If you’re going to have women in the workforce…

I can’t decide what the most offensive thing is about “Democrats Underestimate the Complexity of Female Voters.” Is it:

  1. The a self-avowed non-mother speaking in the first person plural for all women, especially working class mothers?
  2. Is it the sweeping generalization (in a column that purports to be about complexity) that “most” women wouldn’t go back to work after having children if they didn’t have to?
  3. Or the notion that working class women don’t “have the luxury of worrying about birth control,” because family planning apparently isn’t a financial issue?
  4. I think it’s the conclusion that “We ladies are a lot smarter than some people give us credit for being.” As though we still live in a world in which the value of women’s contributions (to matters other than childrearing, of course) still remains to be demonstrated? The fact that Christine Flowers is herself a 51 year old, childless woman with a column in the Philadelphia Daily News in which is able to express her opinions is a testament to the contrary. (Extrapolating her age from the fact that clicking on her name at the end of the article sends you to a contact form with the email handle “cflowers1961.”)

It’s the same sentiment at play when Mitt Romney said in the last debate:

“I recognized that if you’re going to have women in the workforce that sometimes you need to be more flexible.”

IF being the operative word.


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 )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ 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 )


Connecting to %s