View Full Version : Romney's wife
Just had to comment on Romney's wife taking offense at a female commentator's statement that she never worked a day in her life. There are billions of us out there that held jobs and raised families. Not to mention single mothers. A mother like Romney had unlimited money behind her; she never had to worry about whether or not she'd be able to buy grpceries and pay the mortgage. So if any conservative-thinking women want to cry for her, have at it!
Well, even Debbie Wasserman Schultz is "disappointed" in the female commentator's statement. https://twitter.com/#!/DWStweets/statuses/190472007975051264
She's hardly a conservative.
And, the "female commentator" has also apologized for her remarks. http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/04/12/rosen-apologizes-over-comments-against-ann-romney/
"I apologize to Ann Romney and anyone else who was offended," Rosen, a top Democratic strategist and CNN contributor, said in a statement. "Let's declare peace in this phony war and go back to focus on the substance."
ApatheticNoMore
4-12-12, 2:29pm
Basically your not going to get someone who understands the struggles of working people these days with someone who has never held a job (and even needed it to hold one economically)! But um who really expected that anyway, right? Could such a person ever survive the vetting by big money it takes to become president?
And it is afterall: a U.S. political election in the U.S. political climate (never that radical to begin with and what there is is cracked down on hard), with all the caveats, vast money backing, rather priviledged candidates etc. (fair enough there are degrees of priviledge, but even very fancy degrees convert priviledge most will never know, vast inheritied wealth provides even more). And yes it's a Republican and the Romneys as well. Anyone who wants to use this for some kind of self delusion that "Obama is just like me" well .... personally I prefer a bottle in front of me to a frontal lobotomy - but to each their own ...
It's basically an example of PURE PROPAGANDA on both sides. Phony "Misses Romney can't understand the working class" sentiment. That's is probably a true statement, but does anyone think the way to improve conditions for the working class is electing politicians who are spun as being able to relate? Electing politicians not even for their policies but just for the spin on them? Does anyone believe this is a serious strategy? Give up, join OWS, strike on May day, as imperfect as they may be, their strategy is better. Then the phony taking offense "oh as a hardworking mother I work so hard". That may be, but the offense taken is entirely phony and ridiculous. Nothing is ever going to improve if people don't learn to see through propaganda, we are all influencable, but anyone taking the completely dumbed down bait like this .... has a long way to go :)
domestic goddess
4-12-12, 3:06pm
I didn't hear the original comment in context, so I don't know what to think, and I don't know anything about Ann Romney. But I agree that anyone who thinks any of these candidates "is just like me" is in for a very big shock. It wasn't that long ago that we had a candidate (or recently elected official) who had no idea of grocery prices and was shocked to find them so high. We had a candidate with a child with a complicated medical condition, but he can afford to pay for her care, and he doesn't really think about those in a similar situation who can't afford to pay for care. Most of the candidates, of either party, live in a truly rarified atmosphere, where these considerations of finances just are totally foreign to them. They have plenty of help in rearing their children, keeping their mansions clean, and most other aspects of daily life that I really can't imagine what that life must be like. And I'm sure they can't imagine what my life must be like, either.
How about if all politicians had to go through a "Trading Places" hazing process? (As in the great movie with Dan Akroyd and Eddie Murphy) I agree that many politicians don't have a well-rounded perspective of the challenges of day to day life which can make leading difficult. But how important is it?
But at the same time, it goes the other way, too. Frankly, I wouldn't want Ann Romney's "job" of being the woman behind Mitt Romney. I don't know what she's been through. You can say, "Oh, poor her," but I'll take the stress of running my own business to the stress of having to live up to my husband's expectations so HE looks good anyday. Anyone want to walk in her shoes?
As far as all this "housewives are working people too"--man, haven't we left that argument behind in the 70s??
It was an irrelevant statement aimed strictly as a dig, so completely unnecessary and uncalled for.
Mean spirited statement, really catty and uncalled for. I'm glad she's apologized, fwiw.
DocHolliday
4-12-12, 8:48pm
Never heard of Rosen, so she's a "Democratic strategist" and CNN contributor, does that really sound like work? Has she done anything of relevance in her life besides that?
ApatheticNoMore
4-12-12, 9:00pm
Never heard of Rosen, so she's a "Democratic strategist" and CNN contributor, does that really sound like work?
Is there a certain minimum "dislike for one's job" threshold one has to reach for it to count as work? Then it's true journalists may not cross the threshold, I don't know. To some extent none of those type of dream jobs seems like real work to me (college professor, journalist, therapist, professional musician, author etc.) but I think the BLS may have it's own opinion on the matter of what working is.
This editorial pretty much sums up my thoughts about this kerfuffle.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/post/ann-romneys-not-your-typical-working-woman/2012/04/12/gIQAjMhbCT_blog.html?hpid=z7
This just sounded like another Republican marketing strategy to me - I guess to bring in some female votes?
This just sounded like another Republican marketing strategy to me - I guess to bring in some female votes?
+1
iris lily
4-12-12, 10:53pm
With Mitt Romney's wife getting this kind of attention, and with the President calling him out last week, I'd say that the race is ON and it's fully Romney vs. Obama for November. The Republican count of delegates is just a formality at this point.
This just sounded like another Republican marketing strategy to me - I guess to bring in some female votes?
The marketing strategies from both sides are already getting pretty nauseating. I can't wait to see what the rest of the year holds (sigh)
ApatheticNoMore
4-13-12, 2:13am
Don't watch.
Yea, what are you missing anyway if you don't? It's mostly not news, not real, not anything. Now do pay some attention if an actual POLICY proposal is floated (since there is a possibility we may live with such policies) but take even that with enough salt to cause hypertension (because much is merely campaign promises).
Not to turn this into a My First Lady is better than Your First Lady discussion, but......
My sister told me that Michelle Obama once had to take one of her infant daughters with her on a job interview in her carseat bucket because her childcare fell through at the last minute.
That may be urban myth, I don't know for certain, I'm just relying on what sis told me, but it definitely garnered some street cred with me and sis.
Not to turn this into a My First Lady is better than Your First Lady discussion, but......
My sister told me that Michelle Obama once had to take one of her infant daughters with her on a job interview in her carseat bucket because her childcare fell through at the last minute.
That may be urban myth, I don't know for certain, I'm just relying on what sis told me, but it definitely garnered some street cred with me and sis.
Yea, that was probably when she was applying for that Board of Directors (http://michellemalkin.com/2010/05/12/big-momma-michelle-obama-food-profiteer-turned-food-cop/) job at Treehouse Foods. Forget street cred, you gotta be an EveryWomanSuperMom to land a gig like that (with no relevant work experience, that is).
This is only about the hit on her that she never worked.
I have been Lucky or unLucky which ever way it is spun to have been able to be for the "most part" a SAHM when my guys were home. It was totally a choice we made, right or wrong, though today looking back it was a 100% the wrong choice for me personally. I learned really fast not to talk work, staying home, cutting grass, painting, running to cleaners.....you get it, with other women. I still to this day never mention I {{{gasping}}} do not work. If I am asked "where do you work" I say "I am not working right now". Or the "what do you do" question, I respond with a comment about what a great day it was for a Run or Cycle ride as it changes the topic when I ask them what type exercise they do. Am I embarrassed I held only on and off jobs through the years( I do have my time in for SS, though big deal), kinda now looking back Yes. But I did what I thought was best at the time and I still have a long ways to go before I retire, Ok got to go Bike Ride now.
This just sounded like another Republican marketing strategy to me - I guess to bring in some female votes?
I'm not sure how "Republican marketing strategy" gets spun out of a statement made by a Democratic strategist. That just seems like an odd statement.
Obviously both sides need the female vote. Half the voters in this country are women, after all. I think Mr. Romney's relatively moderate stance on several issues important to women will serve him well come November. What I do find interesting is that a lot of our discussions here seem to indicate "social issues" (for lack of a better word), like birth control or healthcare, are the key issues for women this time around. I don't find that to be true in my RL. Most of the women I talk to are worried about the economy and the possibility of entering another conflict as the issues at the top of the list.
DW was ticked at Ms. Rosen's comment because she has said her time as a SAHM was some of the hardest work she ever did (even though she loved almost every minute of it). DW also knew what Ms. Rosen was trying to say. She understands that Ms. Rosen's comment is totally irrelevant, as in "who cares what she thinks?" Mrs. Romney certainly had access to some comforts and assistance that most women don't. Did she take advantage of that? I have no idea and I'm guessing none of you do either. All the friends we have who practice the Mormon faith are very devoted to family life. There is nothing to make me think the Romneys are any different. Just because she is wealthy does not mean Mrs. Romney didn't work very hard at being a Mom.
Last: can someone please tell Sarah to shut her pie hole with the "momma grizzly" line? It's beyond cartoonish now.
revised opinion: I actually read the whole paragraph in context. Much ado about nothing. Fact is, this woman hasn't worked out of the home, and probably not in the home either. They are uber wealthy so I'm guessing she doesn't do the dishes. She doesn't have to worry about feeding the kids, paying the bills or making the mortgage. The context of the discussion was, apparently Mitt was running around saying how he takes counsel from his wife on what modern working women want and need and the person, Rosen, or something like that, said that Mitt's wife doesn't know what modern working women want because essentially she isn't, or never was, one. Whether that's true or not, I don't know. She may be a smart woman, and you don't have to actually experience something to be aware of it.
But, this consultant didn't just attack her out of the blue, as the right tries to portray. The comment was appropriate in the context of the conversation.
So, not mean or a dig. Just a truthful comment in context of the conversation. If she is angry or ashamed that she has never worked, inside or outside the home, well, she can just get a job. Otherwise, she should just own it. It's her life and what she choose.
Yea, that was probably when she was applying for that Board of Directors (http://michellemalkin.com/2010/05/12/big-momma-michelle-obama-food-profiteer-turned-food-cop/) job at Treehouse Foods. Forget street cred, you gotta be an EveryWomanSuperMom to land a gig like that (with no relevant work experience, that is).
Thanks for spurring me on to look it up.
It was when she was applying for and got the Community Affairs Director position at the University of Chicago Hospitals. Not sure when that falls in line with the Treehouse Foods BOD position.
I found it in this 2007 fluff piece in People mag http://www.people.com/people/archive/article/0,,20061177,00.html
Yeah... none of them are an EveryMan / EveryWoman.
I wouldn't describe anyone that is either smart enough or connected/wealthy enough to go to an Ivy League school as an EveryPerson.
I personally don't care if elected officials & their spouses are an EveryPerson or not - if they are truly good politicians (and the the spouses of representatives are partners with the elected officials) they take great pains to learn what their constituents are facing on a daily basis and will relate to them in a meaningful way and work to improve EveryOne's lot, if they want to keep getting elected.
If she is angry or ashamed that she has never worked, inside or outside the home, well, she can just get a job. Otherwise, she should just own it. It's her life and what she choose.
So, if we're working on the assumption that Mrs Romney has something to be ashamed of, aren't we being a little judgemental? And, what exactly is it that she should "own"? Other people's condescension?
But, this consultant didn't just attack her out of the blue, as the right tries to portray. The comment was appropriate in the context of the conversation.
I agree that the comment was picked from a larger context. I saw the infamous line delivered without the benefit of the rest of the conversation on that last bastion of conservatism: the Today show. I also noticed how quickly that right wing extremist, President Obama, reacted to distance himself from Ms. Rosen's comments. Where anyone on the right messed up has nothing to do with the comment itself. A very few on the far right, the Catholic League in particular, attempted to attack Ms Rosen's sexuality (apparently she is half of a committed lesbian relationship) or the validity of her family (apparently she and her partner adopted one or more children). If her comment was ignorant, that is more so.
So, not mean or a dig. Just a truthful comment in context of the conversation.
Truthful? The other SAHMs of five boys in the room apparently disagree. It was an inflammatory comment designed and delivered as a sound bite. The logical conclusion is that Ms. Rosen said what she said hoping to get her fifteen minutes of fame. If that is true, it worked. I've never seen her on anything as high profile as the Today show before this. Actually, I've never seen her anywhere before this.
If she is angry or ashamed that she has never worked, inside or outside the home, well, she can just get a job. Otherwise, she should just own it. It's her life and what she choose.
In the coverage of Mrs. Romney I have seen she seems quite proud of her family, especially her kids. She has said she made the choice to stay at home with the boys rather than seek a position outside the house. She has also said she was grateful to have been in the position to have had that choice. That just doesn't strike me as something an angry, ashamed person would say.
Truthful? The other SAHMs of five boys in the room apparently disagree.
SAHM of five here. I find the comment extremely offensive and I am frankly, sick and tired of people being dismissive of people who are home with their kids. It's really quite mysoginistic and it disappoints me the most when it comes from feminists, who I would think would want to champion respect for all women.
I do not have the benefit of Mrs. Romney's wealth, but I have relatives who are exceedingly wealthy and they have been every bit as involved with their kids as I am, not because they couldn't afford help, but because they love their kids and want to be involved. I don't know much at all about Mrs. Romney, but I see no reason to take pot-shots at her or any other candidate's spouse. It's just...cheap. Like others on both sides of the fence I am tired of cheap and inflammatory remarks. Snark is not constructive.
ApatheticNoMore
4-13-12, 11:50am
I'm not super judgemental of anyone that doesn't work even if it's because they collect unemployment and charity when they could work (and believe me it exists). It's not necessarily something I would do but meh I also see being dependent on someone else for one's economic survival as a bit foolish. You know what might solve the problem for everyone? More options to work part-time? A 30 hour week?
You know what might solve the problem for everyone? More options to work part-time? A 30 hour week?
I am confused as to what the problem is to be solved. That there are at-home parents? Whether or not you think it is a foolish choice is immaterial. Most at- home parents I know don't want to work 30 hours a week outside the home. They are home because it is what works for them and their family.
ApatheticNoMore:
That was kinda a low hit. Comparing unemployment/charity to SAHM. I had never heard it phrased that way, but Exactly the reason I never mention to anyone that I stayed home with my kids, instead of pawning them off to someone else for a few bucks an hour when I did not need to to bring home the few bucks an hour. We lived below our means instead.
I have a friend that is a sitter, not a licensed Nanny, but a sitter. She has been employed for years doing this and does it well. Yet no one says she "works", it is more like "Oh she babysits". I always think this comment is where we place priorities in the USA, shame on you if you can afford to stay home, shame on you if you are just a sitter, shame on you if you work and leave the kids with someone else. Can't win for lossing.
President Obama, reacted to distance himself from Ms. Rosen's comments.
I found this to be a big mistake for the Obama admin. While he should have dismissed Rosen's very inflamatory (and untrue IMHO) comments about Mrs. Romney (and thus any SAHP) lacking the skills to advise her hubby on economic policy because she never "worked", he should have used it as an opportunity to correct Rosen's comments and spin it in a direction to support his economic policy's such as healthcare - a major concern for parents. Talk about the economic struggles that "working-outside-the-home" low income and middleclass parents (especially single parents) have to deal with everyday that wealthy Mrs. Romney and her ilk has never had to deal with. The double work load a full time job adds to the life of a parent (they still have to deal with the same exact work-load that a SAHP has (more if you are a single SAHP) but you need to hold a full time job in addition to it), the worry about the cost of everything, the lack of affordable healthcare, losing their jobs, losing their homes, watching their kids go hungry let alone trying to provide some kind of future education for them, etc.. Everyone knows how tough of a job it is to be a SAHP even in the best case scenario, the 24/7 non-stop "work" it requires. But add to that the burden of having to hold a full time job, possibily being the sole financial and caregiving provider, with the worry that you and your children could end up homeless and needing financial aid just to survive one day at a time and you can see that Mrs. Romney, who never had to deal with any of that in her lifetime, may not be the best source for economic advice to working-outside-the-home parents who deal with a different economic situation then Mrs. Romney does. And while that doesn't mean she's a Marie Antoinette who can't relate to the working-class parents and therefore provide valuable economic input, I do think the Obama admin missed a great opportunity to point out that fact that she is in a differnet situation then many other parents - SAHP's as well as working outside the home parents.
What Hilary Rosen (herself a working mother) actually said, in context (from April 12 National Journal):
Speaking on Anderson Cooper 360, Rosen said that it didn't make much sense for presumptive Republican nominee Mitt Romney to look to Ann for advice on women's issues because she was out of touch with the problems faced by most women in America.
"His wife has actually never worked a day in her life," she said. "She's never really dealt with the kinds of economic issues that a majority of women in this country are facing."
Her first sentence, injudicious at best, may be truer than it first looks. Both Mitt Romney and Ann Davies Romney come from exceptionally privileged backgrounds, raised in a town--according to at least one source--among the top five wealthiest in America. Plenty of household help, including nannies, comes with the territory. Certainly neither Romney has the vaguest idea how the rest of us live; how could they? And their five sons are home free, as well, as they've been set up with a shared one hundred million dollar trust fund. Ms. Rosen's choice of words may be unfortunate, but she kicked off a discussion I think is important.
Ann Romney is 62 now. Did she always live a life of luxury, with no need to raise a hand in caring for her home or her children?
Or, did she perhaps start out her life as a young lady, in a new marriage, with perhaps lesser means, and no certainty of success?
It is sure easy to look at a wealthy person later in life and engage in all sorts of fun divisive class and values warfare.
I wonder how long before the campaign machines start going after the candidates' children as well. Makes me sick.
ApatheticNoMore
4-13-12, 1:30pm
ApatheticNoMore:
That was kinda a low hit. Comparing unemployment/charity to SAHM.
Yea and you can't be sure what people do with unemployment and how many years they have paid into it (unemployment unlike some programs you do have to have put in to). I have known people who have deliberately not worked for the time of unemployment to volunteer. Perhaps it does more good anyway? Are you sure it doesn't? I really meant that I'm not super judgemental to such lifestyles. I don't bother getting upset about someone somewhere cheating welfare. I hate way more that my tax money supports the evil Nazis in the NSA (it's spinning out more rich people than silicon valley these days, only those enriched by the NSA unlike most silcion folks are a truly scary sort). I'm not particularly judgemental to a lifestyle where a man lets a woman support him and doesn't work with no kids even. I wouldn't necessary want to *be* that woman but (and then I don't know - does he look like a young Brad Pitt only is also extremely intelligent - well then I'll consider it .... I have to work anyway, might as well support my Brad Pitt if he's content with what will end up being a very modest lifestyle indeed :)).
A 30 hour week would solve the problem of a woman having to choose between having some time to spend with her kids and not having to depend on a man for economic survival. Little real world problems like that.
domestic goddess
4-13-12, 1:30pm
I have to say that I really thought we were past quibbling about mothers who work outside the home vs. those who don't. As a mother and now a grandmother, I think every mother is a "working woman". Some must also work outside the home to make ends meet. That's just the way it is, and those who work to support their families are just doing what they have to do. Others are fortunate not to have to spread themselves so thinly, but that doesn't mean that they don't work, too.
Ann Romney is 62 now. Did she always live a life of luxury, with no need to raise a hand in caring for her home or her children?
Or, did she perhaps start out her life as a young lady, in a new marriage, with perhaps lesser means, and no certainty of success?
It is sure easy to look at a wealthy person later in life and engage in all sorts of fun divisive class and values warfare.
I wonder how long before the campaign machines start going after the candidates' children as well. Makes me sick.
From Wikipedia:
Born Ann Lois Davies,[2] she was raised in Bloomfield Hills, Michigan,[3] by parents Edward R. Davies and Lois Davies.[4] Her father, originally from Caerau near Bridgend, Wales,[5] was a self-made businessman who became president of Jered Industries, a maker of heavy machinery for marine use;[4][6] he also was mayor of Bloomfield Hills.[3 She was raised in Bloomfield Hills, Michigan and attended the private Kingswood School there, where she dated Mitt Romney
Of course being well off doesn't mean you can't relate to the struggles of the working or middle classes, although I believe that was the point Rosen WAS trying to make rather than that a SAHP doesn't/hasn't ever "worked".
Ann Romney is 62 now. Did she always live a life of luxury, with no need to raise a hand in caring for her home or her children?
Or, did she perhaps start out her life as a young lady, in a new marriage, with perhaps lesser means, and no certainty of success?
It is sure easy to look at a wealthy person later in life and engage in all sorts of fun divisive class and values warfare.
I wonder how long before the campaign machines start going after the candidates' children as well. Makes me sick.
I haven't found any indication that either Romney has ever lived anything other than a privileged upper-class life, but I'm always ready to be proven wrong. The thing is, because Mitt apparently has no interest in/experience of "women's issues," (even though he was governor of a state full of female citizens) he's holding his wife out as the campaign's subject matter expert. Otherwise, she would never have come into the discussion. You can't have it both ways.
ApatheticNoMore
4-13-12, 1:37pm
Spartana I hear what your saying about how this should be about real struggles so many people face. +1 to that.
If a woman choses to stay home with kids because she has a husband that supports her financially it's wonderful, but if a mother takes some aid (welfare) because she finds herself a single mom raising kids she's a scumbag. I don't get it. And don't tell me it's because welfare costs some vast fortune because that argument lacks the virtue of even being true.
From Wikipedia:
A bit later in the same Wiki article it goes on to say:
The couple's first son was born in 1970[12] while both were undergraduates at Brigham Young,[15] living in a $75-a-month basement apartment,[16] which Mitt had transferred to based upon her request.[13] After he graduated, the couple moved to Boston so that he could attend Harvard Business School and Harvard Law School. Slowed down by parenthood, she later finished her undergraduate work by gaining a semester and half's worth of credits via taking night courses at Harvard University Extension School,[15] from which she graduated in 1975[1] with a Bachelor of Liberal Arts degree with a concentration in French language.[17]
A stay-at-home mother,[18] Romney raised the family's five boys (born between 1970 and 1981)[12] and taught early morning scripture classes to them and other children[18] while her husband pursued his career, first in business, then in politics.[19
I also see being dependent on someone else for one's economic survival as a bit foolish.
I'm going to play devil's advocate here because I'm a bit sad that a division of labor that has been very successful for many pockets of society and cultures for ages has come to be seen as foolish in the last quarter of the last century and now this century. I am not strictly an apologist for "a woman's place is in the home" basically because my mother suffered greatly from those old 50s paradigms when she had to kick out my father for sheer survival.
But at the same time, this topic is based on the assumption that money is THE fulcrum around which life must spin and to be smart we have to have a "what's mine is mine" mentality, and I'm disappointed that we self-proclaimed simple-livers are judging people on the basis of their choice not to get a "job." We are judging Ann Romney because she's rich AND a stay-at-home mom. She has two economically-related dings against her and she's dismissed on two counts, even though she may have a wonderful happy home and five wonderful, well-adjusted children (who apparently just crawled out from under a rock--or as some of my mean-spirited liberal friends would say, were simply raised by nannies).
As far as her credentials that her husband mentioned? Well, how do we know she's not capable of reporting women's issues? Just because she hasn't been tested in the workplace?
"I wonder how long before the campaign machines start going after the candidates' children as well." (bae)
It's been done. Karl Rove famously orchestrated a smear campaign against John McCain in the 2000 South Carolina primary (from The Nation):
Rove invented a uniquely injurious fiction for his operatives to circulate via a phony poll. Voters were asked, "Would you be more or less likely to vote for John McCain...if you knew he had fathered an illegitimate black child?" This was no random slur. McCain was at the time campaigning with his dark-skinned daughter, Bridget, adopted from Bangladesh.
He lost South Carolina, and subsequently the nomination.
"I wonder how long before the campaign machines start going after the candidates' children as well." (bae)
I meant in this election cycle. We've certainly seen it in previous cycles.
I'd hoped we were past that sort of thing.
Guess I will go eat bonbons now and bow out of this conversation.
A bit later in the same Wiki article it goes on to say:
Guess I should read the whole thing :-)! But I believe that for her (and him) it was more a matter of choice than need. Knowing that you both have wealth, options and opportunity to fall back on is huge. A working class couple in the same situation may be living on the edge - having to make the choice between food or medicine for their kids. That's a reality that millions of parents deal with everyday - especially in this economy - and they often have no where where to fall except down if things get worse. Can't afford anti-biotics for baby Jimmy's cut finger - well that might turn into an infection that takes his life. Mom and Dad both have to work or they, and baby Jimmy, will be out on the street or living at a homeless shelter. Need gas for the car, pay for a sitter or daycare to get to your job because it's the only way you'll have medical coverage and money to support your family. Real life for many millions of people. Again, I'm not saying Ann Romney can't relate to those people, but she is in a different situation and shouldn't be compared to those who struggle everyday to just survive.
How is it mean-spirited to point out that Mrs. Romney (herself reportedly raised by one) may have employed nannies? It's common among upper- and upper-middle class families. Personally, I have no opinion of Ann Romney other than she has led an exceptionally privileged life free of worries about employment, health care, and other challenges most of us face. She doesn't, in any way, factor into my opinion of her husband's fitness to govern.
...
As far as her credentials that her husband mentioned? Well, how do we know she's not capable of reporting women's issues? Just because she hasn't been tested in the workplace?
We don't know, she may be. But I'm not electing her and it's annoying to have her in the mix of policy making although I don't see that Mitt Romney intended to go that far.
I was annoyed when Hillary Clinton (who I did NOT elect) was appointed to put together the Clinton health plan back in the day. I didn't elect Hillary and it gave me the skeevies when she was elbowing her way into the business of governing. Mind you I do not dislike Hil, I disliked her actions. Michelle Obama has her pet projects which are appropriate First Lady interests and she is a good ambassador for them.
Certainly neither Romney has the vaguest idea how the rest of us live...
A couple years ago we went to Mexico to climb a mountain and spent a few days in a village at the base waiting for others to arrive. The people in that village live a lifestyle far more removed from mine than I would guess yours is from the Romneys. And yet, after spending just that extremely short amount of time with them I think I have a pretty fair idea of how they live. I'm not exactly sure what anyone thinks is so very different about the Romneys of the world compared to the rest of us. I'm proud of my kids, I think they are, too. I have a TV, a car, clothes, furniture, a tooth brush and several other trappings of the modern world. I bet they do, too. The people I met in Mexico might be shocked by flat screens and indoor plumbing*. Its a pretty big step from their world to mine, like a 300 year step. The difference between the Romneys and me is infinitesimal compared to that. Statements regarding how they can't relate always seem to have a ring of class envy.
* I don't mean to play these people up as a lost tribe in the Amazon, they aren't. They are simply remote enough that many of the conveniences we enjoy on a daily basis haven't arrived there yet. They didn't appear any worse off for that.
But at the same time, this topic is based on the assumption that money is THE fulcrum around which life must spin and to be smart we have to have a "what's mine is mine" mentality, and I'm disappointed that we self-proclaimed simple-livers are judging people on the basis of their choice not to get a "job."
I find it sad that the culture of money/get-a-job/be-your-own-dog has become so pervasive that it is viewed as "foolish" to rely upon others for your economic survival. We are social creatures - no human lives for long on their own. We must interact with family, neighbors, community members, even strangers for our continued happy survival. We do as a species rely upon each other for hundreds of things - you can see this by examining for even a moment any non-money-based "primitive" society.
To have culturally been pushed to the point where even the closest family members are "foolish" for relying upon one another, to view as "wisdom" that each should have to work in a cube receiving pieces of paper with a President's picture on it for economic security, well, we've surely lost something essential along the way.
If people want to be lonely cogs in a machine serving the almighty economy, that's their choice. But I don't think it is foolish to follow another path.
How is it mean-spirited to point out that Mrs. Romney (herself reportedly raised by one) may have employed nannies?
It's mean-spirited to disparage mothering skills because you've chosen to delegate some of the tasks.
It's mean-spirited to disparage mothering skills because you've chosen to delegate some of the tasks.
It's also a bit obnoxious to suggest that one human cannot reasonably understand the circumstances and issues facing another human, unless they've gone through exactly the same circumstances themselves. Handy though if you want to divide people, instead of unite them.
If a woman choses to stay home with kids because she has a husband that supports her financially it's wonderful, but if a mother takes some aid (welfare) because she finds herself a single mom raising kids she's a scumbag. I don't get it. And don't tell me it's because welfare costs some vast fortune because that argument lacks the virtue of even being true.
IRL I don't know anyone who actually thinks a single mother getting help is a scumbag. It's the kind of thing people say in snarky internet comments at the bottom of articles on yahoo to tick off people who disagree with them, but it's extraordinarily simplistic. FWIW I agree with you wholeheartedly that it is not a position I could wrap my head around either.
I really meant that I'm not super judgemental to such lifestyles.
Maybe it's just due to the limitations of the internet as a communication device, but your posts on this topic have come across as extremely judgmental and condescending towards at-home parents.
A 30 hour week would solve the problem of a woman having to choose between having some time to spend with her kids and not having to depend on a man for economic survival. Little real world problems like that.
I think this is a simplistic representation of a choice that has about as many variables as there are people faced with the choice. Adding barbs like, "little real world problems like that" is condescending and dismissive. My point is that, while there are some people who would no doubt love to work a 30 hour workweek, and I am all for there being more part-time opportunities for those who want them, the situation each woman finds herself in is complex and personal and there is not likely to be one "solution" that fits all. I don't see it as one unified Problem to be Solved. There may be, among the various considerations a woman (or man) makes problems that can be solved at a broader level (health care is a good example), but framing the discussion in a way that invalidates what is, to me, a perfectly reasonable choice for many people made with through a thoughtful weighing of the pros and cons and sets that decision up as a problem to be solved is probably not constructive. The "real world" as you term it, is not even remotely that simple.
I find it sad that the culture of money/get-a-job/be-your-own-dog has become so pervasive that it is viewed as "foolish" to rely upon others for your economic survival. We are social creatures - no human lives for long on their own. We must interact with family, neighbors, community members, even strangers for our continued happy survival. We do as a species rely upon each other for hundreds of things - you can see this by examining for even a moment any non-money-based "primitive" society.
To have culturally been pushed to the point where even the closest family members are "foolish" for relying upon one another, to view as "wisdom" that each should have to work in a cube receiving pieces of paper with a President's picture on it for economic security, well, we've surely lost something essential along the way.
If people want to be lonely cogs in a machine serving the almighty economy, that's their choice. But I don't think it is foolish to follow another path.
Yes! What bae and Catherine said! :) I don't have statistics on hand, but in general people who really pull together as a family/community seem to be far, far better off economically than those who live alone and in isolation. It's not perfect, nothing is, but when well executed it is a beautiful thing.
When it comes to economic dependence (on a man, or on a community, or on a government) I am firmly in the camp of "trust in god, but keep your powder dry." Both my community ties and my marriage are very strong, but I've also developed a high degree of self-sufficiency. There are different degrees of economic dependence as well -- I worry for SAHMs who have no job skills, no skills in handling/investing money, and no knowledge of their own rights and resources, should the marriage upon which they depend 100% go sour. I wouldn't go so far as to call them foolish, but they certainly are taking a big risk imho.
Maybe the lesson to take from this is that judgements and generalizations based solely on labels don't work very well.
ApatheticNoMore
4-13-12, 3:00pm
I worry for SAHMs who have no job skills, no skills in handling/investing money, and no knowledge of their own rights and resources, should the marriage upon which they depend 100% go sour. I wouldn't go so far as to call them foolish, but they certainly are taking a big risk imho.
Exactly my point, then they may find themselves older, divorced, and no longer able to offer anything to the world that it considers much worth renumeration (this cruel cruel world where everything depends on that). And that is sad. Heck, it's tragic.
No longer young and pretty for some man to support (divorce ususally seems to hit women in their 40s and 50s). People at that age that find themselves unemployed can have problems getting jobs even with long work records all due to age discrimination in the workplace. But to have little in the way of work record and then find yourself in that situation at that age? Catastrophic. A lot of the long term unemployed "it's a depression we have happening now" people I met while unemployed had somewhat marginal work records. To say they deserve it, omg I don't say things like that. I tend not to use those phrases for people @#$#ed by this economy! By this cruel and brutal economy that chews people up and spits them out like so many wads of gum, for it's own purposes. But their work records were not the shiniest out there AND they were middle aged (never the younger ones in that pit, age discrimination in hiring was real). AND YET THEY HAD FAIRLY RECENT WORK RECORDS generally. They had years of experience. They didn't always have degrees :( But to find yourself unemployed, middle aged, without that work experience to sell ....
Exactly my point, then they may find themselves older, divorced, and no longer able to offer anything to the world that it considers much worth renumeration (this cruel cruel world where everything depends on that). And that is sad. Heck, it's tragic.
It works both ways too.
My grandmother passed away a few years ago. She wasn't exactly a shy-and-retiring barefoot-in-the-kitchen homemaker. Before WWII, she sang with the Tommy Dorsey Band. During the war, she abandoned her snazzy dresses, put on overalls, and built weapons in a factory to defeat Hitler. And married my grandfather, and had three children in close order. After the war, she worked in town as a commercial baker through the 1960s, while my grandfather was a postman and farmer. Her baking job was part-time, and left her time to manage the household and do the traditional-gender-stereotyped inside-the-home chores, while grandpa would do the outside tasks on the farm before and after delivering the mail.
When she died, Grandpa was heartbroken. He was also completely unable to live alone. He had *never* cooked a meal, or done many of the non-repair-type inside chores. No laundry, no cleaning, nada.
Several of us had to take turns going over to live with him to teach him basic life skills.
After a few months of this training, he managed to live on his own, passing away in his own home in his '90s.
SAHM here.
My husband doesn't support me - I am his partner in a lifelong commitment called marriage, a sacrament of the church.
(Albeit a rocky one, in my own personal case at the moment, but as with most things in life, I just grit my teeth and get through and know that life has its' ebbs & flows).
I too have been a working mom when I had to be and have a healthy career to resume and purposefully chose a career path that is female dominated and very understanding of women taking time away from paid work for their family.
I am currently a SAHM because I don't see the point in paying someone to do something that I want to do and brings me infinite joy.
Because I live according to the principles that I've learned here (Simple Living), I can do that.
And thankfully I LOVE beans & rice and eating a more simple diet is now in vogue!
I want to drive every carpool I can because that's where I get the real dirt and I am hyper-sensitive on keeping my kids' on the straight and narrow since the 'liquor flu' runs in my family.
loosechickens
4-13-12, 3:49pm
My feeling is that Ms. Rosen's words were poorly chosen, and have to some degree been taken out of context, as when I read her entire remarks, I didn't feel she was "dissing" stay at home moms, but I also know it is election season and the other side would be quick to pounce for their own reasons, which, honestly, I think was just to spark these kinds of "mommy wars" again, because they know that the conservatives might be far more likely to prefer a traditional stay at home mother, so a way to stick a wedge in, and also take the heat off of the recent things that were very likely to alienate large numbers of women that the GOP and some of their Presidential candidates espoused......such as the "elimination of Planned Parenthood", restrictions on access to contraceptives, inclusion of women's contraceptives in health insurance policies, invasive vaginal probes and such for women seeking abortions, etc.
It worked well. We shall see if it made a difference in the huge gender gap in this election. Time will tell.
It's sad, because instead of really focusing on the important issues at play in this election, they've got us snarling at each other working women against stay at home mothers, etc..........divide and conquer. You'd think we were smarter than this.
It's mean-spirited to disparage mothering skills because you've chosen to delegate some of the tasks.
I hadn't thought about that. Delegation is certainly a kind of work, and I imagine overseeing staff at several homes could be a full time job.
As far as class war goes, Warren Buffett said it best--paraphrasing--"The class war is over, and my class won."
My husband doesn't support me - I am his partner in a lifelong commitment called marriage
My sentiments exactly.
As far as finances go, I'm the wage slave, she's the CFO.
ApatheticNoMore
4-13-12, 4:18pm
It's sad, because instead of really focusing on the important issues at play in this election, they've got us snarling at each other working women against stay at home mothers, etc..........divide and conquer. You'd think we were smarter than this
Yea basically they are trolling us (not this message board, I mean the political parties are trolling the populus). And I can feed a troll with the best of them (putting a home baked cake under the bridge and so on), but basically it is trolling, it's deliberately derailing any intellegent conversation with inflamatory stuff. So like they say don't feed the trolls! Can we make it go viral, make some kind of meme to make "don't feed the trolls!" the standard reply to all non-issue stuff that comes up in the campaign and all discussion of it? To where people start including it in letters to the editor, bring it up at a townhall debate (ha that wouldn't be allowed they screen anyone who gets into those harder than a jury!). I mean discussion itself is harmless for the most part ... but again it is troll feeding. Take the phrase out of internet land and use it as a weapon against political propaganda?
Wheels within wheels but our entire political dialogue (not necessarily individuals, I mean stuff coming at us from the top down that individuals too often go along with) is distractions within distractions. What issue won't be talked about in the election as major? The environment. But it IS major, it's huge. We'll just pretend we can somehow make this economic system work without destroying the planet. Possible human extinction, maybe, we won't even look at that. The whole thing is denial of reality (as I see it :)). Ok if that doesn't condemn the whole thing I don't know what does. But I understand perfectly why people would make the economy their issue because it affects people on a day to day level and to an immense degree. It's bad now and maybe the whole house of cards collapses completely, you know darn well they feared Europe bringing it all down and still do. And I understand all the other issues that can't be talked about, the wars, the fascism, don't speak of any of it. But stay at home moms and birth control must be what we focus on. Well: don't feed the trolls!
I can see the T-shirt: Your slogan with a row of round photographs of the biggest loudmouth trolls (from both sides) with a big red strikethru over each face......somebody could easily put that up on cafepress.com and spin it.
I love marriage and believe in it, but I will never put myself entirely at someone else's economic mercy. I have counseled too many women who married alcoholism and physical/emotional abuse (or who didn't, but it came later), or who are desperately unhappy, and feel they have no way out because they have not learned basic skills of survival in this society and this economy. Not being able to cook a hot meal is not the same as ending up in a homeless shelter. Besides, my husband finds strong, self-sufficient women pretty sexy ;) Trusting in god and keeping my powder dry....
Besides, my husband finds strong, self-sufficient women pretty sexy ;) Trusting in god and keeping my powder dry....
My own wife's husband feels the same way.
I agree that the comment was picked from a larger context. I saw the infamous line delivered without the benefit of the rest of the conversation on that last bastion of conservatism: the Today show. I also noticed how quickly that right wing extremist, President Obama, reacted to distance himself from Ms. Rosen's comments. Where anyone on the right messed up has nothing to do with the comment itself. A very few on the far right, the Catholic League in particular, attempted to attack Ms Rosen's sexuality (apparently she is half of a committed lesbian relationship) or the validity of her family (apparently she and her partner adopted one or more children). If her comment was ignorant, that is more so.
Truthful? The other SAHMs of five boys in the room apparently disagree. It was an inflammatory comment designed and delivered as a sound bite. The logical conclusion is that Ms. Rosen said what she said hoping to get her fifteen minutes of fame. If that is true, it worked. I've never seen her on anything as high profile as the Today show before this. Actually, I've never seen her anywhere before this.
In the coverage of Mrs. Romney I have seen she seems quite proud of her family, especially her kids. She has said she made the choice to stay at home with the boys rather than seek a position outside the house. She has also said she was grateful to have been in the position to have had that choice. That just doesn't strike me as something an angry, ashamed person would say.
wow! chill out people! Mitt said he was going to his wife for economic advise as far as working women went and the consultant said his wife wasn't the best one to go to. I never said she wasn't proud of her family, or a good mom (do i really need to pull up the video of John Stewarts 'republican victimization brilliance' yet again?)
In truth, she hasn't had to struggle, or work outside the home. That is the truth. Period. Sure, the cut sound bites sound bad, they are cut to be that way. But the TRUTH of the statement is , well, true.
What I meant about her 'shame' is, she seems to have taken offense at this truth. That's her problem. If she has taken offense at this woman saying she has never worked outside the home, then again, that's her problem. She hasn't worked out side the home.
I suppose we could all pretend she has struggled and worried whether to buy groceries or medicine, but we all know that's just not the truth. That doesn't make her a bad woman, or a bad mother, it's just the truth. Period. And the fact that she has taken offense at this truth is more offensive to me, than the statement, because this tells me that staying home and taking care of your family is somehow a thing to take offense at. This 'Faux' outrage from the right tells me more of the value the right puts on women than anything. If they truly valued the mother staying home to take care of the family then why would they take offense at someone saying she stayed home and took care of her family? Why aren't they saying 'damn right she did!' Or, 'thank goodness they had the means for her to stay home and take care of the family'
If this was their choice, then she needs to own it. Instead of taking offense at the truth of her situation, she should stand up and own it, and be proud of their choice. It offends me more that they would be offended and ashamed by their choice, because , the truth is, the consultant didn't say an untruth. What she said was the truth. Mitt's wife hasn't worked a day outside the home and isn't qualified to advise the (potentially) future president on economic issues facing working women.
Sorry Peggy, but we all struggle. They may be different struggles perhaps sometimes, but we all have our issues and our demons to deal with. Just because I make more money than I did in my 20's, doesn't mean my life is idyllic all the time.
But I do agree someone who has not worked outside the home is not qualified to talk for those that do.
ApatheticNoMore
4-13-12, 7:15pm
And the fact that she has taken offense at this truth is more offensive to me, than the statement
I hear you. It is the truth. But properly contextualized it is the truth of pretty much anyone we get in the upper realms of power these days. A political system in which the most important voices are Walmart workers, low level medical workers, and cubical drones is definitely a political system we do not have (but keep the pressure on - I don't know what stay at home moms think, but as a working person I think: SOLIDARITY FOREVER!).
If his wife is now his economic advisor on the issues of working women well that is some major affirmative action there, don't tell me, she only got the job because of her gender :laff:
Wildflower
4-14-12, 4:08am
Ann Romney has Multiple Sclerosis - that in itself is a terrible struggle, which many couldn't even begin to relate to. My FIL has MS and I know what this disease does. Ann Romney has had anything but an easy life....
goldensmom
4-14-12, 7:12am
Interesting and sad how one person’s (Hilary Rosan) statement sparks such emotion. A powerful example of words unnecessarily spoken.
Mitt said he was going to his wife for economic advise as far as working women went
This is something I don't get - what exactly ARE the economic issues of working women? To me it seems that economic issues that effect women with families are the same that effect men with families - whether the guy is a SAHP (we have one on this board), a working stiff with a spouse and family to support, or a single Dad with full or shared custody. Why does anyone even need to be advised on "seperate" women's economic issues. The only women-specific issues I can think of would be reproductive issues and equal rights issues. Since I've been divorced I dated 2 men who were single, working, full time parents of young kids (one guy had 3 kids under 10 and the other had 2 under 10). They did the exact same things as a working or SAH Mom and they had the exact same economic and social concerns as a working or SAH Mom. And there is a huge number of divorced men that have shared custody of their kids. I imagine they have the same economic concerns as women do too. Even men in traditional families where the wife is at home as the caregiver while he works, still has the same economic concerns as do any other person raising a family. To seperate the concerns of family men as different - and maybe less important - as that of women from political economic or social policies diminishes the role of men in the family life IMHO. And of course there are the single, childless, working men and women - don't we count when it comes to economic issues?
I find it sad that the culture of money/get-a-job/be-your-own-dog has become so pervasive that it is viewed as "foolish" to rely upon others for your economic survival. We are social creatures - no human lives for long on their own. We must interact with family, neighbors, community members, even strangers for our continued happy survival. We do as a species rely upon each other for hundreds of things - you can see this by examining for even a moment any non-money-based "primitive" society.
To have culturally been pushed to the point where even the closest family members are "foolish" for relying upon one another, to view as "wisdom" that each should have to work in a cube receiving pieces of paper with a President's picture on it for economic security, well, we've surely lost something essential along the way.
If people want to be lonely cogs in a machine serving the almighty economy, that's their choice. But I don't think it is foolish to follow another path.
While I agree that it isn't foolish to rely on others - be it a spouse or a community - to help us, support us, or to share duties in exchange for that support, I also see so many people, generally women who had been SAHP's), who suffer so much when a divorce or death of a bread-winner spose happens. With a divorce rate of greater that 50% (as well as possible death of a spouse), and the likely impovishment that can come afterwards, I do think it is wise to prepare the same way we prepare for any potential disaster - something I know you do really welll Bae. If that means that a SAHP takes a few classes while the kids are in school, or works part time to keep up their skills then I think that is a wise choice. If I had kids I would choose to be a SAHP if I could - and would make huge financial and lifestyle sacrifices so that I COULD stay at home - but I would also try to find a way to prepare myself for the possibility that my spouse dies, becomes unemployed or leaves me (or I want to leave him) so that I can continue to support my kids. I think that preparing yourself to be the possible sole support of your family, is one of the most important aspects of parenting. Like many others on this board, I came from a very impoverished single parent family household and saw the extreme struggles and workload that a 15 year SAHM had to go thru to just maintain even the barest of existance for her 3 kids following a divorce. Things happen and I think it's always best to be prepared rather than "count on the kindness of strangers".
ApatheticNoMore
4-14-12, 1:10pm
This is something I don't get - what exactly ARE the economic issues of working women? To me it seems that economic issues that effect women with families are the same that effect men with families
I think that things that would fall under this are things like family leave (although sometimes men take that too).
In general work-life balance would do working parents a world of good (and childless people too! :)), but fat chance you know. My goodness what would even a true 40 hour week and real overtime law do (you know where employers actualy had to pay for the overtime hours they worked their employees - so many people are exempt from that these days, it's ridiculous). Many mothers I knew (professionally of course!) went right back to work after their 6 week or so leave was up, at companies that threatened anyone who only wanted to work a 40 hour week with termination (and yet here they are having a very *young* child to care for as well. Are they supposed to have any time to spend with them? All encouragted because overtime was literally free to the employer. Do you imagine the Romney's care?)
Other things are just basic economic pressures that affect everyone, but I wouldn't want to be paying for a family medical plan, I'll tell you that! Ouchy, no wonder both parents work.
And of course there are the single, childless, working men and women - don't we count when it comes to economic issues?
And married childless people. But have you ever heard any politician ever act like such things even existed? We literally don't matter (but oh are our taxes useful, because since we don't have all the deductions we sure are paying them. But that doesn't mean politicians will even acknowledge our existence or anything).
Ann Romney has Multiple Sclerosis - that in itself is a terrible struggle, which many couldn't even begin to relate to. My FIL has MS and I know what this disease does. Ann Romney has had anything but an easy life....
I had no idea she has MS!
Sorry Peggy, but we all struggle. They may be different struggles perhaps sometimes, but we all have our issues and our demons to deal with. Just because I make more money than I did in my 20's, doesn't mean my life is idyllic all the time.
But I do agree someone who has not worked outside the home is not qualified to talk for those that do.
I never said she hasn't struggled for whatever reason. I never said she wasn't a good mother or a good wife, or a good supporter for her husbands ambitions. I never said any of those things, or even implied them. All I said was, she isn't the expert a future possible president would go to for advise in this area. That's all I said, and essentially that's all the consultant said. Period. She really isn't an expert in this area any more than I'm an expert in elevators for cars. Pretending otherwise is phony.
You know, no one said anything about her or his family until he started to try to portray them as everyman average struggling family. That's when people started calling them on it.
These people are super wealthy and build houses and ride horses and spend money as a hobby. Fine. Why are they trying to portray themselves as something else? Are they ashamed of their wealth? Apparently, cause they keep trying to portray themselves as something else, even though they just can't stop being themselves (building an elevator for their cars)
This is what drives me and others nuts! Republicans value wealthy people and worship wealthy, successfully wealthy people to the point where most of their policy is geared towards the wealthy, yet take offense if we point out that they are wealthy people who enjoy the fruits of wealth! And don't even try to compare their wealth with the Obama's. the Obama's aren't building elevators for their cars. This is just a completely different stratosphere of wealth. Not that the Obama's wouldn't do that if they had that kind of wealth, they simply don't.
The point is, Romney doesn't realize that most of us would respect him more if he just 'was' as he is and quit pretending he is something else. It's just so phony. It's not the wealth that turns off people, it's the phoniness. Don't talk excessively about it, or flaunt it, but don't try to hide it, or pretend it doesn't exist either. Just be who you are.
But even his campaign manager said he is an etch 'o sketch, re-booting and revising as needed.
Ann Romney has Multiple Sclerosis - that in itself is a terrible struggle, which many couldn't even begin to relate to. My FIL has MS and I know what this disease does. Ann Romney has had anything but an easy life....
But it doesn't make her qualified as an economic advisor on working women, does it. It does perhaps make her somewhat of an expert on the struggles of living with a medical condition, which actually could have been a factor in his implementing a successful health care plan for his state, which was the inspiration for Obama's health care plan.
Now, if he says he went to her for advise in that, I would agree she was an important, credible advisor. But, considering how fast he is running away from one of the very successful programs he put in place, I'm guessing he won't be pointing out her creds in that. Unfortunate, really. I can guess she was very instrumental in his decisions for Mass Health care.
This is something I don't get - what exactly ARE the economic issues of working women? To me it seems that economic issues that effect women with families are the same that effect men with families - whether the guy is a SAHP (we have one on this board), a working stiff with a spouse and family to support, or a single Dad with full or shared custody. Why does anyone even need to be advised on "separate" women's economic issues. The only women-specific issues I can think of would be reproductive issues and equal rights issues. Since I've been divorced I dated 2 men who were single, working, full time parents of young kids (one guy had 3 kids under 10 and the other had 2 under 10). They did the exact same things as a working or SAH Mom and they had the exact same economic and social concerns as a working or SAH Mom. And there is a huge number of divorced men that have shared custody of their kids. I imagine they have the same economic concerns as women do too. Even men in traditional families where the wife is at home as the caregiver while he works, still has the same economic concerns as do any other person raising a family. To separate the concerns of family men as different - and maybe less important - as that of women from political economic or social policies diminishes the role of men in the family life IMHO. And of course there are the single, childless, working men and women - don't we count when it comes to economic issues?
Exactly! I'm sure he said that to try to prove his 'concern' for woman's issues, considering the republican war on women.
But you know, if she really does have MS, then she could be an actual, credible advisor on the issues of living with health issues, personally (although she still isn't having to choose between medicine or groceries). These are issues that are pretty much front and center right now, and very important to everyone, not just women. so if he wants to give her a purpose, or a role in his campaign, then why not use her in that way? Why not speak of her in this appropriate, credible role? Well, this tells me he is just using her as window dressing, a buffer between him and angry women. He's not consulting her for anything, and that's just sad. Because he could, apparently, and chooses instead to phony her as some working woman's economic advisor.
I'm guessing, and it's just a guess, he isn't telling the truth about her input and advise, because it has to do with the Mass health care laws, which are successful, but NOT REPUBLICAN, therefore taboo to discuss.
Mangano's Gold
4-14-12, 8:31pm
A couple years ago we went to Mexico to climb a mountain and spent a few days in a village at the base waiting for others to arrive. The people in that village live a lifestyle far more removed from mine than I would guess yours is from the Romneys. And yet, after spending just that extremely short amount of time with them I think I have a pretty fair idea of how they live.....
Sure, but you aren't being held out as an advisor to a Mexican Presidential candidate on the issues facing rural Mexicans. If you were, I am sure a Mexican pundit would point out how silly that was.
It's pure politics. The American right saw this as an opportunity to score some points. Ditto the birth control thing. The American left saw it as an opportunity to score political points. Mitt Romney isn't taking away anyone's birth control, and Obama isn't taking away anyone's guns or Bibles. They are peripheral side-show issues that are abused to garner sympathy and support for the real issues - the economic ones.
loosechickens
4-14-12, 11:35pm
Well, if we are angrily debating the "mommy wars", and nitpicking as to whether Ann Romney had nannies or not, we AREN'T noticing that the Romney campaign didn't even know what its position WAS on the Lily Ledbetter law when asked, the Republicans have been actively espousing positions that would strip health benefits from women, make invasive and demeaning requirements before they would be allowed to obtain an abortion, had little interest in the still major pay gaps between men and women, etc., or even for anyone to notice that it would be pretty impossible for Ann Romney to serve as an advisor to her husband on the difficulties facing working mothers, especially those of low income who would be disproportionally affected by the changes the Republicans want to make.
I'm sure that there ARE areas in which Ann Romney could be an excellent advisor for her husband, in dealing with a chronic illness, for example, and perhaps pointing out that as difficult as that is for her, how much MORE difficult it might be for other women with the same condition, but without access to good health insurance, money, etc.
Ann Romney seems to be a very nice woman who has certainly been an excellent traditional wife to her husband, and raised five fine sons. But how that in any way makes her someone a Presidential candidate should turn to to explore how public policies affect women working outside the home and mothers of very limited means who MUST both mother and work outside jobs, even more than one to survive, is ridiculous. One would think Romney would talk to women himself.
Everybody in power on the Republican side understands this is a side show.....but guess what? It's working......we have pages and pages of discussion, pitting working women against stay at home moms, arguing the mommy wars that should have been settled long ago, while issues that affect ALL women are being ignored. Which is just what they want.
I really hope that women are way smarter than this. All of 'em. Even conservative women, especially those of limited means have to deal with access to health care, having their reproductive care needs met, whether or not they get paid differently (less) than a man for the same work, whether they will be saddled with more expense and care of the elderly if cuts are made to Medicaid and Medicare, etc.
ApatheticNoMore
4-15-12, 2:36am
I really hope that women are way smarter than this. All of 'em.
I think I am :). I slam Obama. But really I don't care if someone goes into a voting booth and votes Obama, I care little more what they do there for the Presidential vote, than I care what they do when behind a bathroom stall (and it's about as appealing!). The game is rigged and the lower down you go the more influence you actually have - house members are more important to vote for than President! I just hope they don't go sliding down the chain of cognitive dissonance and needing to justify thier choice, to thinking that because they vote for someone for President they can't see the riggedness of the game and how corrupt many of the policies we get are regardless of who is in office.
I see most of the Republican agenda as being even worse (except for Ron Paul, Ron would be interesting, he's really really good on the issues he's really good on and his pure libertarian agenda might be surprisingly better in some areas than much of the corporatism we have - remember things like BP are not only very poorly regulated -which they were for sure! - but are also pure corporatism). But the only reason I could see voting Romney is he's the devil we don't know (and the devil we do know is pretty aweful, but it doesn't mean a random coin toss is going to be any better, and what is more random than Romney's positions on anything from day to day? And some of the money that backs him may be even worse than the money backing Obama - Obama is Goldman Sachs and so on, but Romney might be more Exxon etc.). But a Romney presidency might wake some conscientious objectors on the left up from 4 years of comma - suddenly they will start caring about civil liberties and the wars and the environment and so on. And of course I am supportive of anyone choosing a 3rd party vote. I dont' support not voting, the only message that sends is apathy.
The problem is all issues are niche issues. Birth control is surely a niche issue because most people can afford their own birth control (and from one step of remove 3rd party payers in medicine are far from a proven win long term). The economy strikes broader because there are a LOT of unemployed and some businesses are also in trouble. So it's definitely why a lot more people are going to care about the economy than birth control (or should IMO). It doesn't really have a strong effect on the employed (the lack of bargaining power with employers is somewhat offset by the lack of inflation etc.), but the swath of people who lost jobs was cut wide, so people know people affected (I surely do) and lots of people could see themselves in that situation and a job is so basic, it's not just that without a job you can't afford birth control, it's that without a job you kinda can't afford anything!
Personally, I want people to focus on the big picture, that without a habitable planet, um nothing. The environment should be a huge issue IMO. But it's not. And partly (the understandable part) is because people are so overwhelmed with their own survival they can't see it. If people become Democratic partisans (partisans and not just lesser of two evilist) over certain government benefits it is in that case because they badly need them. And to such people you can't point out the fact that Obama is drone bombing and continuing and starting wars, and claims the right to kill anyone, and signs NDAA, and is rather lame though perhaps lesser of two evils on even liberal issues like the environment (fracking, tar sands, etc. continue) and even benefits etc.. The priviledged people who know better and earn more (and I've always been such even when unemployed and scared) who also can't see this have no excuses! But so many people have no money or have no time or both, how do you make them care about climate change even though it's hitting them over the head, how do you make them understand resource wars even though that represents what so much of what our taxes go to and will not even be debated? Heck how do you get most of the populus to even read like a few books a year :\ Movements like OWS is the only real awareness raising we have.
whether they will be saddled with more expense and care of the elderly if cuts are made to Medicaid and Medicare, etc.
sure they won't get this with an Obama 2nd term? Remember Obama put those cuts on the table.
The only conclusion I'm able to make from this thread is that any Republican candidate is going to have an extremely difficult time finding an adviser on women's issues who is both qualified to analyze policy at a national level AND be mainstream female enough to please anyone who is a little less conservative. One more scrap for the partisan politics heap.
loosechickens
4-15-12, 2:28pm
The Medicare cuts that Obama put on the table had much more to do with reining in the Medicare Advantage program which was SUPPOSED to save money, but has actually increased costs and reduced quality of care because the companies were using it as a cash cow and pulling in profits in administrative costs that were far above the Medicare program itself. It's handy for Republicans to yell "Obama wanted to cut XXXXX from Medicare" without anyone recognizing that the cuts that were proposed actually IMPROVED care and access, and cut down on high administrative expenses for the Advantage programs. Not that facts have much traction in any of this election business............
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/dec/12/mitt-romney/romney-says-only-obama-has-cut-medicare/
ApatheticNoMore
4-15-12, 2:50pm
The conservative position on stay at home moms always has been beyond bizarre. Conservatism: has there ever been an ideology that more worshiped money making and labor in the formal economy like ever ever in human history? Only industrialized country with no mandatory vacation policy. Overtime laws vastly undermined by the salaried exception (low level managers at restaurant CHAINS are counted as "management" not to mention most professional cubical dwellers). Nothing but work constantly and all the time (what you want 2 or 3 weeks vacation a year? you want a 40 hour week? why you are crazy ... ack a welfare mother is not working somewhere, oh noes!) and yet special exceptions for stay at home moms in their ideology for some reason (I'm not sure what, I think it has to do with woman's inferiority - since formal labor is what they REALLY respect). Is our labor policy really going to be determined mostly by people who don't work? They are no more experts to speak against mandatory vacation time or overtime laws, than childless poeple are the experts on say a law mandating cloth diapers!
The conservative position on stay at home moms always has been beyond bizarre. Conservatism: has there ever been an ideology that more worshiped money making and labor in the formal economy like ever ever in human history? Only industrialized country with no mandatory vacation policy. Overtime laws vastly undermined by the salaried exception (low level managers at restaurant CHAINS are counted as "management" not to mention most professional cubical dwellers). Nothing but work constantly and all the time (what you want 2 or 3 weeks vacation a year? you want a 40 hour week? why you are crazy ... ack a welfare mother is not working somewhere, oh noes!) and yet special exceptions for stay at home moms in their ideology for some reason (I'm not sure what, I think it has to do with woman's inferiority - since formal labor is what they REALLY respect). Is our labor policy really going to be determined mostly by people who don't work? They are no more experts to speak against mandatory vacation time or overtime laws, than childless poeple are the experts on say a law mandating cloth diapers!
I believe that the real position on stay at home moms, among lots of people, including some conservatives, is the nuclear family. I don't know of anyone who think women are inferior, in any regard.
ApatheticNoMore
4-15-12, 3:15pm
If the argument is that a mother spending some time with her kids has value, I don't argue. Personally (personally, gah I didn't say everyone had to do it), I think the ideal situation is a mother working part-time (like really a 20 hour week) while having young kids (and maybe not working at all in the first couple of years).
I see how much some women miss adult interaction and responsibilities and use of their skilils (my own mother as a SAHM did! terribly!! we were always aware of how much she missed it - this was a woman with a highly technical masters degree for heavens sake, mothering was not enough), not to mention a little spending money of their own and keeping up their skills in case the marriage does end and for if they want to work full time once the kids are grown. But I also think FULL time work and parenting is incredibly difficult. That ideal however is very hard to acheive in this society (though steps could be taken to make this a lot easier - Germany for instance has a lot of laws protecting and enabling part-time work). My point was merely that many things besides money making have value: just the little selfish things like cooking healthy food and exercising, and then the wider more social things: maintaining friendships, reading, keeping up on politics, volunteering, recycling, composting etc. etc.. And so some real work life balance across the board would be welcome (real overtime laws etc.). I'll ask Misses Romney what she thinks of that :P.
Only industrialized country with no mandatory vacation policy.
I have enough vacation time. What I don't have is any use for a government that would force an employer to give me more (or less) regardless of the merits of my work.
What I don't have is any use for a government that would force an employer to give me more (or less) regardless of the merits of my work.
I don't have much use for a government that presumes to tell me, an adult citizen, how I am allowed to enter into contracts for my time and services with other freely willing parties.
I don't have much use for a government that presumes to tell me, an adult citizen, how I am allowed to enter into contracts for my time and services with other freely willing parties.
and the power of the corpocracy continues. Well, as long as we're free - free to work with no sick pay, no vacation days, no pension, high-cost health insurance - if any - and extra working hours on demand, and free to train our overseas replacement.
But, no problem, because we're freeeee!
ApatheticNoMore
4-15-12, 6:10pm
and the power of the corpocracy continues. Well, as long as we're free - free to work with no sick pay, no vacation days, no pension, high-cost health insurance - if any - and extra working hours on demand, and free to train our overseas replacement.
But, no problem, because we're freeeee!
We're free to be worked to the death, or else not work at all and let some man support us I guess. Work will set you free! Any kind of work life balance though can not be had at any price you could afford! Incidently since vacations are not mandatory (but generally conventional) couldn't you see them going away entirely in maybe a decade or so? (the way of pensions and the 40 hour week)
We're free to be worked to the death, or else not work at all and let some man support us I guess.
Or to work for yourself, or to unionize with your fellow workers to negotiate for better employment terms, or to seek out a better employer, or ...
Your only options aren't "to be worked to death, or else not work at all" - a false choice set up to eliminate an entire universe of middle ground options...
Most people want a job so badly that they'll take what they can get these days, and so terrified of loosing that job that they won't rock the boat in any way if they can avoid it.
The real question is how we are defining freedom. Here the minimum vacation is determined in labor law, but people -- individual workers -- are free to work how ever they like. Their employer can't demand it, but they can choose to not take their holidays. I pretty much see that as freedom in both directions.
I also think it's ok for a group of people to choose to utilize their government over unions for this effort. They are free to, right?
I also think it's ok for a group of people to choose to utilize their government over unions for this effort. They are free to, right?
But in this case "using their government" means "voting to use force to impose your will on another person", whereas unlike governments, unions have no sanctioned ability to use force to impose their desires on others. So the two cases are very different.
except that, practically speaking, a union can make it very difficult for a person to work without joining the union (or such is the case with many trades), and therefore also impacting people's freedom (even if they don't have any sanctioned ability).
and the power of the corpocracy continues. Well, as long as we're free - free to work with no sick pay, no vacation days, no pension, high-cost health insurance - if any - and extra working hours on demand, and free to train our overseas replacement.
But, no problem, because we're freeeee!
Ahhh... So what you're saying is that people have a RIGHT to vacation?
Ahhh... So what you're saying is that people have a RIGHT to vacation?
yes! It's inalienable. It's in the Constitution. Oh, wait...
Ahhh... So what you're saying is that people have a RIGHT to vacation?
Along with a right to a short commute and a schedule that fit's my needs rather than the employer's?
What we each actually have a right to do is to bargain with prospective employers to secure benefits we find desirable. If we don't find them at one place, we have the right to move on. Why is that such a foreign concept?
Why is that such a foreign concept?
Maybe because it would require an individual to take action to produce a result. Action carries an implied responsibility. Such a course would be counter to the trend of removing all sense of responsibility for members of the hive...errr, electorate. Responsibility just doesn't fit well enough onto a spoon to be viable.
"Work will set you free!" i used to have a tiny sign at my desk expressing this sentiment in its original German. Talk about cynical irony. At any rate, I did my time, and i am now free.
ApatheticNoMore
4-16-12, 11:24am
I often think it's a life sentence with no possibiility of parole, all those lies we put our money into that are going to pay off someday like 401ks are merely lies noone can really be dupe enough to believe.
Ah yes, the attitude of the privileged (are they clueless or smart foxes?). "Just get another job!" "simply move on!" "There are sooo many options" except, of course, using our government to set standards and rules to help the powerless.
But, in the elite, I-got-mine-to-hell-with-you, everyman for himself utopia, this country would be like china/Taiwan/Korea where workers work long days for pennies and don't dare ask for a little time off cause there is always someone waiting to take that job. Lords and Serfs...ahh, the good ol days of 1776. Now we know why they want to turn back the clock.
But, funny thing about that 'simply organize for more power in the workplace' ideal, the same people who espouse this as THE WAY, are also the ones who are trying to take even that away.
http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/02/utah_newest_front_in_gop_battle_against_unions.php
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/31/jan-brewer-arizona-gop-anti-union-bills_n_1244422.html
http://www.americablog.com/2011/03/republican-attacks-against-unions-moves.html
http://blogs.knoxnews.com/humphrey/2011/02/republican-governors-against-p.html
So, what is a worker to do?
Interesting stuff peggy, but it continues to dodge the question: is vacation time for workers a RIGHT? Lots of discussion that can follow, but really you either feel it is or it isn't.
ApatheticNoMore
4-16-12, 12:12pm
Some would argue it has been taken away to some degree since as early as Taft-Hartley or before! (the law did set restrictions on what unions could do). Look at what is outlawed: "Secondary action (also known as a secondary boycott or sympathy strike) is industrial action by a trade union in support of a strike initiated by workers in another, separate enterprise". "In the US and UK workers can typically strike against their direct employer only. In continental Europe, secondary action is generally lawful and the right to strike is seen as a part of broader political freedom."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secondary_action#United_States
(wow it's kinda amazing to know all that has been outlawed. This war began long ago .....).
See I suspect OWS general strike is actually illegal (and well I know not going to be terribly effectual in changing anything immediately especially as we dont' have unions!), still I support it generally.
And well union power has definitely diminished more since they started busting unions hard in the 80s and so on. Oh and it's not just the global marketplace, yes fine a global marketplace exists and has it's influence, but in countries with stronger unions the unions still improve life for the workers despite the old global marketplace. If those who support unions and not government were truly interested in how unions can be strengthened and made more powerful, I would listen, because it's long past time. I do have doubts that there is any political ability to do anything even via government without a strong labor movement!
Interesting stuff peggy, but it continues to dodge the question: is vacation time for workers a RIGHT? Lots of discussion that can follow, but really you either feel it is or it isn't.
It's part of the 'American Dream' Package. Is a coffee break a right? Lunch break? Time off when you are sick? Health care (apparently not) or any of the other things that make up this whole package called workers rights, whether written or unwritten, that make working life in the United States of America what it is.
The real question is, do you really want to accept lower standards for workers than what we kind of enjoy and accept today? Why would you advocate for lower standards? What kind of country do you envision? Do you really think we should model our work standards on China?
It really puzzles me how people can just spout off the mantra of how our country is the best and the envy of the world, blah blah blah, without really understanding WHY it is the best and the envy of the world.
The real question is, do you really want to accept lower standards for workers than what we kind of enjoy and accept today? Why would you advocate for lower standards? What kind of country do you envision? Do you really think we should model our work standards on China?
Is someone advocating lower standards?
It really puzzles me how people can just spout off the mantra of how our country is the best and the envy of the world, blah blah blah, without really understanding WHY it is the best and the envy of the world.
I think it's because we have historically allowed people to live their own lives without undue governmental influence. Why do you think it is the best and the envy of the world?
except that, practically speaking, a union can make it very difficult for a person to work without joining the union (or such is the case with many trades), and therefore also impacting people's freedom (even if they don't have any sanctioned ability).
Typically because the union too has arranged to have the government use force on its behalf. If the union functioned entirely as a voluntary group of freely associating individuals morally acting for their mutual interests, instead of as an organized gang of looters, the problems you are concerned with wouldn't arise...
I didn't hear the original comment in context, so I don't know what to think, and I don't know anything about Ann Romney. But I agree that anyone who thinks any of these candidates "is just like me" is in for a very big shock. It wasn't that long ago that we had a candidate (or recently elected official) who had no idea of grocery prices and was shocked to find them so high. We had a candidate with a child with a complicated medical condition, but he can afford to pay for her care, and he doesn't really think about those in a similar situation who can't afford to pay for care. Most of the candidates, of either party, live in a truly rarified atmosphere, where these considerations of finances just are totally foreign to them. They have plenty of help in rearing their children, keeping their mansions clean, and most other aspects of daily life that I really can't imagine what that life must be like. And I'm sure they can't imagine what my life must be like, either.
Frankly, I don't really like ANY of the choices, Dem OR GOP, this year. However, Obama at least seems to have a slightly better idea of what the average person goes through. I remember hearing during the '08 election that he and his wife had just finished paying off student loans (don't remember if they were his or hers) not that far in the past.
Health care (apparently not) or any of the other things that make up this whole package called workers rights, whether written or unwritten, that make working life in the United States of America what it is.
I'm all for a discussion of worker's rights (new thread?), but find this particular statement quite curious. My guess would have been that making healthcare/insurance job attached would have been about the last thing you would stump for, peggy. Sorry about that.
ApatheticNoMore
4-16-12, 2:37pm
I'm happy to know that only unions historically have used any force on their behalf and never management. Hmpf, historically unions have been met with far more than "force", more like violence. But force ... isn't outlawing sympathy strikes already using force? I don't know that they would do any good, but why would anyone in their right mind (um er make that their left mind!) limit any of the possible tools that labor has on it's side?
Frankly, I don't really like ANY of the choices, Dem OR GOP, this year. However, Obama at least seems to have a slightly better idea of what the average person goes through. I remember hearing during the '08 election that he and his wife had just finished paying off student loans (don't remember if they were his or hers) not that far in the past.
It makes financial sense to pay off the highest interest debt first. Along the same lines there is no hurry to pay off lower interest debt (like many student loans) if your money is returning a higher rate from your investments. Mr. and Mrs. Obama's multi-million dollar income over many years should have allowed them to pay off their student debt at any time they wished, but if the debt is at 6% and the return on that money invested elsewhere is 15% there is no incentive to apply anything beyond the minimum payment to the debt. (Strictly hypothetical numbers.)
That is why many wealthy folks take out student loans in the first place. It's not that they can't afford school any other way. Its a way to essentially get paid to borrow money. By the same token its reason that many who could easily afford to pay off a house don't. Mortgage money is available for under 4%. Year over year the stock market has returned 10%. Then there is the mortgage interest deduction on top of that. It's not hard to see the logic. Nothing shady about it, just common sense, but it does not mean the Obamas were a typical young family struggling to make ends meet while staying current on their student loans.
I'm all for a discussion of worker's rights (new thread?), but find this particular statement quite curious. My guess would have been that making healthcare/insurance job attached would have been about the last thing you would stump for, peggy. Sorry about that.
It is the last thing I want, but it's the system we have, isn't it. So, not only do republicans want to destroy any attempt to fix it by President Obama, they also want to limit it within the broken system we have. i.e. allowing employers choose which coverage their women workers will get according to their 'conscience', which apparently doesn't think a wit about women.:(
Is someone advocating lower standards?
I think it's because we have historically allowed people to live their own lives without undue governmental influence. Why do you think it is the best and the envy of the world?
Gee, if it's because the government doesn't 'interfere' with their people, it's a wonder everyone isn't flocking to Columbia, or some other third world nation which 'historically' let's it's people flounder along, 'free' from government interference, or protection, which I gather is interference.
But, let's just pretend it's maybe because the people here, all people, even the poor, huddled masses, have the protections and weight of their government behind them. Perhaps it's because the government doesn't allow the strong to overpower the weak in the name of 'letting them live free from government influence'. Perhaps it's because we (the government) value our elderly to the point we provide them enough to live out their old age with some dignity, and help them with health care. Or maybe it's because we have protections and traditions and expectations for our workers, even those who flip your burgers, with the weight of the government backing those rights.
Oh I'm sure the wealthy corporatist would just LOVE it if the government turned it's back, closed it's eyes and hummed la la la in the name of 'letting everyone live free without government interference, cause, the interference is usually on behalf of the little guy.
Typically because the union too has arranged to have the government use force on its behalf. If the union functioned entirely as a voluntary group of freely associating individuals morally acting for their mutual interests, instead of as an organized gang of looters, the problems you are concerned with wouldn't arise...
and of course by "union" you include Wall Street bankers, pharma corporations, insurance companies, the nuclear power consortiums, etc.
and of course by "union" you include Wall Street bankers, pharma corporations, insurance companies, the nuclear power consortiums, etc.
Feel free to argue the case that other groups also seem to be lining up to get the government to use force to provide them special favors - I certainly agree. But I was not "of course" including all these other immoral actors in the definition of the term "union".
ApatheticNoMore
4-17-12, 1:26am
Feel free to argue the case that other groups also seem to be lining up to get the government to use force to provide them special favors - I certainly agree. But I was not "of course" including all these other immoral actors in the definition of the term "union".
Seems to be is always were. But in matters of degree it really is hard to top the present collusion of government and money.
...which apparently doesn't think a wit about women.
There isn't any reason for me to think that Mrs. Romney wouldn't be an excellent champion for women's issues. Since I'm male and that apparently means my opinion in the matter is worthless I will say that DW agrees. No, Ann Romney has not lived through every scenario that any woman might face. Has anyone? She is not poor, or Catholic, or black, or a red head, or whatever. She is, by all indication, intelligent, articulate, educated, compassionate and knows how to use her connections to get things done. There might be a better candidate out there somewhere, but until that person comes to light you could do a lot worse.
On the grander stage, a lot of us DO care about women. Women are under-represented when it comes to real discussions of the economy on a national or global level. So how do we get women more involved? DW loves her circle of friends, but they also bore the **** out of her. They are mothers who don't follow issues or take a stand who have raised daughters who don't follow issues or take a stand. I can only speak to what we see, but that is a lot of women (as in a HUGE majority) who are simply not engaged in the political or economic process. How many of the hundreds and hundreds of active women members on this site take part in these political discussions on a regular basis? Ten? Less? What can we do to get women more involved here and in the world at large?
mtnlaurel
4-17-12, 10:22am
There isn't any reason for me to think that Mrs. Romney wouldn't be an excellent champion for women's issues. Since I'm male and that apparently means my opinion in the matter is worthless I will say that DW agrees. No, Ann Romney has not lived through every scenario that any woman might face. Has anyone? She is not poor, or Catholic, or black, or a red head, or whatever. She is, by all indication, intelligent, articulate, educated, compassionate and knows how to use her connections to get things done. There might be a better candidate out there somewhere, but until that person comes to light you could do a lot worse.
On the grander stage, a lot of us DO care about women. Women are under-represented when it comes to real discussions of the economy on a national or global level. So how do we get women more involved? DW loves her circle of friends, but they also bore the **** out of her. They are mothers who don't follow issues or take a stand who have raised daughters who don't follow issues or take a stand. I can only speak to what we see, but that is a lot of women (as in a HUGE majority) who are simply not engaged in the political or economic process. How many of the hundreds and hundreds of active women members on this site take part in these political discussions on a regular basis? Ten? Less? What can we do to get women more involved here and in the world at large?
Are you getting Herman Cain's talking points memo?
Just having some fun, don't mind me :)
Lol. Hey, a pizza in every pot, right?
There actually is one place I think Mr. Romney might be stretching the truth. That's where he says (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/hilary-rosen-was-right-ann-romney-doesnt-speak-for-women-in-the-workforce/2012/04/13/gIQAqv3jFT_story.html) (talking about Mrs. Romney)...
“She says that she’s going across the country and talking with women, and what they’re talking about is the debt that we’re leaving the next generation and the failure of this economy to put people back to work.”
In my experience with all our female friends only a couple have ever said anything even remotely close to that. And that circle of friends is made up mostly of educated, professional people who are simply not engaged (by choice). I just can't figure out why because most of them feel that way if you press them for an opinion. What is it that keeps so many women out of the discussion?
iris lily
4-17-12, 10:52am
... I just can't figure out why because most of them feel that way if you press them for an opinion. What is it that keeps so many women out of the discussion?
Check out the "Chicks on the Rights" website, it's fun. It's one of those political headline websites where you get soundbite news of the day and (sometimes) snarky commentary but Mock and Daisy are funny women involved in the politics of the day.
mtnlaurel
4-17-12, 11:38am
What is it that keeps so many women out of the discussion?
Here are my opinions, as a married woman with small children:
- Although I shoot off at the mouth here on a regular basis without facts/articles/links to back me up -- IRL I like to know what I am talking about if I am going to engage in a political discussion (I don't know if that is a personality trait or a gender trait)
- As the primary caregiver in my family, I have 3 people that I 'manage', 2 of them under 4 feet tall, my time is not my own (this was also true when I was a working mom) --- same could be said for the non-primary caregiver in the home that their time is not their own, but somehow my husband keeps up with his reading (WSJ, Atlantic, Sports), exercising more than I do -- that may be more a reflection on my personality more than my gender.... what time I do have I dink around here, more than I should --- but I learn things here in an interactive way which I love
- It's 24/7 being a mom (and a Dad too I'm sure, I've just never been a dad so I don't know the other side) -- -- Mom where's my socks, Mom where's the mustard
My husband and I talk Current Events constantly, I love it, I always have.
I do not like to talk current events with rabid zealots though under any circumstances because it gets me too agitated and is futile in my mind.... so especially when I am with my in-laws they may see me as apolitical, but actually I just don't like talking with them about politics.
Another possibility may be that women may be busy spending their time where they can affect real change in politics --- their PTAs, their volunteer organizations, their faith-related works....
Just because people don't want to shoot off at the mouth, doesn't make them apolitical
This is just written from the perspective of a woman with small children in the midst of Mommydom --- I do realize that this is just one small smidgen of the female experience
I don't find women born post-feminist movement and later reluctant to participate political discussion
I watched my mom bust her hump in a man's world in a backwater town, she never stepped down from a discussion of any kind
I consciously opted out of that path, but then again because of her generation I now have that --- CHOICE
ApatheticNoMore
4-17-12, 12:12pm
I think that many women don't like to argue, it's more competitive for them, they prefer more cooperative stuff. On the way society needs to go overall, more cooperation is the right direction (between equals, cooperation with the powerful is just submission). But I like arguments, debate, and I think the politicians are more than fair game for the most viscious barbs.
What is it that keeps so many women out of the discussion?
Well for me it's just the fact that people won't do the right thing and just all agree that I'm right - always - on every issue ;-)!
I think alot of it is time contraints - especially for working mothers whio have sooo much on their plates between the job, the kids, the house, the dog, the hubby, etc... Even SAHM's are on 24/7 and have sooo much to do when they have downtime that it's hard to get "actively" involved even if they do have a strong interest. As for us single, childless, working or retired women... well, no excuses really, it's just that sometimes you have to work on specific issues near and dear to your heart and let some others go. I'm pretty involved with equal rights and opportunity (and obligation) issues for women, but they aren't the same concerns that most Moms - and maybe most women - have so I don't really get involved with talking about them. It's also hard to have a type-written conversation, I'd MUCH rather do my arguing in person. Within smacking distance :-)!
Well, I THOUGHT this WAS getting in the discussion! Here we are, several women with definite views, discussing those views, and STILL we aren't seen! :(
Funny you don't consider THIS as part of the discussion.
Well, FYI, take the women voices here, right and left, and consider it a cross section of the educated segment of American women. Stay at home, Work out of the Home, small business owners, some privileged and some not so privileged. Young, old, Feminist, or not. Here we are. Ask us anything!
Actually, and this is one reason most scoff at Romney citing his wife as advisor, I don't believe women across the nation are telling her of their concerns about employment, and corporate goals, or any of whatever he said she said, anymore than I believed nuclear proliferation was foremost on little 9 year old Amy Carters mind.
If she is truly an average woman, (and I mean intellectually and emotionally, not financially as it's pretty well documented she isn't that) Her concerns are family oriented as in education, health care (again, I don't see her as advisor on those either as she can afford any school her kids want, and all the health care money can buy) and the related concerns, which encompass the greater neighborhood/city/state/country. When a woman speaks of education, unless she is a dolt, it's understood to mean 'the state of' because of course what affects her family affects her community.
Where a man may discuss 'life' from a business (or sports, or guy thing) perspective, the woman discusses 'life' from a family/people perspective. They are talking about the same thing, and sort of meet in the middle somewhere overlapping, but each must recognize the other's context and metaphors to understand the conversation. Women too often are dismissed in conversation, I think, because maybe they don't talk in man-business speak (and it is a man's world, still) and their speak is actually more metaphorical and encompassing than man-speak, which tends to be self centered, or internalized, (not in a bad way, just in the 'how does it affect me' kind of way)
Rush Limbaugh and his nastiness towards that young college woman is a perfect example. He kept asserting SHE was a slut and SHE wanted to have gratuitous sex with all the birth control SHE wanted. But he didn't actually listen to her did he. (or maybe he did and he's just a nasty, mean, blowhard a**hole.) She wasn't just advocating for herself, but for her fellow students and all women really. Her language told of HER experiences, but her speak was for us all, and included us all. And then what happened to her? She was shouted down by those who keep insisting they aren't warring on women, called a slut, and worse, and found no champion on the right.
Hey, do you remember how those men on the right, those in a position of power who are listened to and respected for their word, came out in her defense, decrying Limbaugh's words and praising this woman who just wanted to join in the discussion? Naw, me neither!
Women do try to join in the discussion and let their voice be heard, but often they realize it's like trying to teach a pig to dance.:~)
How many of the hundreds and hundreds of active women members on this site take part in these political discussions on a regular basis? Ten? Less? What can we do to get women more involved here and in the world at large?
Well, I THOUGHT this WAS getting in the discussion! Here we are, several women with definite views, discussing those views, and STILL we aren't seen! :(
Funny you don't consider THIS as part of the discussion.
Want me to count the number of female posters who have contributed to this thread or is it just more exciting to carry on with "Rush Limbaugh blah blah blah..."?
Ok, I really was curious so went back through the 12 pages of this thread and found 22 contributors who I'm pretty sure are members of the fairer sex (screen names don't always give it away). Not a high percentage of forum members overall, but better than my earlier guess. Hopefully that is a trend!!!
loosechickens
4-18-12, 11:37am
The Daily Show had a wonderful skit last night of men talking about what women want, while they didn't even notice the comments of the women right there with them. It felt a bit familiar, haha.
Hopefully that is a trend!!!
Oh, I think it is. The ratio of women to men commenting on this thread is nearly 4 to 1, which by my unofficial count is about the same response to every comment I've ever made here. I'm a little disappointed, I'd been assuming that women simply loved me. ;)
loosechickens
4-18-12, 11:57am
Not to worry, Alan, lots of men assume that. Although, often it is on very thin evidence. Haha ;-)
Yep, and maybe 'love' was the wrong emotion. :doh:
Too bad we can't know the gender of all members here and determine what actual percent of ALL men to ALL women post on the politic board. No way of knowing of course but from what I see, there are more women who post in the politic board then men - usually only Alan and Gregg on a regular basis with occasional posts from other "assumed" guys like Ldahl.
I personally disagree with the whole "he doesn't listen or understand because I don't speak 'man' " thing. UGH - I hate that old line! I'm blunt and to the point, and it seems that most of the women who post here are too. I've never had a problem getting my point across to anyone and don't see that my way of speaking is any different then anyone elses. I DO feel that some women are timid and non-confrontational (or like my sister, don't give a damn) and that does li,mit them from participating in political discussions here and IRL. The snarkiness can get bad sometimes. But I don't think women have less of an overall interest then men do. Maybe they are just more hands on involved and less talky about it then guys are. But again, it all comes back to the initial post - really do we even need a special advisor on women's "economic" issues? Aren't they the same as mens? And if not, then someone needs to enlighten me because I can't see the difference at all.
I'm a little disappointed, I'd been assuming that women simply loved me.
Covering my ears and humming here. Oh, and also stopping by the store for some flowers on the way home just in case...
Covering my ears and humming here. Oh, and also stopping by the store for some flowers on the way home just in case...
No joke, I just skimmed through a back issue of New Yorker today my dad had left at my house a while back, from Dec. 12, 2011 issue
Timing is key.
http://lars.toomre.com/sites/lars/files/pictures/New-Yorker-Cartoon-Sorry-Flowers-Said.jpg
Lol. That's a daises and carnations bouquet. You gotta save the roses for "I don't know what I did, but I really screwed up and I'm sorry".
What is it that keeps so many women out of the discussion?
Speaking for myself, I don't discuss politics most of the time because most of the people I talk to don't really want to discuss it, they just want to make cracks about people who disagree with them, throw out a bunch of hyperbolic shock-talk and argue with straw men. That doesn't appeal to me. I am not saying I think SLN is like that, although it was for a while. Overall things seemed to have calmed down a bit here, but in the world at large people seem more interested in hearing the sound of their own voice than having a reasoned discussion. I find that boring and prefer to spend my energy elsewhere.
I don't think it means I'm not involved, though. I've got my corner of the world I am trying to make better. I see pretty much everything I do in a day, from the choices I make raising and educating my kids to the way I source my food to my community building efforts as part of a larger whole. I just feel better when I spend my limited time and resources doing something concrete rather than engaging in what ends up feeling like a shouting match. That said, I do enjoy reasoned, respectful discussions and when I get the chance, I love to participate in a good debate. I also put a real emphasis on dialectics and logic skills in the education of my children, three of whom are girls, so there's three future women you can count on for a good discussion. :)
The Daily Show had a wonderful skit last night of men talking about what women want, while they didn't even notice the comments of the women right there with them. It felt a bit familiar, haha.
:) To be fair, though, I also tend to feel that way about women. We are half the population and a pretty diverse group. I think it gets a bit dangerous to assume that there is some list of things women want that is universal, beyond the things that are universal to humanity as a whole. I think of my sister, who is genetically my closest relative on earth, who grew up in the room next door to me, went to the same school, had many of the same friends and is almost the same age as me and we want vastly different things from life. I find a lot of times women act like because we both have a second X chromosome we will automatically have the same opinions and speak as though they speak for all of us. I am perfectly capable of forming my own opinions. Again, I'm not saying that is necessarily true of anyone here, but it's something I run into a lot.
One of the reasons I went to an all-girl Catholic college is because they sold me on the idea that I could speak my mind and be who I was without holding back or allowing a man to usurp my position in the classroom. I think women still have a tendency to do that. The women I went to school with wound up being very strong, many of them leaders/CEOs etc.
As for me, I am one those who like to pay attention and sometimes contribute to the political discussions on this forum, but I tend to bow out early, as I did here. I just don't feel that invested in the discussion once it takes off, although I'm very interested in talking politics at home. I guess I feel comfortable wading up to my knees with the guys who post in the policy forums, but I'm not interested in swimming with the sharks.
And I am definitely the non-confrontational type. Yet, I actually read and think about these topics--I'm reading Why Nations Fail now, and I'm really interested in the intersection of politics, economics, and religion. But when the sarcasm and strong opinions rise to the top, I tend to back off.
So that's one woman's perspective. But I know there are a lot more strong-minded women than I am on these forums, and I definitely don't speak for you all.
Lol. That's a daises and carnations bouquet. You gotta save the roses for "I don't know what I did, but I really screwed up and I'm sorry".
Experience taught me early that a man carrying flowers is up to no good.
Experience taught me early that a man carrying flowers is up to no good.
Or has been.*
*Of course it could be your birthday...
I think it gets a bit dangerous to assume that there is some list of things women want that is universal, beyond the things that are universal to humanity as a whole.
Exactly!! Couldn't have said it better myself.
One of the reasons I went to an all-girl Catholic college is because they sold me on the idea that I could speak my mind and be who I was without holding back or allowing a man to usurp my position in the classroom. I think women still have a tendency to do that. The women I went to school with wound up being very strong, many of them leaders/CEOs etc.
I often wondered about this - does going to an all girls school make a difference in how women, as adults, interact with men, and the world as a whole? I would have thought that going to an all girls (or all boys) school would have a limiting effect on people when it comes to dealing with the opposite gender. That intermingling genders while young would mean that women, in constant contact, interaction and competion with men, as well as other women, since birth would become stronger and less likely to allow themselves to be usurped by men. But maybe I was wrong and it doesn't really matter one way or another. I do think alot of "woman-training" happens at home where girls are taught to be polite, deferrential, non confrontational, and non-competetive because it's unlady-like to be any other way. So maybe the home environment is more important overall than the school environment when it comes to developing certain traits.
I often wondered about this - does going to an all girls school make a difference in how women, as adults, interact with men, and the world as a whole? I would have thought that going to an all girls (or all boys) school would have a limiting effect on people when it comes to dealing with the opposite gender. That intermingling genders while young would mean that women, in constant contact, interaction and competion with men, as well as other women, since birth would become stronger and less likely to allow themselves to be usurped by men. But maybe I was wrong and it doesn't really matter one way or another. I do think alot of "woman-training" happens at home where girls are taught to be polite, deferrential, non confrontational, and non-competetive because it's unlady-like to be any other way. So maybe the home environment is more important overall than the school environment when it comes to developing certain traits.
This is from Stuart Country Day School, here in Princeton near where I live
Girls Put Academics First
Girls at single-sex schools surpass their co-ed peers in reading, writing and science. They also demonstrate higher educational aspirations, spend more time on homework and are more likely to aspire to careers in engineering and science. (Linda Sax, Ph.D. "Graduates of Single Sex and Coed High Schools" UCLA, NCGS presentation June, 2008)
84 percent of all-girl school graduates felt they were better prepared for college writing assignments than their co-ed peers. (NCGS Survey, 2005)
Girls Enjoy Every Opportunity
All leadership roles at all-girl schools are taken by girls.
"When girls go to single-sex schools, they stop being the audience and become the players." (Myra and David Sadker, American University)
Girls Take Academic Risks
At girls' schools, every girl learns to take on academic challenges, express her thoughts and opinions and participate in new learning experiences.
"As a college professor, I could identify students from girls' schools with a 90 percent accuracy rate on the first day of class. They were the young women whose hands shot up in the air, who were not afraid to defend their positions, and who assumed that I would be interested in their perspectives." (Robin Robertson, Ph.D.)
Girls Thrive when Their Learning Style Takes Center Stage
Educators at all-girl schools capitalize on girls' unique learning styles.
"During these key adolescent years [12-16], single-sex settings better accommodate the developmental needs of students." (Ken Rowe, Natl. Conference on Co-Education, 2000)
Girls Acquire Leadership for Life Skills
Opportunities for girls to learn leadership skills are more plentiful at all-girl schools.
Graduates of girls' schools and/or women's colleges account for a third of female board members of Fortune 500 companies and 25% of female members of Congress. (Natl. Coalition of Girls' Schools, 2006) (italics mine)
SAHM of five here. I find the comment extremely offensive and I am frankly, sick and tired of people being dismissive of people who are home with their kids. It's really quite mysoginistic and it disappoints me the most when it comes from feminists, who I would think would want to champion respect for all women.
I do not have the benefit of Mrs. Romney's wealth, but I have relatives who are exceedingly wealthy and they have been every bit as involved with their kids as I am, not because they couldn't afford help, but because they love their kids and want to be involved. I don't know much at all about Mrs. Romney, but I see no reason to take pot-shots at her or any other candidate's spouse. It's just...cheap. Like others on both sides of the fence I am tired of cheap and inflammatory remarks. Snark is not constructive.
I agree that candidates' spouses should be left alone... unless and until the candidate makes their qualifications relevant to the discussion, as Romney did when he claimed his wife as his chief advisor on what women in America need/want. There have been a lot of cheap shots at Ann Romney as a result, and Rosen certainly put it badly (no mother has "never worked a day in her life," but to say that AR has never worked for a paycheck would be fair). I think that whether Ann Romney is qualified to tell her husband what women want is a fair subject at this point; whether or not motherhood is work, or the legitimacy of her choice, or the fact that she may have been able to hire help to do it, is simply irrelevant. I was a SAHM to three, and would have remained so if I'd had the option to do so, so I've had plenty of practice at being offended at similar remarks. But making this about whether she "worked" in raising her kids is a red herring. Does Ann Romney, as the wife of an astoundingly wealthy man, have the background to understand what more mainstream women care about? Possibly, possibly not. As a Mormon woman and wife to a bishop, it's entirely possible that she's served in positions where she ministered in a very deep and personal way with women and families who were struggling with illness, financial troubles, unemployment, abuse. It's also possible that she has a knee-jerk position on issues like family planning and health services. I think, given that her husband claimed her as his advisor, that respectfully exploring her qualifications is entirely legitimate. And mean/nasty cartoons and jokes and comments, are not.
Thanks for posting all that info Cathrine - guess I'll have to re-think my stance on same-gender schooling! I guess because I never saw any difference between how the boys were in my classes compared to how the girls were (some boys were shy and quiet, some girls were shy and quiet, etc...) and there were just as many girls involved in school politics (class president all 4 years of HS was a girl), sports, scholastic tests and clubs. Maybe it's just that us Californian girls are mouthy and pushy and competitive even with boys in schools ;-)!
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.