In A Bind

This is not going to be another thing on the internet that makes fun of Governor Romney's comment about "binders full of women."  The reason for that is that I don't think it's funny.  I think it is terrifying.

Let's start with the official word from the talking heads.   Here's the back story.  During Tuesday night's presidential debate, a woman from the town hall setting asked the two candidates what they would do to address inequality in the workplace, specifically women's pay inequity.  Governor Romney's answer was anecdotal.  He said that as governor of Massachusetts, he had some first hand experience with trying to find competent and capable women for his cabinet.  The longer he spoke, the deeper the hole got until he said that he went out to women's groups and asked for help.  They brought him Binders Full of Women!  And there, my friends, is what the birth of a meme looks like.  Before the debate had even ended, there was a Facebook page about women in binders.  There was a Twitter profile.  Comments were made in the review sections of binders sold on Amazon.  This exploded in a way that I think, took everyone by surprise.

Romney, of course, tripped all over himself to clarify his statements.  And then everywhere you looked, there was another article about how the binder story was putting Romney in yet another "foot-in-mouth" bind.  God love him, even VP hopeful Paul Ryan tried to help.  In a way that was not remotely helpful.  And then things got nasty.  The woman who asked the question, Katherine Fenton, has been under attack by Romney supporters.  She's been painted as a slut, a drunk and perhaps, worst of all, a feminist.  I won't link you to any of the actual articles where the worst of it lives; they don't deserve the traffic.


Apart from the very sad fact that a) the answer Governor Romney gave was a lie, or b) didn't actually answer the question, what really makes me scared about all of this is that the focus went to the naturally funny line from the story.  Binders full of women.  It's funny; I admit it.  But, listen to the full 2 minute answer and you will find something more troublesome.  Here.  Trust me.  Watch again.  Listen carefully AFTER the binder bit.

The part where he says that in his newly fixed economy, employers will be excited to hire people, even women!  And that would include flexible work schedules so that women could be home with their children.  Making dinner.  You know, where they belong.  He doesn't say that, specifically.  But you feel it.  He does say that without this flexibility, women would have opportunities that they would not otherwise have.  Right in the middle of this, he talks about women and poverty.  Doesn't he realize that women don't choose or skip job opportunities because they want to be home for dinner?  For most of us, even those who are blessed to be doing what we love, we work because we need to buy food, pay rents and mortgages.  The women in his poverty stats are not necessarily looking at corporate jobs where flex-time is an option, ever.  Many of them will be in low wage jobs that don't have any benefits at all.

The woman who asked the question is 24.  Obamacare made it so that she could still be on her parent's insurance, even though she also works as a pre-kindergarden teacher.  And for some reason, she's still undecided.