This binder on is the subject of a political debate may be best known as an online retailer. But the company’s product pages also host thousands of opinions of reviewers who discuss the ins and outs of countless products.

And one of those product pages — for an $8.69 Avery Durable View Binder of all things — is turning into a destination for those who want to bash Governor Mitt Romney.

You see, at the presidential debate on Tuesday night, Romney had this to say when asked about the pay differences between men and women and how he tried to rectify the inequalities while serving as Governor of Massachusetts:

“I went to a number of women’s groups and said, ‘Can you help us find folks,’ and they brought us whole binders full of women,” Romney said.

The remark has sparked a new Internet meme and has spread like wildfire through social media channels, with a “Binders Full of Women” page on Facebook now counting more than 340,000 likes. Between the binder remark and the Big Bird comment, Wired even noted today that Romney “really should be running for president of I Can Has Cheezburger?

The meme has now spread to the review section of the Avery binder. There are nearly 500 reviews of the three-ring binder on Amazon.

Writes one “reviewer:”

As a wife and mother, I LOVE this binder. It keeps me in my place, allows me to get dinner ready on time, AND only costs 72% of the more masculine version. Some people might think it’s sexist, but sheesh, I’m not binding my feet, just my brain. Extra bonus, if you sit on it just right, it can act as an effective method of birth control! Full disclosure: I submitted this under my husband’s account, with his full permission. He is the head of our household, and the owner of the binder.

And here’s another, referencing the pay differences between men and women:

This binder is only 72% as good as a binder full of men. It should only cost 72% as much! Doesn’t this binder know it’s place? It totally shouldn’t get guaranteed contraceptive care and a right to privacy. What the heck is this little binder thinking?

Like what you're reading? Subscribe to GeekWire's free newsletters to catch every headline


  • FactChecking the Hypocrite

    Obama pays female staffers in Whitehouse 18% LESS than men.

    • What a Hack

      I love the thumbs down on an indisputable FACT. Brainwashed sheep at work again.

      • Guest

        It’s not a fact. It’s a lie. You’re being thumbed down because you lie.

        • Busted

          Read the article little sheep. Next you will tell me the world is flat.

          • boop

            I’m no Romney supporter but I would not be surprised if women working for the White House (that’s White House two words) make less because (just guessing here) they probably hold the lower level jobs which of course are at a lower pay grade. As with all federal government jobs, pay is determined by grade level. Why they hold the lower grade jobs is an issue for a separate discussion but it’s not a matter of them not getting equal pay for each work.

          • boop

            “equal work” I mean

          • Suzanne Morss

            You don’t have to be a jerk about it, “Busted”. Ever tried debating with manners?

          • sorry

            That’s right, only liberals can be jerks. Sorry.

          • Guest

            The world is not flat! You’ve just lied again!

            And I will not read the article. The Washington Times is not a reliable source of information. Post a better source, please, such as the Washington Post.

          • Smart Guest

            Are you mental? “Busted” never said the world was flat. You need some reading comprehension help. Read the post again.

            Washington Post is biased? They used the salary figures supplied by the White House. How is that biased? Should they wait for salary figures furnished by DailyKos instead and then you will believe it?

          • Guest

            The Washington TIMES is biased. You linked to the Washington TIMES, not to the less-biased Washington POST. Again, you’ve lied!

            Three lies and you’re out. Thank you for your participation.

          • WOW

            “Guest” is nuts. Three lies? Only lie here would be if somebody said you weren’t nuts.

  • boop

    I am not so much offended by Romney’s remark as I am baffled by it. What women’s groups did he go to? Why was he asking them for binders of women?

  • Peter H

    When will we be free of this 72% trope, which has been debunked over and over and over again. Normalize for specific jobs and circumstances,and the difference goes away.
    Making this more Geekwire-esque, thinking of our hot developer market. Who can show me one female candidate for a dev job, who had the same qualifications as a male, and the hiring manager said “sweet, offer her 72% of the man’s rate!!”
    It doesn’t happen. It’s a fiction.

    • LoL

      That is insane! Debunking that myth would kill a key liberal talking point. Will never happen.

    • Suzanne Morss

      Really? Please site your source. Mine is the US Department of labor.

      • Peter H

        The key issue is the Dept of Labor study you reference does not normalize for many non-gender factors that influence pay.
        If you would like sources:
        1) Talk to any hiring manager about their experience.
        2) Do a thought experiment in basic economics. If women really cost 72% for the same work, wouldn’t the dynamic of supply and demand lead companies to only hire women, until the pay gap balanced out?
        3) For a more studied answer to your question, here is just one example of many available, this one is from the Independent Women’s Forum. This also cites a study of normalized, young, childless workers that found women earnign 8% more.

Job Listings on GeekWork