Mitt Romney’s “Binders Full of Women”: Why This Intended Boast Was Just Offensive

As have many, I have also found myself thinking a lot about Presidential candidate Mitt Romney's "binders full of women" remark  made during the Presidential debate this Tuesday, October 16, 2012.  Besides the reportedly  inherent inaccuracies of his statement, not to mention its characteristically “inelegant” nature, Romney’s remark has been bothering me on a more fundamental level.

 

The remark was in response to a question from a woman who asked Romney how he would "rectify the inequalities in the workplace" between men and women, specifically the 72 percent that women make of what men make for equal work.  Not only was his answer non-responsive to her specific question, it appeared to show an opposite belief on Romney’s part that women are actually incapable of equal work to men in high level positions.  Apparently, according to Romney, concessions must be made.

Romney’s answer potentially reveals three inaccurate, and, frankly, archaic beliefs.  First:  All women qualified to hold high level positions either have children they must take care of, or they would rather be a caretaker/homemaker than hold a high level position.  Neither is an absolute:  A) not all women have children—some choose a career over having children; B) last time I checked a biology textbook, it takes a man to have a child, so there are a lot of men in high level positions that have children too, so the need or desire for a flexible work schedule is not uniquely a female issue; and C) some women qualified for high level positions who have children also have partners (husbands or wives) who take on the primary childrearing and homemaking responsibilities, thus obviating the need for or want of a flexible work schedule. 

Second:  No men qualified to hold high level positions would ever want or need a flexible work schedule because they either do not have children or they have wives.  See B and C above; and D) the assumption that between a father and mother that only the mother wants or needs a flexible work schedule to care for school-aged children is a tired assumption, and it is high time fathers are given the opportunities for a flexible work schedule in order to spend more time with their children and/or step up to the plate to take on more of that role. 

Third:  Women are simply not interested in holding high level positions, so it takes a man (like Romney) to coax them into the position by promising flexible work schedules.  See A - D above.

Romney’s nonresponsive answer gives rise to more questions than it does to answer the woman’s question.  For instance, did the women Romney hire take a salary cut for their flexible work schedule?  Was the flexible work schedule offered equally to men and women in Romney’s cabinet?  Did they have the same opportunities for advancement while on a flexible work schedule as the men? Were they given fewer chances for real responsibility just because they were on a flexible work schedule? Whenever there is a discussion of women doing equal work for equal pay, or the (very real) glass ceiling in the private sector, inevitably the conversation goes right to women’s childrearing/homemaking responsibilities.  Although both issues do overlap in some places, the two are not inextricably tied together. 

Receiving equal pay for equal work has nothing to do with whether a woman has children, because men have children too.  Pay should be based on ability, not one’s lack of a uterus.  And while a flexible work schedule is certainly a welcome alternative, it should not be something offered to, or utilized by, only women.  There are plenty of really smart, qualified men who also want an opportunity to play a larger role in their children’s lives (Mitt even advocated “the benefit of having two parents in the home” during the debate), just as there are plenty of really smart, qualified women who should not only be offered the high level job, but who should receive the same pay as their male counterparts.

Apparently, Mitt did not, as he boasted, learn “a great deal” when he staffed his gubernatorial cabinet

Share

Are Republicans Intentionally Disenfranchising Obama Supporters?

As election day approaches, the courts are tackling various challenges to voter laws.  Joining the recent decision by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court is the United States Supreme Court.

Yesterday,  Monday October 15, 2012, the United States Supreme Court agreed to hear an appeal from the Ninth Circuit's April 12, 2012 decision to strike down Arizona's Proposition 200 requiring voters to provide proof of citizenship in order to register to vote. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal stated that under the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA), the states must "accept and use" the federal form to register to vote, which requires prospective voters to swear or affirm by their signature that they are a citizen of the United States.  The Arizona law sought to require prosepective voters to produce proof of citizenship in order to register.  The Ninth Circuit upheld Proposition 200's provision requiring voters to provide identification at the poll, but stated that the NVRA supercedes the requirement to provide proof of citizenship with the use of the NVRA voter registration form.  The Court will not hear oral argument in this case until after the election, in early 2013.

In another voters' rights case, the Supreme Court today declined to stay a decision of the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeal affirming an injunction by the lower court preventing the 2011 revisions to Ohio Rev. Code s. 3509.03 from taking effect to stop voters from casting early ballots during the three days before the November 2012 general election.  The Sixth Circuit held that the revisions to the statute were unconstitutional and blocked the revisions from taking effect.  The state of Ohio applied to the Supreme Court for a stay of the injunction "pending the filing and disposition of a petition for a writ of certiorari."  The Supreme Court stated simply in its order, "The application for stay presented to Justice Kagan, and by her referred to the Court is denied."  It remains to be seen if the Supreme Court will ultimately grant certiorari to the State of Ohio, but this will also be decided after the November election.

If anything, this flurry of appellate activity surrounding voters' rights is an indication of just how close this election is expected to be.  Every vote counts, and it appears the Republican strategy is to disenfranchise the citizens who are most likely to be a vote for Obama.  If this sounds harsh or overstated, take a look at the words of Rep. Daryl Metcalfe (R-PA), or better yet, listen to those of Penn. Republican House Speaker Mike Turzai.



UPDATE (Oct. 17, 2012): See also this reported incident..

Perhaps the Republican theme is a fear of foreigners.  In the 2008 election, it appeared to be the Birthers' fear that a foreign born President would be elected.  That red herring had to be dropped in light of the fact that Mitt Romney's father was born in Mexico.  In 2012, perhaps the fear is that foreigners are reelecting him.

 Share

Does Harry Reid Really Need to Resign?

Okay, so there is no court action on which to report here. But I feel compelled to weigh in (along with scores of others) on the present flap surrounding Harry Reid's unfortunate comments about then presidential hopeful Barack Obama, memorialized for all time in the upcoming book Game Change. I won't bore the reader with quoting Reid's comments once again--if anyone really needs reminding, Google "Harry Reid" and "Game Change" and his comments will be readily found.

The most interesting thing about Reid's comments isn't that the comments were made, because people of color know that racist comments still lurk at every corner and pop up even in their own backyards. What is interesting is that Reid was actually trying to say something positive and those were the words he chose to use. Reid was trying to discuss the reasons he felt his party had a good chance of winning the presidential election. In fact, what Reid said is probably true. It probably was a lot easier for a lot of (white) Americans to cast their vote for Obama because (all things being equal) he came across as more mainstream than, say, Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson.

But, of course, "mainstream" is not the adjective that Harry Reid used. Even if Reid was trying to make a valid point, his words betray an old-time way of thinking. His words echo a time in our history when it was common to hear racist remarks in polite company and no one batted an eye. Really, this is the way a lot of "old white men" (for lack of a better stereotyping, pigeon-holing descriptive phrase) still talk today behind closed doors and amongst themselves. Remember the Texaco scandal from the late 1990's? If not, click here. So, is Reid a racist? After all, Reid was actually trying to complement Obama rather than denigrate him.

Let's look at it from a different angle. If a Republican Senator had made the exact same comments about a Republican candidate, (hypothetically, say, RNC Chairman Michael Steele), would they sound any more or less racist? Would the public or the media be more inclined to forgive a Republican for making the same remarks? Would we chalk it up to ignorance or insensitivity, but not racism because the comments were an attempt, albiet a poor one, at a compliment of a fellow Republican who just happened to be an African-American?

Let's change the angle again. What if Reid had commented on a different hypothetical African-American candidate from the Republican party and had speculated, hypothetically, that the hypothetical candidate had little chance of winning because America was not ready for a president with dark skin color and strong dialect? Let's face it; those conversations probably took place somewhere in the Republican party when Al Sharpton and Rev. Jesse Jackson were campaigning for the Democratic nomination. Perhaps, by itself, that concept may not be objectionable because perhaps it was true. But let's not forget the specific words Reid used, and this hypothetical discussion takes on a more racist feel.

Let's make that angle even more acute. What if a Republican had made the above hypothetical comments about a hypothetical Democratic candidate? It is not as though the Republican party has the reputation of championing racial equality. Now those hypothetical comments sound even more racist. Now it sounds more like the comments made at that Texaco corporate boardroom.

I guess my point is this: Racist comments are made by all kinds of people all the time, whether the comments are about African-Americans, Asian-Americans or even Native Americans. But what makes the speaker a racist is a lot more complicated. Racism in the United States hasn't gone anywhere except underground, which only makes it harder to accurately point out the racists. Reid apologized profusely, appeared contrite and President Obama accepted his apology. So, is Harry Reid a racist? Who knows. Should he resign? Probably not.

Share