Skip to content

Lady smarts – not requiring a personal introduction

October 19, 2012


As a woman, I cannot decide whether I should be offended, horrified or amused by middle aged college women who won’t buy their own birth control. And ding-dongs on Facebook who tell men”it’s uterus thing. You wouldn’t understand” (honey, I don’t get it and I do….). Or how about the latest celebrity what’s-her-face-that-we’ll-forget-in-2-yrs squawking about defunding Planned Parenthood who “help women screen for cancer” – except for the fact that PP don’t have cancer screening equipment. Or calling women the names of lady parts because they might vote for Romney?

Where do they find these people, and can they please put them back wherever they came from?

But enough about that – what I wanted to discuss was “binders“. Want to know how people in banana republics and among the “Tikriti” tribes get jobs? They know someone who knows someone, who has a good kid that can help. If you’re not connected, if you’re from the wrong class or tribe – go pick up dung for a living. No need for test scores, no need to try to better yourself with achievement. You’re not “in the tribe”, you will NEVER be in the tribe

What is disturbing about the Democratic party protests & overall silliness over Romney’s “Binders” comment is that it shows one of two possibilities is true

  1. They don’t know that someone who is less well connected but bright needs “binders” because that person lacks the formal connections for doors to be opened on their behalf
  2. they actually don’t support self-achievement, as reflected in “binders” of women who might lack a well connected sponsor opening doors on their behalf, but whose achievement gives them 1 tiny entree to an opportunity they otherwise would find inaccessible.

What torques my engine here is NOT the binder reference – but the implications of life “without binders”. The consequences are a society where only the well connected can bequeath favors and opportunities on their proteges – where sponsorships are traded with very little thought to individual ability and achievements.

Can you say “France, pre-Napoleon”? One of the reasons that I’m told Napoleon steamrolled most of Europe initially is that his officers were selected on ability and merit, while most of the other European army officers were selected because of the need to discretely ‘place’ the result of many noble “indiscretions” in some worthy – out of the way – profession.

4 Comments leave one →
  1. October 21, 2012 8:16 pm

    ThatMrGuy – one of the BEST comments I heard yet was “I’d rather be in a binder on Romney’s desk than stuck underneath Clintons desk” 🙂

  2. October 21, 2012 4:20 pm

    Huh. I didn’t even think about that aspect of it–you are in a “binder” b/c you are not well connected. Good point.

  3. October 21, 2012 8:40 am

    I’m a big fan of finding opportunity for women, Lynn can attest to the work I’ve put into it at the office. Most of the time, I either had to find them on my own or have people introduce them to me, but it was my focus on strengthening the skills that would motivate me.

    Whether Mr. Romney learned from his Bain time and sought out women, or whether he had help from outside groups, it’s hard to argue with the results in the cabint… well, unless you’re blinded by idealism as opposed to wanting real results.

    I guess I’m just bound to results.

  4. October 21, 2012 7:07 am

    If I may be so crude here…For Democrats, it’s not so much who you know, but who you blow.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your 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

%d bloggers like this: