Big Bird was apparently what most people took away from the first presidential debate, and it looks like that honor in the second goes to Mitt Romney’s binders full of women. The thing is, as ridiculous as that sounds, it wasn’t the truly problematic part of that answer (if you can call it an answer). The debaters were asked about defending equal rights for women in the workplace, and Romney’s answer was basically, “I hired some women before.” Then he went on to say he gave some woman who worked for him a flexible schedule so she could take care of her kids. What on Kolob does that have to do with gender? Does he mean to suggest that men never have to take care of kids? The question was an opportunity for Romney to explain how he isn’t sexist, so he makes a blatantly sexist remark. Besides, how is giving someone a flexible schedule something to brag about? Isn’t it just basic decency? What other policies does he think were worthy of praise on his part? That he paid people in United States currency and allowed them to take lunch breaks?
Another response I found absurd was when Romney was supposed to be talking about guns, and he insisted we have a culture of violence because too many babies are born out of wedlock. He didn’t say it exactly like that, but that seemed to be what he was getting at. Either that or he was avoiding the question altogether. Does he have any data connecting one of these things to the other, or was he just blathering? And if married parents are such a good idea, why not allow gay marriage? Actually, if a two-parent household is automatically better than a single-parent one, wouldn’t more parents (or guardians) be even better? I suppose Romney’s ancestors might have gotten behind that one. I would also think someone who didn’t want kids born out of wedlock would be in favor of contraception, but apparently not.