Mansplaining

by lizard

Gender is such a volatile aspect of the post-debate analysis, only an asshole with a dick would follow up some flippant sing-song bullshit post with another attempt at acknowledging the obvious: chicks aren’t doing so well in this particular political cycle.

Of the three presidential debates, Candy Crowley represents the sole female moderating voice tasked with shaping the two-dude rhetorical tango we got to see last night. Here’s what Alyssa Rosenberg had to say in her ThinkProgress piece about that before last night’s debate:

It’s already frustrating that the lone female moderator for the presidential debates was assigned to the town hall-format debate, a setting where the Gallup Organization picks the audience, who in turn get to submit questions. Crowley can cut questions and order them, and there is room for her to ask follow-up questions, though she is obviously constrained by the subjects the attendees prioritize. Through both the first presidential debate and the lone vice-presidential debate, there’s been a single question asked about issues that particularly concern women, Martha Raddatz’s query about how Vice President Biden and Congressman Ryan’s religious beliefs affected their personal views of abortion. There are a lot of questions that could be posed about the candidate’s national approaches to abortion policy alone, not to mention the inquiries that moderators, male and female alike, could make into the many creeping restrictions on women’s reproductive health and autonomy on the state level.It’s frustrating that women should have to be responsible for raising questions about issues like contraception or pay equity, which of course affect men as well. But given that it seems that if women and the men who care about these issues care about these issues want to see them discussed, women have to ask them ourselves, it’s difficult to see Crowley assigned the debate with this format and its limitations.

Women got short-changed in the first debate, so expectations were high.

And how did Mitt respond?

He said stuff like this:

Now, one of the reasons I was able to get so many good women to be part of that team was because of our recruiting effort, but number two, because I recognized that if you’re going to have women in the workforce, that sometimes they need to be more flexible. My chief of staff, for instance, had two kids that were still in school. She said, I can’t be here until 7:00 or 8:00 at night. I need to be able to get home at 5:00 so I can be there for — making dinner for my kids and being with them when they get home from school. So we said, fine, let’s have a flexible schedule so you can have hours that work for you.

We’re going to have to have employers in the new economy, in the economy I’m going to bring to play, that are going to be so anxious to get good workers they’re going to be anxious to hire women. In the — in the last four years, women have lost 580,000 jobs. That’s the net of what’s happened in the last four years. We’re still down 580,000 jobs. I mentioned 3 1/2 million women more now in poverty than four years ago.

What we can do to help young women and women of all ages is to have a strong economy, so strong that employers are looking to find good employees and bringing them into their workforce and adapting to a — a flexible work schedule that gives women the opportunities that — that they would otherwise not be able to — to afford.

Oh Mitt! Cheerio, good boy.

Over at Slate, that quirky Yglesias hopefully doesn’t fall into the category of mansplaining when he says this:

I am favorably disposed toward both full employment and flexible workplace scheduling. But what Romney is saying here is that due to their family responsibilities women are burdened with an inherent disadvantage in the labor market. In conditions of full employment, firms do become desperate for workers and are willing to do things they won’t do in weak labor market. High-margin businesses, for example, hand out raises to competent experienced workers. And firms of all kinds take risks on people they wouldn’t otherwise go for—those who lack formal credentials, those who might have had legal problems in the past, smart people who seem to lack experience, and so forth. Romney’s suggestion is that a woman—at least a woman with a family—is basically like a high school dropout with a felony conviction in his background. A marginally employable worker who’ll get a job if and only if the labor market is super-tight. After all, everyone knows mom needs to be home at 5:00 to start cooking dinner.

But maybe dad should cook dinner!

After all, not every job can be flexible. When I was little my mother worked in the art department for Newsweek and it simply wouldn’t have been possible for someone to perform that job without working very long hours a couple of days a week. Since you want your newsweekly to be reasonably timely, a huge share of the final proofing and layout decisions have to be made as close to the shipping day as possible. That means you work incredibly long hours on the closing days, and compensating time off at other points in the week. If you’re a parent in a job like that, someone else has to take care of your kids when you’re closing the issue. As it happens, my dad wasn’t much of a cook at that point in his life and my recollection is that we would usually order pizza. But one way or another, it was quality family time and cherished childhood memories for me as well as a totally indispensible offloading of childcare responsibilities that were simply incompatible with my mom’s job.

Note from the quote above Matt Yglesias is the product of a traditional two-parent household. That’s probably why he hasn’t contributed to the uniquely American epidemic of gun violence yet. Because, according to Romney, there is a direct connection between gun violence and the parent-to-kid ratio.

I’m no Nate Silver, but I will make a brash prediction: there will be women voting for Mitt Romney, like probably in the thousands.

Who are they, and what are they thinking?


  1. Buzz Feedback

    Heterosexual marriage and the missionary position are our best response to assault weapons. Thanks, Mitt!

  2. Steve W

    Mitt’s missionary position kept him out of Vietnam and kept his hide bullet-hole free, He’s a chicken hawk of the first degree.

    • Rob Kailey

      You are correct, of course. But I do have to ask, if you are against war than isn’t one swinging dick less available for slaughter a ‘good thing’?

      Yes, Romney hates the idea of equality for women. But challenging his ‘manhood’ with claims of him being a “chicken hawk” is probably just more mansplaining.

      • Steve W

        Hey Kailey, If you don’t know what the term “Chicken Hawk” means, that’s par for the course, because you have never seemed very bright.

        “Chickenhawk” doesn’t in any way refer to some ones manhood, but words and meaning were never your long suit. So read and learn.

        From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chickenhawk_%28politics%29
        “Chickenhawk (also chicken hawk and chicken-hawk) is a political term used in the United States to describe a person who strongly supports war or other military action (i.e., a War Hawk), yet who actively avoided military service when of age.”

        See, Mitt was on a Mormon Church mission to bring more paying suckers into the cult, he had a “missionary position,” get it? It’s a pun, but not that hard to grasp is it? And it was a pun based on buzz flashes’ comment.

        So go swing your dick and Mitt’s dick somewhere else, thanks.

        • Rob Kailey

          Hey, W, (since we’re on a last name basis) I know exactly what a “Chicken Hawk” is. I also know what a hypocrite is, a “mansplainer”. That would be someone who claims to support gender equality and uses gender based attacks to revile ‘enemies’. That would be you. You challenged Mitt’s courage, a gender based idea of manhood, his attendance to a war that you would favor another claiming conscientious objector status to engaging in. That is precisely what a Mormon missionary has claim to.

          We agree, though you stupidly, that Mitt is a hypocrite. He shouldn’t be favoring sending others to war when his ideal is to avoid such. Where we disagree is that you think I favor such a stance without recognition of what it actually is. So I don’t give a shit where you “swing your dick”, idiot. I swing my dick towards honesty, and you swing yours towards derisive gay reference and stupid self-defense.

          • Steve W

            Kailey, I don’t think anything about you. I don’t know or care what stance you have on anything.

            I prefer to keep it like that because i figured some years ago your are a know it all who knows nothing.

            How’s it going over at Left in the West? Got a big following of people hanging on your every word? Are you still a legend in your own mind? heh heh heh.

            • Of course he doesn’t right for LitW anymore, though I wish he did write more politics at his own site – I need something to read after 4&20 to balance out my mind.

    • Big Johansson

      A high number kept Mitt out.

      From Bostondotcom.

      “Romney registered with the Selective Service in April 1965 but was not considered readily available for military service until December 1970. His name was then put into the lottery based on an individual’s birthday, and he drew the number 300 at a time when no one drawing higher than 195 was drafted.”

      • Steve W

        A high number after 1970, his missionary position deferment and his academic deferment kept him out from 1965 until 1970.

        The draft ended and Romney chose not to volunteer, because why should he?

        http://2012.republican-candidates.org/Romney/Military.php

        Romney Military Service

        Mitt Romney has never served in the military.

        • Before joining college, Romney had received a deferment from the draft as a Mormon ‘minister of religion’ for the duration of his missionary work in France, which lasted two and a half years. At the time, there was an agreement of sorts between the church and the Selective Service allowing exemptions from the draft for missionaries. Before and after his missionary deferment, Romney also received nearly three years of deferments for his academic studies.

        • In April 1965, Romney registered with the Selective Service but was not considered readily available for military service until December 1970. When he became eligible for military service in 1970, he drew a high number in the annual draft lottery and at that time no one drawing higher than 195 was drafted.

  3. This thread sure went a different direction –

    FIRST – Lizard, you don’t understand women any better than the Obama campaign does. There are reasons why Romney will do well with women voters;

    Most women are not single issue voters any more than men are, and for the Obama campaign to think women all are desperate to get $9.00 per month birth control pills, or have unlimited rights to kill unborn children should be very insluting to a woman.

    Women DO care about the economy.

    Women DO notice how much it costs to fill up the car.

    Women HAVE noticed what prices have done, as the value of our dollar has diminished.

    Women DO understand broken promises from The Great Leader.

    And Women also know that borrowing $140,000,000 per hour, just to keep the government operating cannot continue.

    • “Women HAVE noticed what prices have done, as the value of our dollar has diminished.”

      Do you suppose they’ve noticed that inflation is lower than it was 9 out of 10 years of the 1990’s? Because that would kind of diminish you’re point just a tad, yeah?

  4. Steve W

    Eric, so what you are saying is women want to tie the family dog on top of the car when they go on vacation??

    I don’t think so.




Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


  • Pages

  • Recent Comments

    Angry vet 88 on A New Shelter for Vets or an E…
    Washing Ton on A New Shelter for Vets or an E…
    Angry vet 88 on A New Shelter for Vets or an E…
    Angry vet 88 on A New Shelter for Vets or an E…
    Breakdown Assistance on A visit from a Montana Na…
    Even more ICYMI camp… on The Montana Republican Party B…
    Jon Tester’s G… on Senator Tester Backs Wall Stre…
  • Recent Posts

  • Blog Stats

    • 1,640,568 hits
  • Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

    Join 2,734 other followers

  • October 2012
    S M T W T F S
    « Sep   Nov »
     123456
    78910111213
    14151617181920
    21222324252627
    28293031  
  • Categories


%d bloggers like this: