If you watched the second presidential debate last Tuesday night, you probably noticed how uncomfortable the whole event was.

President Barack Obama took a few pointers from his no-malarkey uncle Joe Biden while former Gov. Mitt Romney decided he would take the nation on a field trip back to 1952. A glorious time when the automobile plant was still open, civil rights had not been addressed and women only went out on Sundays with their male chaperones.

Romney’s response on inequalities of women in the workplace showed audiences what four years of Romney would be like. This came about when a young lady stood up to ask her question to the candidates,  “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?”

Obama was the first to answer and spoke of his grandmother, who was vice president of a local bank, and the limitations she faced because she was a woman in a male-dominated industry. He then spoke about the Lily Ledbetter Act, put into law by his administration to counter this issue. Finally, as Obama speeches go, he then launched into a wobbly lecture about student loans and debt, before finally landing back on earth with his message of zero-tolerance for workplace discrimination.

Then it was Romney’s chance to respond.

He spoke nostalgically of his experience as governor of our great state, and the dilemma he faced upon coming into office and finding that there were no women in his cabinet. While upset about this, he stated, “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.”

Even though this turns out to be a complete exaggeration of the truth, an advocacy group actually presented him a list of names in hopes of diversifying the governor’s office, not because Romney actually sought out women for his cabinet positions. Romney’s demeanor and response spoke volumes about his actual feelings on the matter. From this debate, we can gain a great amount of insight from what four years of Romney in office would be like.

Romney boldly proclaimed that, “If you’re going to have women in the workforce then sometimes you need to be more flexible.”

What exactly did he mean by flexible? Ladies, apparently Romney understands the shortcomings of women and is ready to cope with them, no worries there. I don’t necessarily think this is the best way to win over that demographic.

I think the underlying theme to Romney’s perspective on equality for women in the workplace is something resonant of the 1950s. To Romney, women have a certain role to play in the household, and like his wife are simply baby-making machines. But despite this, he’s willing to accept that women are progressing so long as they don’t interfere with the “Boy’s Club” he’ll establish as president.

This is not necessarily Romney fault as he’s been involved in institutions and corporations run largely by powerful white men his whole life – Bain Capital and the Church of Latter Day Saints, for example.

So if you’re inspired by Romney’s vision of restoring America to the level of economic prosperity seen in the 1950’s, go vote for him.

But if you feel that the America you live in should be a constantly evolving democracy, directly representing the diversity of our citizens, there is another candidate you might consider voting for.

Brian Doherty is a Collegian contributor. He can be reached at [email protected].