care more widely, this can be addressed as well.


          • Key word, realistic. Considering you live in a capitalistic society the emphasis is not be on making it the easiest for families to exist but the easiest way to make money. I dont think the voting in of Obama or Romney is going to change that mindframe anytime soon. 😦


            • Sadly true. My sense is that an unhappy, frustrated electorate will swing back and forth between Republicans and Democrats for a long time before realizing they need to break out of the phony dichotomy. And following that, there’s no reason to assume we’ll necessarily head in a progressive direction.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s