The war between women

Yes, between women, not on women, and not for women. You see, we’ve been picking on each other for years in an effort to defend our own lifestyle choices.

You’d have to live in a pretty thick bubble not to catch the brilliance of Democratic strategist Hilary Rosen over the last week. She said that presidential candidate Mitt Romney’s wife Anne:

…never worked a day in her life.

Watch that she says it after agreeing with the Republican argument suggesting the current economy is of the most concern for women right now. It’s not exactly a way to win stay-at-home moms as friends, or to influence their vote for the Democratic candidate.

Rosen then proceeded to dig a very deep ditch for herself on Twitter. The media, a week later, is still helping move the dirt. Republicans say it proves the real war on women is by Democrats who judge the just-a-housewife crowd like myself. Democrats have a number of comebacks to Rosen’s statement from running away as fast as possible to “Romney hates women, too” by citing that Romney wanted welfare moms to work in Massachusetts.

My favorite article that’s cropped up during this debate is the one showing President Obama saying,

… we didn’t have the luxury for her not to work.

He was talking about his wife, Michelle. The article explains at the time they were making $316,000 a year. Obama alone was making $162,100. Can you imagine how the Democratic party is going to convince welfare voters that Mr. Hope and Change couldn’t support his family on $162,100 a year? Perhaps that’s what he has in mind for the new welfare family-of-four minimum.

But that’s really not the issue here. This is:

From what I found Rosen was born in 1958. I’m a product of the year 1962. In the 80’s when that commercial was flooding the airwaves, we’d already been instructed the women of our generation not only could do anything they wanted, they would do it all.

It was a nasty burden we’ve never resolved.

Now for the purpose of this discussion remember that Anne Romney was born in 1949. She’s about a decade older than Rosen, and a remarkably different time in America’s history for women. Anne Romney is a product of June Cleaver. Rosen and I get Enjoli. Yet, Rosen is ready to fight over the point that Romney stayed home.

Here’s my take: Rosen’s feeling a little guilty that she couldn’t do it all like she’d been promised. I figured it out early. My husband and I have basically the same mental acuity, but I stayed home while he worked. I was smart enough to understand he couldn’t have a wildly successful career if I was calling to say, “It’s your turn to pick up the sick kid from school, mister.” So yes, I sacrificed what could have been, I am certain, a very viable income of my own to be home. Had we both had his type of career commitment there wouldn’t have been any room for children, and we both wanted children. Neither one of us wanted children reared by strangers, so someone had to stay home.

But then, I’m a bit of a rebel. There are thousands of professional women out there still trying to make it all happen juggling family, career, marriage, soccer games, and home-cooked meals, because, you know, nothing is to be left out. I guess I should feel a little sorry for them, but hey, if I didn’t get to do it all like I’d been promised, why should they get to do it all without a little exhaustion attached?

We all make choices. My advice to Ms. Rosen is that she should find a way to get comfortable with hers without judging mine.

This post took a number of twists and turns to be written today. I told someone earlier I just don’t have the energy to be snarky, so you were spared. I did find some interesting numbers on women while researching this issue that you might peruse.

Women vote. There are a lot of them. Five million considered themselves stay-at-home moms in 2010. And in a poll released today women still favor Obama over Romney. So expect a lot of the idea that Anne Romney remains the Republican secret weapon. And expect Democrats to fight that weapon on their own terms, however ridiculous.


  1. Canibeanon says:

    It is such a strawman to accuse people of saying that Romney hates women, too, because he wants women on welfare to work. Complete fabrication on your part, and really beneath you.

    People ARE pointing out that Romney doesn’t believe women staying home raising children know “the dignity of work.”. How on earth is that any less offensive than Rosen’s statement that Ann Romney is in no position to advise her husband on economic issues because she hadn’t worked a day in her life?

    Both are, in my opinion, irredeemably stupid statements. Why, in all honesty, do you think Rosen’s is worse? Both felt that staying at home with children was something other than “work.”. Romney even added that without earning a wage for their labor, they wouldn’t know the dignity of work. Offensive, huh?

  2. Fine. I’ll go back and link it just for you. I was being lazy. Mea Culpa. But it was real.

    You are the one to twist it all around. Good try, but not terribly effective. In fact, rather defensive. Hmmm. Imagine a lefty confusing those women who choose to stay at home in a funded environment with welfare recipients. Romney’s statement, by the way, says “parents” and is not specific to women.

    I’m willing to spend more giving daycare to allow those parents to go back to work. It’ll cost the state more providing that daycare, but I want the individuals to have the dignity of work.

    You say women. Ezra Klein, who authored the article I’ve now linked, is the one that has a great time explaining “in other words.”

    Talk about making stuff up!

  3. I wish we could once again enjoy an economy where families could do well on one average income. I don’t care if it’s the husband or the wife that would stay home (in the case of MY family it was the husband), but few would argue the fact that kids do better with a parent home 24/7.

  4. Randy in Richmond says:

    When the left have little argument, they change the subject. Ms. Klein attempts to divert us by equating work with getting paid–that since one doesn’t pay taxes (IRS) or Social Security on child raising to these agencies–one is not considered to be working. How much work did any of the recent big lottery winners do to collect their money? Absolutely zero. According to Ms. Klein that should result in no taxes because the winners did no work. Sure.

    And Ms. Klein, did you know that President Obama pays no Social Security after the first 100 days in a calendar year–your logic would dictate that he isn’t working for the next 265 days.

    Ms. Klein’s assumption that families means mothers is pure fantasy. TANF is for “families in need”, meaning both genders. Is it T, A, N, or F that mother starts with? Here is the official home page for TANF on which the word mother does not appear.

    And further, Hilary Rosen never mentioned the word mom or mother. She invalidated all women, as pointed out elsewhere on this site.
    As Cindy points out, Mitt Romney didn’t mention moms in this context either.
    And Ms. Rosen, you supported and I expect voted for, a candidate for President with about zero experience in management and running anything. So who are you to criticize Mitt Romney for where he looks for counseling or advice?

    The Washington Post thought so much of this story they included it in a business blog.

  5. canibeanon says:

    I don’t think I’m twisting anything. Romney’s statement, aimed at welfare recipients with children as young as two at home, was that there was no dignity in what they do unless they are required to “work.” (Your insistence that he meant men, too, when discussing people on welfare who are caring for children as young as two is oddly defensive. I mean, sure, technically, he said “people,” but in the real world, he was talking about welfare moms. Even if he meant dads, too, the point stands. They are not working unless they are drawing a paycheck). Do you feel what you did was without dignity? That it was not work?

    That statement was indefensible, as was, in my opinion, Rosen’s. It was a stupid statement and while Klein may be defending it, most other lefties are not. Pointing to one doesn’t make your argument. Do you want me to link to the Catholic League’s statement in order to prop up a straw man that righties are attacking adoption?

    I completely agree with your statement, however, that it’s past time to stop judging each other’s choices, as much as that is possible. I am glad you and your husband were able to exercise your preferred way of raising your children and running your family. Every family should have the opportunity to do the same.

    As for whether Rosen should be criticizing Romney’s statement that he’d be relying on Ann’s advice on the economy, well, that’s pretty much her job. She’s a democratic strategist, and just like the commenter above, she can jump on someone’s lack of experience in a given area. It’s fair to say that Ann Romney lacks experience in advising on economic policy. Rosen should have stopped there.

  6. Sweet! Canibeanon has admitted that Rosen is a Democratic strategist and that part of her job is to humiliate Ann Romney. I suppose that’s progress.

    There is no dignity in considering welfare payments your only source of income for life. Period. Tap dance away, but you won’t be changing my opinion.

    Keep talking, though, as you are giving up talking points at a rapid rate. I happen to enjoy watching that.

  7. Canibeanon says:

    What an odd thing to say. Part of her job is to humiliate Ann Romney? Huh? In what language is saying Ann Romney lacks experience in advising a president on economic policy “humiliation”? Baffling.

    I guess I’ll quit now, because if you take my statements as saying that Rosen’s job is to humiliate Ann Romney, I guess we really are talking past each other.

  8. You began talking past the issue. Just playing according to your rules.

    If you’d like to have a genuine discussion on this issue, start from scratch. I’ll play along however you set the tone.

    8:55 a.m. – update to the comment (It’s my blog. I get to do that.)

    I see I missed an opportunity there. You said:

    In what language is saying Ann Romney lacks experience in advising a president on economic policy “humiliation”?

    But my point was: Rosed indeed said as you explained, but Rosen also said Ann Romney

    …never worked a day in her life.

    In my opinion, that is a statement Rosen made to belittle (synonym for humiliate) Ann Romney.

    Do you still disagree? Why? Because you don’t think Rosen made the comment that Ann Romney never worked a day in her life? Because you don’t think belittle is a synonym for humiliate? I’m just trying to figure out how you don’t find Rosen’s statement of Ann Romney anything but an attempt to humiliate Ann Romney; that humiliating Ann Romney is a Democratic strategy to lower Romney’s chances for election, and that Rosen is a Democratic strategist.

    PS – if you quit now, as you’ve promised, then you admit you’ve lost the argument.

  9. Randy in Richmond says:

    If Rosen’s job is not to humiliate Ann and Mitt Romney, why did she add the ” she hasn’t worked a day in her life”. You overlooked the few words that started this whole thing. Part of her job as an Obama devotee is to do anything and everything to assure her guy gets re-elected. It’s interesting that she is constantly dubbed a CNN analyst or Democratic advisor with no mention of her 30 some visits to the White House.

    As previously stated Ms. Rosen’s comment leveled the playing field and pretty much eliminated the ‘war on women’ accusations of Democratic candidates.