Arliss Bunny's Blog

Okay. I’ve been quiet. I’ve been good. But then, last night, Mitt Romney and his “…binders full of women…” put me over the edge. WOMEN IN BINDERS!!! Really! And this is coming from someone who has eaten a few binders in her time. (Don’t gasp, it’s a rabbit thing.) Now, my issue is not the great humor to be derived from this statement. (See “Women In Binders” on Facebook for some pretty hilarious drill down on this.)  My issue is that it is profoundly, massively, wholly and completely condescending and paternalistic. He treated all females and, frankly, all of us period, like we are dumb bunnies. (Again, this is an area in which I have some expertise because, trust me, I’ve known some dumb bunnies in my time.)

Still, before I get into my thoughts on the scope of this comment, I want to address the facts around it which is to say that, as with oh-so-many other things that come out of Flip-Flop-Romney’s mouth, it isn’t true. Allow me to repeat. It never happened. An initiative existed in Massachusetts, started by the MassGAP organization, prior to the election of Governor Romney, to increase the number of women in leadership positions at the State level. When Governor Romney took office, he inherited this program. Period. End of story. He didn’t initiate it. He didn’t notice that he was surrounded only by wealthy white men (see the post-debate photos for an example of this behavior). He just lived with something which was already in place and which, he perceived, came out of some binder he was shown at some point in time. I know this won’t come as a shock to any of you, not even to Republicans who can remember as far back as the Republican debates, Mitt lied. Again. I mean really, people, this man makes Nixon and Johnson look like friggin’ Boy Scouts. And all of that comes before the part of this that really gets my dewlap*. (*Look it up. It’s your word for the day.)

Let’s take these things in no particular order:

1. Mitt didn’t have enough women in his organization in the first place and when it was pointed out to him he had to resort to a BINDER for assistance.

2.  Once again, Mitt did not answer the question. Obama was over there saying “Lilly Leadbetter Act” and Mitt had a story about a binder!

3. And AGAIN we have Mitt (or his boy-child Ryan) telling a story about a small, individual situation that absolutely does not address the question at hand, instead of answering the question itself. Women don’t deserve fair pay but they do get a binder. Auto workers don’t deserve to have their jobs saved but there was this one family who lost their son in an auto accident and Mittens was really generous to them. [General note to anyone who EVER debates Joe Biden in the future: don’t go after Joe with an auto accident story. His will trump yours every single time. Every…single…time….]

4.  Did you notice Mitt when he answered the woman who asked the tax question. He slowed down, used small words and spoke as if he was speaking to a third grader? Now maybe his treating her like she was an idiot was fine with you. He is used to dealing with  Tea Party audiences, after all, but it sure as H…e…double carrots bothered me. Here is my take on things. Anyone bothering to watch the debate instead of the ballgame passed third grade and is deserving of respect. Oh – and he didn’t answer that question either but don’t worry, you can get the detail on that here.

5. Unlike Obama, Romney sees no relationship between the issues of fair pay, health care, right to choice, the elimination of tax deductions for child care – and women. For Romney, these are all separate things. He never speaks of them in any kind of holistic or integrated way. Despite the efforts of Ms. Crowley to intervene, Obama gets that all of these things are of-a-piece. Obama isn’t changing topics when he speaks of choice in a discussion of fair pay. He is talking about empowering women all the way around. Not so much with Romney. “Knock! Knock!” “Ummm…yes?” “This is a CLUE! You thought your approval numbers among likely women votes were low before! Here, catch.” *crash* *clatter* *muffled rolling sound* “Nope. Missed again.”

Look, it isn’t just that “binders full of women” is insulting. It isn’t just that Mitt is so dense that he can’t imagine why it would be such a fracking paternalistic thing to say. It’s that he doesn’t get it at all. Not any of it. Mitt’s understanding of women, taught to him at the knee of his father and in services each Sunday for his entire life, is that a woman is someone who requires a man to reach back and call her name in order to be welcomed into heaven. [Personally, I’m hoping that Hillary remembers this attitude when she is approving the list for drone strikes during her Presidency.] Mitt thinks of women in binders and uses small words because that is how little he thinks of women. Period. I suggest that on November 6th, all females unite to show Mittens just how little we think of him. Thump!

November 6th – brought to you by the letters F and U, the number 47 and Office Depot. Go get ‘im, girlz.