WHEN Mitt Romney was asked by Katherine Fenton at last night’s presidential debate, “In what new ways do you intend to rectify the inequalities in the workplace, specifically regarding females making only 72 percent of what their male counterparts earn?” did he dare to speak the truth and say that these discrepancies in earnings are overwhelmingly due to the voluntary choices of women in education and the job market? Did he say that women choose fields that are less high-paying and that women choose to drop out or scale back or switch jobs once they enter the workforce? Did he say that in some parts of the country, single women are actually making significantly more than single men?

Of course not. If he had spoken the truth, people in the viewing audience would have been shocked and angry. They would have been enraged by the open blasphemy against their idol, Woman as Perpetual Victim. Some probably would have burst into tears and come close to fainting with nausea as one woman academic did when Lawrence Summers, then president of Harvard, said that the reason there are not more women scientists is that women choose not to be scientists, an unbearable and absolutely unpardonable thought.

No, it would not have been possible for Romney to say such things and still remain in the running.

However, here is what Romney might have said to educate America and to counter Obama’s tendency to fan the feminist flames:

Katherine, thank you very much for your question. That’s a very good question because it reminds me of an important issue.

Have you ever noticed how Mr. President always speaks of women as opposed to men? Have you ever noticed how he constantly makes it seem as if women are in an economic war with men?

You see, that’s not how most American women view things, and that’s not at all how the economy works. Most American women are working together with men, especially together with men to build families and homes, and therefore most American women know that men and women are interdependent and that one can’t separate the interests of the two. When men in general are doing better economically that always means that women are doing better economically.

But why do you think Mr. Obama wishes to make it seem otherwise? Why does he want to pit women against men?

Well, I’ll tell you why, Katherine. At bottom, Mr. President wants women to  transfer their allegiance from the men they know and care about to government. Mr. Obama loves to hand out goodies. He loves to hand out goodies to women so that they will be dependent on government and so that he can make government grow and grow on the backs of the hard-working men and women of this country. Now that’s not helping women. That’s not making them more independent. That’s putting them and their children and their grandchildren under the control of enormous bureaucracies that care more about their own survival and growth than they care about the hardships of any individual women.

I, on the other hand, don’t see any economic war between men and women. I want to help them both. I want to help them by growing this economy and putting people back to work.

—– Comments ——

Kimberly writes:

BRAVO! Please someone get this woman into Romney’s sight! If I had heard him say those words last night I would have bounced around the room in a thrill! You wrote it so well that I could almost hear him saying it, like a beautiful dream! Yes, you said it just the way it MUST be said. I love the Thinking Housewife.

Laura writes:

Thank you.

Please follow and like us: