Thick Guardian feminist alert: Now it's Romney the sexist pig
First the Romney haters smeared him as racist; next it was as a liar; now the prejudice du jour is that he's sexist
Oh dear. This descent into self-parody is surely too forlorn even by Guardian standards. Following last night's presidential debate, which flash polls suggested Obama very narrowly won, the smear-tacticians at the Guardian were hard at work as usual.
Earlier in the campaign the preferred theme for the Left's "two-minutes hate" was Romney the racist, or at least Romney the man who has no problem hanging around racists.
After Obama had been well and truly slaughtered in the first presidential debate, it moved on to "Romney the liar". The point was that Obama only lost because he was too shocked at Romney's dishonesty to keep his composure. Well, obviously. It couldn't have been because Romney put his opponent to the sword both intellectually and rhetorically, now could it?
The latest pathetic round of spiteful accusations casts Romney as a woman-hating chauvinist pig. But the "evidence" is even more idiotic than usual. Enter the Guardian's Emma G Keller. Now, it is possible that she really did mean her article as parody, but it is also possible she is as thick as this article suggests she is. You decide.
It all starts off with a nothing "gaffe" Romney is held to have made in referring to the dearth of women applicants for senior jobs while he was governor of Massachusetts. He said that once you get past the problem of absent female applicants you can find "binders full of women" who could do the job in question. To be sure, it's a bit of a strange construction, but nothing to write home about, unless you're desperate, which Keller plainly is.
And so we get into the dreary business of an extended ad hominem about Romney the sexist. Trouble is, the "evidence" just isn't there.
Here are a few instances of her so called "deconstruction". Romney's alleged offence comes first; then we get Keller's oh-so witty response, then my comment. So, here goes, on women:
Romney: "An important topic, and one which I learned a great deal about, particularly as I was serving as governor of my state, because I had the chance to pull together a cabinet and all the applicants seemed to be men.
Emma G. Keller: "Seemed to be? Implausible from the start, they either were or they weren't."
Me: Oh don't be thick. It's standard idiomatic usage. In any case, there are many people with first names that apply to both men and women. Or was Keller expecting the application forms to have photos of people in swimwear?
Romney: "And I – and I went to my staff, and I said, "How come all the people for these jobs are – are all men." They said: "Well, these are the people that have the qualifications."'
Keller: "This is hard to believe. Romney was talking about 2003 – not 1893. Plenty of women would have been properly qualified."
Me: Again, don't be thick. His staff were obviously referencing the familiar problem of qualified women failing to apply for jobs they could do. The qualified people who actually put themselves forward were men.
This is quickly followed by the following:
Romney: "And I said: "Well, gosh, can't we – can't we find some – some women that are also qualified?"
Me: No it's not. You're being thick as usual.
And so it goes on, and on.
We learn that Romney's remark about "binders full of women" shows he is "condescending and out of touch". His phrasing "objectified and dehumanized women". Crikey. Before you know it, Romney will be accused of running a hiring programme under the rubric: "Arbeit Macht Frei".
Sometimes it's beyond thick, and just nonsensical. For example, can anyone work out what she means here?
Romney: "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."
Keller: "The inference here is that women only get hired when a numerical need arises. Romney's answer implied women don't get considered on the merits but as a second option."
Sorry Keller, your article doesn't make a fool out of Mitt Romney, it makes a fool out of you.
We are wholly dependent on the kindness of our readers for our continued work. We thank you in advance for any support you can offer.