Good commentary on Mitt's foolish statement:
"Binders full of women" became #bindersfullofwomen on Twitter, a Tumblr page and a Facebook page which within half an hour had over 20,000 likes. By the end of the debate that had risen to almost 70,000. Why did the phrase resonate? Because it was tone deaf, condescending and out of touch with the actual economic issues that women are so bothered about. The phrase objectified and dehumanized women. It played right into the perception that so many women have feared about a Romney administration – that a president Romney would be sexist and set women back. And it turns out the way Romney presented it – that he asked for a study of women in leadership positions – wasn't true anyway.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/oct/17/romney-binders-full-of-women
Mitt wasn't even telling the truth:
Not a true story.
What actually happened was that in 2002 -- prior to the election, not even knowing yet whether it would be a Republican or Democratic administration -- a bipartisan group of women in Massachusetts formed MassGAP to address the problem of few women in senior leadership positions in state government. There were more than 40 organizations involved with the Massachusetts Women's Political Caucus (also bipartisan) as the lead sponsor.
They did the research and put together the binder full of women qualified for all the different cabinet positions, agency heads, and authorities and commissions. They presented this binder to Governor Romney when he was elected.
I have written about this before, in various contexts; tonight I've checked with several people directly involved in the MassGAP effort who confirm that this history as I've just presented it is correct -- and that Romney's claim tonight, that he asked for such a study, is false.
I will write more about this later, but for tonight let me just make a few quick additional points. First of all, according to MassGAP and MWPC, Romney did appoint 14 women out of his first 33 senior-level appointments, which is a reasonably impressive 42 percent. However, as I have reported before, those were almost all to head departments and agencies that he didn't care about -- and in some cases, that he quite specifically wanted to not really do anything. None of the senior positions Romney cared about -- budget, business development, etc. -- went to women.
Secondly, a UMass-Boston study found that the percentage of senior-level appointed positions held by women actually declined throughout the Romney administration, from 30.0% prior to his taking office, to 29.7% in July 2004, to 27.6% near the end of his term in November 2006. (It then began rapidly rising when Deval Patrick took office.)
Third, note that in Romney's story as he tells it, this man who had led and consulted for businesses for 25 years didn't know any qualified women, or know where to find any qualified women. So what does that say?
http://blog.thephoenix.com/blogs/talkingpolitics/archive/2012/10/16/mind-the-binder.aspx
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
Originally posted by no1marauderAt least it answers this question:
Good commentary on Mitt's foolish statement:
"Binders full of women" became #bindersfullofwomen on Twitter, a Tumblr page and a Facebook page which within half an hour had over 20,000 likes. By the end of the debate that had risen to almost 70,000. Why did the phrase resonate? Because it was tone deaf, condescending and out of touch with the actual e ...[text shortened]... true anyway.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/oct/17/romney-binders-full-of-women
Originally posted by TheBloopI have had binders full of women when I was younger, kept a full file on each one that was in play at the time, made for excellent sport when compared to binder contents of my buddies. To judge the winner, you had to consider the number of women, their ages, looks rated 1-10, and an assigned star-count (1-5 stars) of how good they were in the sack. Quite complicated when the binders had files on more than 20 women each.
Women need to vote as if their lady parts depended on it.
The "BFoW" comment isn't the least bit offensive, dehumanizing, or condescending. He stated a fact: he had a binder full of names of women qualified for certain considerations.
What's the big flippin' deal? At the absolute worst, it was just lacking in eloquence.
And about Mitt saying that jobs need to be flexible for women---that's the truth. My wife is currently in the midst of maternity leave from work. Women have different needs than men, and it's NOT condescending to acknowledge that; rather, it would be heartless and insesitive not to.
And this is from someone who's voting for Obama.
Originally posted by vivifyNo, jobs don't have to be flexible for women. Jobs have to be flexible for SOME women (and for some men). If you're going to decide which person is qualified for which job and you're going to base that on their gender instead of their personal characteristics, then that is a problem. There are enough women out there who don't have or want any kids, a husband that looks after the kids, ....
And about Mitt saying that jobs need to be flexible for women---that's the truth. My wife is currently in the midst of maternity leave from work. Women have different needs than men, and it's NOT condescending to acknowledge that; rather, it would be heartless and insesitive not to.
And this is from someone who's voting for Obama.
Originally posted by BartsSo then do you believe that maternity leave is a flexibilty for women that shouldn't be be required, since men don't get that?
No, jobs don't have to be flexible for women. Jobs have to be flexible for SOME women (and for some men). If you're going to decide which person is qualified for which job and you're going to base that on their gender instead of their personal characteristics, then that is a problem. There are enough women out there who don't have or want any kids, a husband that looks after the kids, ....
Originally posted by vivifyNow there is a non-sequitur. No, I am saying that you can not make the generalization that women can't take non-flexible jobs because more women than men want flexible ones. That means I am opposed to making a difference based on gender. Maternity leave is not a difference based on gender. You don't get maternity leave for being a women, you get if for having given birth to a baby.
So then do you believe that maternity leave is a flexibilty for women that shouldn't be be required, since men don't get that?
By the way, I am completely for paternity leave, after the women recovers from the birth itself, the man can easily care for the child. (It needs a bit more organization for breast milk, but nothing insurmountable). So why not give a combined "parental leave" that the wife and man can split as they see fit ?
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
Originally posted by BartsWould this be a step in the right direction?
Now there is a non-sequitur. No, I am saying that you can not make the generalization that women can't take non-flexible jobs because more women than men want flexible ones. That means I am opposed to making a difference based on gender. Maternity leave is not a difference based on gender. You don't get maternity leave for being a women, you get if for having ...[text shortened]... o why not give a combined "parental leave" that the wife and man can split as they see fit ?
http://www.paidfamilyleave.org/
Originally posted by BartsI see your point. Still, I don't think Romney's statement deserves such infamy.
Now there is a non-sequitur. No, I am saying that you can not make the generalization that women can't take non-flexible jobs because more women than men want flexible ones. That means I am opposed to making a difference based on gender. Maternity leave is not a difference based on gender. You don't get maternity leave for being a women, you get if for having ...[text shortened]... o why not give a combined "parental leave" that the wife and man can split as they see fit ?