I see the Liberal outrage over Romney’s comment that he “had binders full of women” as profoundly hypocritical when accompanied by a complete lack of concern over Obama’s “women and families” and “this is not a women’s issue.”
I don’t think this fake outrage over what Romney said has anything to do with women’s rights. It only has to do with the need to dump on Romney.
Look, I dislike Romney as much as the next person. But what’s with this blind worship of a candidate that precludes people from seeing an obvious fail on his part? It’s kind of sad that the same Liberals who ridicule the Fox News crowd for not noticing Romney’s gaffes are completely blind to Obama’s mistakes.
Let’s remember that this is not the first time where Obama makes profoundly patriarchal remarks about women, either.
P.S. I said I wasn’t going to get past this soon.
Clarissa's Blog 
Identity politics is the contemporary form of (mal)adaption to a complex world. You look at the identities of the candidates and then decide who is good and who is evil. Of course, Obama is not nearly as liberal as one might have predicted from his skin color. Ethnicity doesn’t automatically translate into political substance, although it lends a certain street cred. Nonetheless, categorizations keep things simple. Obama’s status as one who could possible have been oppressed in a hypothetical world, due to his ethnic status, brings a tear to the eye. Even the categories of “Democratic” versus “Republican” keeps reality very simple. Having such neat ways to understand the world means we don’t have to go crazy from its utter complexity. Nor do we need to apply more astute modes of analysis. We’ve got everything boxed up, so it feels like Christmas already.
LikeLike
I don’t think this is outrage. ‘Binders full of women’ is just a stupid, nonsensical phrase and people are making fun of him for saying that.
LikeLike
And it makes a good visual. http://bindersfullofwomen.tumblr.com
LikeLike
How that is a stupid visual… I don’t know.
The ONLY fair attack in my opinion is if he made up/exagerated the story.
If it is true then back in 2002 (computers and internet a big deal, but not nearly as ubiquitous as right now) he could have easily had a 90%+ male cabinet.. but went out of his way to make sure he had the most gender diverse staff in the country????
I am not sure if true.. but if true… umm.. I think that speaks QUITE highly of him and it also should have been his answer why patronizing/regulatory bills by the govt. don’t solve stuff… He chose women on merit.. imagine that.. no govt. mandate needed!
Also, to the woman who asked the fair pay act question and said when make $.72 on the dollar.. get your freaking stats right if you are going to look for govt. mandates… geesh.
They earn $.91 on the dollar for apples to apples comparison of same work. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/women-earn-91-cents-for-every-dollar-men-earn–if-you-control-for-life-choices/2012/06/04/gJQAqrHkEV_blog.html .. hardly a conservative think tank 🙂 )
9% is still a small issue.. but VASTLY different than the 28% the woman indicated.. geesh
LikeLike
I also don’t see exactly what the big deal with the “binder full of women” is, HAD Romney actually really tried to get more women into the cabinet, and HAD the question actually been about this topic!
Apparently, he was however taking credit for something he had not actually done, as described in this quite convincing post here: http://isisthescientist.com/2012/10/17/one-big-binder-full-of-bad-bitches/
Also, the question was not about how many women *he* has in his cabinet. It was a question about equal pay. And he did not answer this question at all. So I think this was a very bad and embarrassing moment for Romney. The “binder” is really minor in comparison.
LikeLike
“If it is true then back in 2002 (computers and internet a big deal, but not nearly as ubiquitous as right now) he could have easily had a 90%+ male cabinet.. but went out of his way to make sure he had the most gender diverse staff in the country????”
– So now you and Romney are in favor of affirmative action?
“He chose women on merit.. imagine that.. no govt. mandate needed!”
– Wasn’t Romney the most powerful representative of the government in the state at that time??
“They earn $.91 on the dollar for apples to apples comparison of same work.”
– Washington Post is an extremely conservative lying rag.
LikeLike
– So now you and Romney are in favor of affirmative action?
No… the exact opposite. He chose them (presumably) because he felt having a diverse set of opinions at the table was very important (of course its possible he did it for optics). If he truly values diversity, then I think that is one of the reasons he will be able to get a lot done as governor. Obama went pretty far out there with his cabinet/administration positions (Van Jones (sp?), Cass Sunstein (notorious for favoring govt. “involvement” in regulations), Stephen Chue (Energy Secretary… very liberal in climate change and energy beliefs).
“He chose women on merit.. imagine that.. no govt. mandate needed!”
– Wasn’t Romney the most powerful representative of the government in the state at that time??
He was the most powerful. But it wasn’t a regulation.. it was a decision he made.
LikeLike
I don’t see anything all that funny in a situation where two very powerful and rich men can’t say a single sentence without sounding patronizing towards women. After the debate, they both go back to their subservient housewives and wait for us to choose to award power and money to one of them
LikeLike
Regarding the women’s issue vs family issue – This may be an attempt to strengthen the support base for abortion – if we can get all people to think of abortion as being important in their lives, that could be very good for the topic. Since women’s issues seem to be marginalized anyway, and “family” is everyone’s favorite word in politics, probably Obama is just trying to get the issue accross to more people.
(Even though, of course, it is a women’s issue.)
LikeLike