« Questioning the (Debate) Timing | Main | Desperation and Double Standards »

October 17, 2012

Binders vs. Cardboard Cutouts of Women

Your choice, ladies:

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.

Let me get this straight: as a working woman, wife, and mother, I'm supposed to be terribly offended that a state governor would look at an all-male slate of candidates for positions in his administration and ask, "Couldn't you find any qualified women?"...

...and to make things worse, the big jerk proceeded to hire some of the women in that binder! Can you believe that? What a sexist pig!

Meanwhile, in other news, the candidate whose speech writer posted a photo of himself and another WH staffer groping a cardboard cutout of Hillary Clinton is widely presumed to understand and sympathize with women.

Because if there's one thing adult working women want, it's to be reduced to sexualized playthings to be groped by obnoxious 20-something frat boys with an oozing sense of entitlement. What we want, is a President whose female employees openly complain about the hostile working environment he allows to continue, long after being publicly put on notice that there's a problem:

When one of President Obama's debate coaches, Anita Dunn, worked at the White House, this is what she reportedly had to say about her experience there:

This place would be in court for a hostile workplace. ... Because it actually fit all of the classic legal requirements for a genuinely hostile workplace to women.”

In the same piece, former economic adviser Christina Romer is reported as saying, "I felt like a piece of meat."

“‘I felt like a piece of meat,’ Christina Romer, former head of the Council of Economic Advisers, said of one meeting in which Suskind writes she was ‘boxed out’ by Summers,” reported the Post.

Time magazine called Obama's White House a "Boys' Club."

...the problem has been obvious almost since Obama took office. And while the explanations so far have blamed members of the mostly-departed boys club–Robert Gibbs, Rahm Emanuel–Obama himself is responsible for a work atmosphere that marginalizes and ignores women," wrote Time.

And Obama's own staff is mostly made up of males, who, as the Washington Free Beacon reported, get paid more than their female counterparts.

Hmmm.... shouldn't a candidate who continually flogs pay disparities as prima facie evidence of discrimination pay women and men the same salaries?

Given the choice between an employer who actually walks the walk vs. one who talks a big game in public but tolerates grossly disrespectful/discriminatory treatment of women in a work environment he controls, I know which one I'd choose.

**************

Update. spd nails it (and isn't that just like The Patriarchy?):

Hmmm.. It appears that Governor Romney didn't put all those women into binders after all! In fact, those women were put into binders by *gasp* other women! And then these "other women" (all of whom, I might add, are themselves organized into folders labeled "women's groups" that are then hole-punched and placed into a larger binder labeled "coalition") sent the binders to Romney!

See for yourself:

BOSTON — A coalition of Massachusetts women’s groups says GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney did, in fact, receive binders with the names of potential female candidates for high-level positions when he was governor.

Sooooooo.... Romney lied... again. It's plain that only other women can put women into binders, which means I'm totally out of luck trying to fix my female overcrowding situation at home. Thanks a lot Mitt!

Posted by Cassandra at October 17, 2012 11:30 AM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.villainouscompany.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/4380

Comments

"...one who talks a big game in public but tolerates grossly disrespectful/discriminatory treatment of women in a work environment he controls,..."

This is Obama. President do as I say, not as I do.

Posted by: bthun at October 17, 2012 12:16 PM

Years ago I sat on a hiring board for the college I was attending. The EO officer came in to brief us on the diversity measures the school had in place.

As a conservative, I didn't really have a problem with the process: the only goal was to make sure minority and female candidates didn't get screened out before they ever had a chance to compete.

Given the fairly robust set of studies that have shown that people absolutely DO judge the absolute same resumes/work differently, depending on whether they think they're looking at a man or a woman, I think that's not a bad solution.

Quotas and affirmative action, not so much.

Posted by: Cassandra at October 17, 2012 12:24 PM

Romney, it seems, at least noticed the under-representation before he even too office, which 0 still hasn't noticed after more than three years.

Posted by: htom at October 17, 2012 01:15 PM

Comrade Cassandrova: You have been denounced by our informants as a counterrevolutionary enemy of the People. Our jackbooted thugs will soon be kicking down your door to "escort" you to your show trial.

Your post has not been pre-approved by Party censors (the non-Fox media), and does not conform to current Party-approved Truth. It is well-known that there is no Truth, except Party-approved Truth. Therefore, all non-Party-approved Truth is necessarily lies. You have obviously allowed yourself to be corrupted by the incorrect thinking of those rightwing lying liars who lie.

Finally, it is unquestionable fact that The Most Beloved Leader Obama is infallible. Ask any liberal. Because your post criticizes the actions or conduct of The Great Obama, express or implied, you are clearly guilty of one or more thought crimes. You will be purged to protect the mental hygiene of the People.

Love,

Commissar Strelnikov

Posted by: a former european at October 17, 2012 01:46 PM

To Commisar Strelnikov and every fundamentally transforming revolutionist:

What is said is said to establish one's own compassion and define one's own values; what is done is done to establish one's own integrity and make of values, by action, virtues.

Long live the Memory of Tsar Nicholas II, Emperor Of All The Russias, and his Imperial Highnesses' sainted and martyred family.

Posted by: George Pal at October 17, 2012 02:22 PM

I'm still trying to figure out how he got all those women into binders. I could use the extra storage space at home.

Posted by: spd rdr at October 17, 2012 02:35 PM

The War on Women should be an easily dismissed amusement. That a political party that depends on voters for survival would launch a “War” on the very group that makes up over half the voter base is simply absurd to a reasonable mind.

So think about how telling it is -- about the relationship between the left and the media -- that liberal strategists launched that kite and the media flew it proudly. Sadly, a lot of women have been taken in and think the government should move the deer crossings. The good part comes around 2:50 going backwards.

Posted by: kavu at October 17, 2012 02:45 PM

Did you notice how Obama dismissed Governor Romney's experience as a private sector bidnessman, as well as a state governor? Treated his experience with contempt.

Not only that, Romney, when he served as a bishop to an LDS ward, did not get a single dime of compensation. Truth be told, a bishop has to be financially stable, since sometimes you will more than likely put your own money up to help others.

The major difference between Romney and 0 is that Romney wants people to help others without government interference and taxation.

Posted by: Carolyn at October 17, 2012 04:35 PM

I didn't even notice the "binders" comment at the time, though I remember the discussion of how he got women on his cabinet. I have no idea why anyone would find that the word "resonated."

Posted by: Texan99 at October 17, 2012 04:55 PM

I didn't even notice the "binders" comment at the time, though I remember the discussion of how he got women on his cabinet. I have no idea why anyone would find that the word "resonated."

Because they were primed to take offense?

I agree - I didn't notice it either and when I saw the flap the next morning, my first thought was, "Must be something that happened after I went upstairs!"

Keep in mind that these are the same kind of folks who went nuts over the Big Bird thing. We have serious problems and they're freaking out over imaginary threats to a Muppet who has more money than Mitt Romney or spazzing out about women in binders.

You can't make this stuff up. No one would believe it.

Posted by: Cass - Confirmation Bigot in Training at October 17, 2012 05:03 PM

Your post has not been pre-approved by Party censors (the non-Fox media), and does not conform to current Party-approved Truth. It is well-known that there is no Truth, except Party-approved Truth. Therefore, all non-Party-approved Truth is necessarily lies. You have obviously allowed yourself to be corrupted by the incorrect thinking of those rightwing lying liars who lie.

Heh.

Tovarich, your rants never fail to bring a big smile to my face :)

Posted by: Cass - Confirmation Bigot in Training at October 17, 2012 05:05 PM

I'm still trying to figure out how he got all those women into binders. I could use the extra storage space at home.

spd, spd, spd....

Not funding every single choice a Persun of Estrogen might make is inherently coercive.

We womyn are simultaneously just as strong, smart, and independent as men yet oddly incapable, weak, and in need of not just protection from our fully-equal co-humans but taxpayer subsidies.

We are a protected class, but don't you DARE mention our protected status because that might make us feel inferior. Which we are not... even though we can't take care of ourselves or pay our own way.

If you had ladyparts, all of this would be obvious to you. SHAME! SHAME ON YOU!

Posted by: Cass - Confirmation Bigot in Training at October 17, 2012 05:12 PM

So let me get this straight: Romney personally and voluntarily instituted the same affirmative actions policy that Democrats have been claiming are an absolute necessity and should be forced on all enterprises, but when he does it, it is demeaning, patronizing, and sexist.

Posted by: Yu-Ain Gonnano at October 17, 2012 05:21 PM

I think it's important to distinguish between policies that seek to broaden out the applicant pool (EO) and policies that lower the job requirements for certain classes of people (affirmative action).

Sometimes, they both happen and I'm not in favor of that. But sometimes employers just cast that initial net a little wider, and I have absolutely no problem with that, so long as the government isn't forcing them to do this.

Posted by: Cass - Confirmation Bigot in Training at October 17, 2012 05:27 PM

Women in binders? What happened to corsets? Or are binders spandex?

Liberals are bashing affirmative action:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/10/17/only-mitt-romney-could-make-liberals-bash-affirmative-action.html

Posted by: PuffOnMeds at October 17, 2012 05:52 PM

Hmmm.. It appears that Governor Romney didn't put all those women into binders after all! In fact, those women were put into binders by *gasp* other women! And then these "other women" (all of whom, I might add, are themselves organized into folders labeled "women's groups" that are then hole-punched and placed into a larger binder labeled "coalition") sent the binders to Romney!
See for yourself:

BOSTON — A coalition of Massachusetts women’s groups says GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney did, in fact, receive binders with the names of potential female candidates for high-level positions when he was governor.

Sooooooo.... Romney lied... again. It's plain that only other women can put women into binders, which means I'm totally out of luck trying to fix my female overcrowding situation at home. Thanks a lot Mitt!

Posted by: spd rdr at October 17, 2012 05:56 PM

Well if you are going to put women in cabinets, you should probably put them in binder or folders first.

It's only fair. I mean, what kind of cabinet are we speaking of here?

Posted by: Don Brouhaha at October 17, 2012 05:58 PM

"those women were put into binders by *gasp* other women! And then these "other women" (all of whom, I might add, are themselves organized into folders labeled "women's groups" that are then hole-punched and placed into a larger binder labeled "coalition")"

Und zey complain about vater-boarding und not zis?

Posted by: Zigman Schadenfreude at October 17, 2012 06:10 PM

We womyn are simultaneously just as strong, smart, and independent as men yet oddly incapable, weak, and in need of not just protection from our fully-equal co-humans but taxpayer subsidies.

I see through you and this argument. The latter isn't a characteristic of woman-hood, it's a tactic. It's just your Betty Boop eyes.

Eric Hines

Posted by: E Hines at October 17, 2012 06:53 PM

"... what kind of cabinet are we speaking of here?"

How 'bout a rosewood armoir with really nice drawers.
0>:~}

Posted by: Snarkammando at October 17, 2012 06:56 PM

How 'bout a rosewood armoir with really nice drawers.

Cherry works better....

Eric Hines

Posted by: E Hines at October 17, 2012 06:59 PM

"In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is a great deal of difference" - Unknown

I committed that to memory when I learned that my "Applied" Statistics professors believed that "Applied Math" meant that we were going to apply old theory to prove new theory.


In theory, Affirmative Action is exactly as Romney describes his behavior. He took "affirmative action" to locate qualified people from a historically underrepresented population. It is in practice that AA means lowered standards (the appearance of solving the problem is much easier than actually solving it.)

It is the theory under which the Democrats defend it, and the practice under which conservatives condemn it.

PuffOnMeds' link puts it more simply than I did: Only Romney could make Liberals bash Affirmative Action.

To Dems, AA is such a good idea it must be required of all employers, but if a Rethuglican dare implement it gladly, it's "Patronizing and Demeaning".

*blink* *blink*

It's kind of like the Texas AA lawsuit.
Dems: More highly qualified blacks are losing positions to less qualified blacks! This is a problem!!
Reps: That more highly qualified people are losing positions to less qualified ones has been our problem with it from day one!

Posted by: Yu-Ain Gonnano at October 17, 2012 10:10 PM

Just read spd's article.

“The fact that he needed our help says everything you need to know about his true commitment to advance women in office,” [Mermell] said.

Soooooo... How, exactly, are you supposed to get anyone to work with you to advance women's causes if you think that anyone who actually does so is a scumbag?

Posted by: Yu-Ain Gonnano at October 17, 2012 10:46 PM

There is a huge, gaping difference between examining the applicant pool and taking action to expand it and examining the pool of people actually hired/admitted (and taking action to expand the representation of some gender/racial/ethnic group).

The first (what Romney says he did) is, IMO, not a bad thing so long as it's not imposed by govt.

The second is (IMO) almost always going to result in discrimination on the basis of sex/race/ethnicity. I've already agreed that both can happen, but I'm not going to agree that they're the same thing.

Employers discriminate all the time. They pick the pretty secretary over the dumpy, middle aged one (or vice versa, if the wife is looking over their shoulder). They pick the tall man over the shorter one or the handsome, charming man over the technically more proficient but socially awkward one. Or they pick the well groomed applicant over the sloppily attired one.

People who are overweight are discriminated against all the time. It's when the government steps in (kind of like Candy Crowley did the other night with her selective fact checking) and says it's going to punish some kinds of discrimination but not others that there's a problem.

Posted by: Cassandra at October 18, 2012 08:59 AM

"So let me get this straight: Romney personally and voluntarily instituted the same affirmative actions policy that Democrats have been claiming are an absolute necessity and should be forced on all enterprises, but when he does it, it is demeaning, patronizing, and sexist."

Sniff. You're being mean. Why do you always have to be this way when we're arguing, with your logic and everything? I'm going upstairs.

Posted by: Texan99 at October 18, 2012 09:55 AM

Sniff. You're being mean. Why do you always have to be this way when we're arguing, with your logic and everything? I'm going upstairs.

Heh :)

The Oink Cadre: beating we poor, oppressed Womynfolk over the head with logic and facts since 2004.

Posted by: Cassandra at October 18, 2012 10:45 AM

I guess that should have been "us" - sorry, down for the count today, so brain's not connected to typing fingers or anything else.

Posted by: Cassandra at October 18, 2012 10:46 AM

"...brain's not connected to typing fingers or anything else."

And this differs from other days...........how?
heh
*skipping away through the falling leaves and skiff of snow*
0>;~}

Posted by: Snarkammando at October 18, 2012 11:02 AM

For those of you who may be new to Villainous Company, "spd nail it" is Cassandra-speak for "spd isn't going to win the Caption Contest (if it ever gets judged)."

Posted by: spd rdr at October 19, 2012 10:34 AM

"(if it ever gets judged)."

BINGO!!!
Spd, you just asked the $64 dollar question...
What are you going to do next?
0>:~}

Posted by: DL Sly at October 19, 2012 01:50 PM

Sorry guys. Looooooong week at work. I will try to get it done this evening.

Posted by: Cass - Confirmation Bigot in Training at October 19, 2012 01:56 PM

Take your time. But just don't make a liar out of me.

Posted by: spd rdr at October 19, 2012 03:12 PM

Post a comment

To reduce comment spam, comments on older posts are put into moderation 5 days after the last activity. Comments with more than one link also go into moderation. If you don't see your comment after posting it, try refreshing the screen. If you still don't see it, your comment is probably in the moderation queue.




Remember Me?

(you may use HTML tags for style)