I think women still being expected to carry more of the weight at home is the norm. Romney stated he attempted to accomodate his employees in that regard. He stated that he used his ‘binder full of women’ to find women to fill high level state jobs – he practiced affirmative action. He recognized the lack of a network to bring in women.
In discussion with other bloggers I’ve read this reaction: “anybody who accepts those roles, and that norm, is sexist”. I think I agree here also, if by accept one means: I acknowledge and SUPPORT the way things are.
But I’m not sure accepting something is tantamount to supporting it, that is thinking it’s a good thing. Accepting can be more resignation to its existence. If I support orphanages, that doesn’t mean I support making children homeless, but I’m resigned to the fact that it and happens, and accept means to provide for orphans.
But I think the reaction to what Mr. Romney said in the debate on bring women into and accommodating them there is a non-sequitor. If a liberal Democrat made the same remark, I don’t think it would have been received the same way. To take Romney’s remarks on flexible schedules and in effect affirmative action as proof he’s a sexist, I think you had to assume that before watching the debate. Perhaps Mr. Romney does thing women’s place in the home to a large degree, but you can’t really infer that from his remarks in the debate alone.
Brucetheeconomist's Blog 