Romney campaign says 92.3% of the jobs lost under Obama were women's jobs.

Can that possibly be true? Romney's people did the math, but PolitFact discounts it, concluding:

By comparing job figures with January 2009 and March 2012 and weighing them against women’s job figures from the same periods, [Romney’s press secretary Andrea] Saul came up with 92.3 percent. The numbers are accurate but quite misleading. First, Obama cannot be held entirely accountable for the employment picture on the day he took office, just as he could not be given credit if times had been booming. Second, by choosing figures from January 2009, months into the recession, the statement ignored the millions of jobs lost before then, when most of the job loss fell on men. In every recession, men are the first to take the hit, followed by women. It's a historical pattern, Stevenson told us, not an effect of Obama's policies.

There is a small amount of truth to the claim, but it ignores critical facts that would give a different impression. We rate it Mostly False.

I don't get it. It's true, but nevertheless "Mostly False," because... because what? Because Obama isn't responsible for the numbers?! How does that make the assertion "Mostly False"? The assertion is simply a number, and you've said the number is correct. The conclusion should be "Completely True."