seekingferret (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
seekingferret) wrote2012-10-19 02:03 pm
seekingferret) wrote2012-10-19 02:03 pm
Entry tags:
(no subject)
I've seen my facebook page blow up with people talking about the 'women in binders' remark, but nobody actually seems to be talking about what Romney said.
Recall, Obama led off by talking about the Ledbetter Act. He said look at that, we have a concrete legislative accomplishment that I promise you made women's lives in the workplace better by obligating pay equity.
And then Romney steps up with actual real experience with hiring people, and he says you're missing the point, Obama. It's easy for companies to meet the letter of the statute and still do better for men than women. It was so easy for my staffers to come to me with a list of people to hire and tell me with sincere conviction that the men on the list were there because they were the only qualified candidates. It was easy for them to tell me that the majority of the applicants were male. They weren't actively trying to be misogynistic, they weren't actively trying to break the law, they were just doing their job in the easiest way possible for them. If I had just followed the letter of the anti-discrimination laws I would have had no problem discriminating against women and making it look like I had made a good-faith effort to hire without consideration of gender, because I had. We simply hadn't thought about gender.
But, Romney said, that's not good enough! As soon as I actually reached out affirmatively and looked for women to hire, I found plenty. Binders full. There are competent and qualified women out there, but no statute is ever going to force companies to hire them. That requires leadership from the people doing the hiring. What we need isn't government enforcement. What we need is a culture change, so that people realize that doing that extra work will create a better workforce. And I'm standing on this stage in front of millions of viewers committing to taking a leadership role in changing the culture.
I have not always liked Romney, and I didn't always like him in this debate. But I thought this moment was a great contrast between Republican ideology and Democratic ideology, and it showed why I will always be more skeptical of Democratic ideology. Passing a regulation doesn't fix things automatically. Sometimes regulations make things more complicated and more expensive for business and they still don't fix things, because they can't. Some problems are not problems for government.
Recall, Obama led off by talking about the Ledbetter Act. He said look at that, we have a concrete legislative accomplishment that I promise you made women's lives in the workplace better by obligating pay equity.
And then Romney steps up with actual real experience with hiring people, and he says you're missing the point, Obama. It's easy for companies to meet the letter of the statute and still do better for men than women. It was so easy for my staffers to come to me with a list of people to hire and tell me with sincere conviction that the men on the list were there because they were the only qualified candidates. It was easy for them to tell me that the majority of the applicants were male. They weren't actively trying to be misogynistic, they weren't actively trying to break the law, they were just doing their job in the easiest way possible for them. If I had just followed the letter of the anti-discrimination laws I would have had no problem discriminating against women and making it look like I had made a good-faith effort to hire without consideration of gender, because I had. We simply hadn't thought about gender.
But, Romney said, that's not good enough! As soon as I actually reached out affirmatively and looked for women to hire, I found plenty. Binders full. There are competent and qualified women out there, but no statute is ever going to force companies to hire them. That requires leadership from the people doing the hiring. What we need isn't government enforcement. What we need is a culture change, so that people realize that doing that extra work will create a better workforce. And I'm standing on this stage in front of millions of viewers committing to taking a leadership role in changing the culture.
I have not always liked Romney, and I didn't always like him in this debate. But I thought this moment was a great contrast between Republican ideology and Democratic ideology, and it showed why I will always be more skeptical of Democratic ideology. Passing a regulation doesn't fix things automatically. Sometimes regulations make things more complicated and more expensive for business and they still don't fix things, because they can't. Some problems are not problems for government.
no subject
(Anonymous) 2012-10-23 02:11 am (UTC)(link)-Noah
no subject
I really don't understand the suggestion that Mitt should have somehow already had women on his list. Let's face facts. There are many more corporate executives who are male than female. There are many more non-profit executives who are male than female. There are many more state legislators, county legislators, city council members who are male than female. These are obvious pools to pull from when looking for cabinet members. It stands to reason that unless you put some effort in, the pool of candidates is going to skew male. Romney was saying that there are a great many qualified, talented women out there who would do great in these jobs, but you're not going to get them without, yes, digging, because they're not in the obvious places. If you just sit back and do the same apparently gender-neutral hiring procedure you've been doing for years, you will not get as many women as men for high powered jobs. And regulation from the EEOC will not change that.
This isn't news. Structural barriers to women occupying positions of power isn't something Romney discovered. But liberals have had the theory for years that those structural problems can be solved with government-imposed social engineering. And Romney's story, whatever its truth, is at minimum a clear parable about the problems of solving social problems through legislated social engineering.