Mr Romney's latest little catch phrase seems to be spreading all over the internet. I am not impressed. I have often (I hope you were paying attention) complained about units of measurement that give no idea about the size or volume.
One often hears such guff as “an area the size of seven football fields”, as though all football fields are the same size. Or multiples of the height of Nelson’s column, as if any of us actually has a clue as to its height; or fucking care, for that matter.
Now we have the next leader of the free world (pause while you laugh at that phrase), a man whose IQ is in the same ballpark (how big is a ballpark?) as that of Dubya, measuring women by “binders-full”.
I am aware that I am not the only one who will be deconstructing this phrase, but you chose to come here, it ain’t my fault.
How big is a binder? All the references I can find on-line indicate that none of the women I have ever met would be small enough to fit into one of them, and, as a rule of thumb, I prefer women to be whole rather than chopped up (apart from Thatcher).
How big is a woman? Unless my eyesight is much worse than I feared, my observations lead me to believe that the size of the human female varies considerably. I will say no more, as I do not wish to cause offence (since when? Ed.).
What is the need to put women in binders? The whole concept is steeped in sexism. You may call me radical, but I believe that ladies should be allowed as much freedom as men, at least up to the point that they start to post pictures of cats on facebook.
No, Mitt, you have presented a useless and sexist, possibly misogynist, analogy. You appear to have all the credentials to take over running the USA and continuing to help its downward plummet in the opinion of the rest of the world.
Comments about binding women will be subject to deletion, unless they are very funny indeed.