Ties That Bind – Skankin’ Pickle
I see at Salon an interview with Katherine Fenton, the woman who asked the gender equity question in the debate. It’s…an extremely frustrating read. She emphatically states she is not a feminist. This despite the fact that she is cares deeply about “women’s equality in the workforce” and reproductive rights. But, she hastens to say, “I’m not only concerned with women.”
As if “feminism” can be defined as being “only concerned with women”!
Look, I don’t want to force anyone to self-identify in any particular way. And it’s not my place to tell people what they really are. So this isn’t a statement about her in particular. It’s just a general level of frustration.
I am a feminist. It’s because I care about equality and justice, and because I’m capable of recognizing that in a society built on inequality it takes more than generalized commitment to a principle to achieve it.
Cameron asks: who do you think will be better for women. Fenton responds: “That’s hard to say…I can only speculate, but if I had to guess, gosh, my gut says President Obama. Based on the fact that he has said, I know he has two daughters so the cause is close to him. Governor Romney has granddaughters, that might help.”
Oy vey.
How someone can care about this issue enough to ask about it in front of 60 million people, listen to the two answers, and then give this response…I just don’t know.
Let’s take a look at Romney on this question. He said 1) he hired binders full of women 2) women should be offered flexible work schedules so they can get home to cook dinner 3) I’ll grow the economy so much that employers “are going to be so anxious to get good workers they’re going to be anxious to hire women.”
For all the derision about binders, #1 is great. I’m glad he hired a lot of women for his cabinet. He did misrepresent the issue a bit, but all things equal I’m happy to hear he made an effort to hire more women. In fact, it’s a pretty great example of how affirmative action WORKS.
So #1 is a modest point in Romney’s favor. As for #2, it’s certainly the case that employment ought to take better account of family structures and the social context. But I’m not enthusiastic that the BEST example Romney could come up with is the need for women to be given jobs that allow them to continue all their domestic obligations.
One other thing you’ll notice about the first two things Romney said: they’re not policies. Would he do anything as president to encourage this sort of behavior? No, he would not. If employers want to keep paying women less, will he try to regulate them, or nudge them? No, he won’t.
So, what would Romney do to lessen workplace inequality? Nothing.
The jokes have mostly gone after the ‘binders’ part, but for me it’s part 3 of this response where the condescension really comes out. The shorter version of his comment: “if the economy is booming, employers will be so desperate for workers they’ll even be willing to hire women.” That’s an offensive comment on its face. But it goes deeper, too. Remember that the question was about pay inequality. Well, Romney’s answer takes it as a given that women are marginal workers who can’t get a job outside of an economic boom – and thus implicitly accepts and affirms the idea that they are less essential contributors to the workforce.