Ann Romney/Hilary Rosen
So, CNN contributor Hilary Rosen, commenting on Romney's repeated statements that his wife, being his chief council on women's issues, tells him the most important issue to women is the economy (and Obama's mishandling of it), said that since Ann had "never worked a day in her life", she doesn't really have a leg to stand on when speaking for women's economic hardships. Suddenly,
it's a big deal to conservatives. Big enough that not only has Rosen apologised, but both Obama AND Biden have made strong statements against Rosen's comments.
...What the... everholylivingmotherofbloody fuck?
The entire controversy here is that using the word "worked" to be a synonym "employed" is... not allowed when talking about mothers?
Please, somebody, try to explain this one to me.
Hilary Rosen is an ass.
She received and deserved criticism from BOTH sides, not just conservatives.
"both Obama AND Biden have made strong statements against Rosen's comments."
Good, she's an ass and they shouldn't want to be associated with her.
From what I remember, she pretty much failed at everything she did & was [strike]fired[/strike] politely let go.
What's wrong with saying that Ann Romney hasn't ever worked, in the context of her economic experience, classic? That's what I'm asking. I understand that Rosen's reviled. I don't understand what's wrong with the thing that she's being attacked for.
Not Another Mommy War
http://www.cnn.com/2012/04/12/opinion/bamberger-ann-romney/index.html?hpt=hp_bn7
CNN commentator Hilary Rosen, who also is an adviser to the Democratic National Committee, uttered these words about the Romney campaign using the candidate's wife, Ann, as a surrogate on economic issues facing working women and working moms today:
"Ann Romney has never worked a day in her life."
I'm pretty sure Rosen would take those comments back in a heartbeat if she could, because now instead of talking about whether the GOP hopeful is really connecting with the economic struggles of real women, we're debating Mommy Wars 3.0.
I'm not going to defend Rosen's choice of words. Every mother is a working mother. Period. I know how much work my one daughter is, so I can't begin to imagine just how much time and patience it took to raise five boys (six if you count Ann's comments about Mitt in a recent campaign video).
But the argument that so many of Rosen's critics are missing is this -- she was trying to make a point about whether a wealthy woman who has never had to worry about choosing between buying groceries or paying the electric bill is the best person to be the Romney campaign's surrogate on how women and families are struggling economically today.
It's a totally fair question to ask whether someone who has never had to work to earn money is the right person to advise anyone on the economic struggles of women today. Asking that question shouldn't be the start of a new skirmish in the stay-at-home mom vs. working mom debate.
The real issue is whether the Romney campaign wants to understand the economic issues so many women are facing in this election year. Yes, he should have his wife reach out to women voters and try to connect as a campaign secret weapon, but it's a mistake for the campaign to suggest that Ann Romney is the one he relies on for economic advice. Remember how the right got so riled up over the idea of Hillary Clinton advising her husband on health care policy?
To get women voters, Romney needs to push the
correct statistic that 92% of all job losses under the Obama Administration have been among women but make sure they never figure out why.
Facing a double-digit deficit among female voters, likely Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney has accused the White House of waging an economic "war on women." Since Obama took office in January 2009, he's charged, an amazing 92 percent of all job losses have been among women.
He's absolutely right. In the last 26 months, U.S. payrolls have shrunk by 740,000 jobs and of those, 683,000 belonged to women, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
But Romney should be careful with his talking point. All those women who lost work? About two-thirds of them were laid off from government jobs. And a lot of them lived in states governed by Republicans.
......
For a Republican who preaches the virtues of smaller government, it might seem a bit hypocritical to bemoan the loss of women's jobs that are mostly the result of ... smaller government. But the problem actually goes deeper. When it came to laying off government workers in 2011, there was a clear red state/blue state divide. According to the Roosevelt Institute, 40.5 percent of all state and local government job losses occurred in places where Republicans won control of the legislature in 2010. Call that the Scott Walker effect, after the Tea Party-backed governor of Wisconsin who has clashed fiercely with public sector unions. Meanwhile, another 31 percent of those government jobs vanished in Texas. Call that the Rick Perry effect. All other states combined accounted for just 28 percent of state and local layoffs.
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/04/why-mitt-romneys-economic-war-on-women-charge-could-backfire/255754/Yeah, Infi's found the quotes I'da wanted to find, and highlighted what I'da wanted to highlight.
Raising children is hard work.
Bloody hard work if you work all day and then have to still raise them single-handedly and do all the shopping and the housework - not because you're a single mother but because that's woman's work.
I did not grow up in that household. My dad did not "help" with the children or "help" with the dishes. The 'rents worked shifts (at work) to earn money and then worked shifts at home to bring us up. My bro wet his pants before school? One week Dad cleaned him up, cleaned it up, put the pants in the wash. I had a migraine and puked all over the cloakroom after lunch? My Mum brought me home.
My Mum is not an intellectual. She did not need work to fulfill her; work was a chore. Had she had the choice she would have stayed at home with us, but probably volunteered. Had she had viable childcare options (like pre-school) she might even have gone back into education - I said she wasn't intellectual, not that she was stupid. I wish she'd had the money to find something she loved doing.
She taught us all the read and write before we got to school. She was the driving force in my love of reading and of poetry. My Daddy taught me my times tables (multiplication) when they were making me cry. Had either of them stayed at home I'd never denigrate them by saying they didn't work. But what can you say otherwise. They worked double-plus-good?
ETA
One of Mum's fiercest and harshest ephitets is, "Of course she's never worked a day in her life!" Applied to friends, neighbours, pop singers, actresses et al. Even to the Queen Mum. I think this comes from the fact that Nanny didn't work until after Mum left home, which meant Grandad worked far longer and she never saw him. And she was forbidden to play with other children because "I don't want to be alone, what do you think I had a baby for?!"
My mother stayed home when we kids were young. She said she never thought anyone could raise her kids better than she could herself.
And they sacrificed their asses off to make that happen. She didn't get to buy herself nice clothes, they didn't drive fancy cars or go to expensive restaurants.
There were no housekeepers or nannies or gardeners or any of the trappings of the mega-rich.
So yeah, I now like Ann romney less than I like Mitt romney. Good job Ann. You married money. Raising children is hard. But popping out kids isn't such a miracle. It's a little science involving sex and reproductive organs. People do it every day. I don't exalt her particular brand of 'poor hardworking mother.' Meh.
The entire controversy here is that using the word "worked" to be a synonym "employed" is... not allowed when talking about mothers?
Please, somebody, try to explain this one to me.
It's like when a gay person says "that's so gay" as an insult, or a feminist calls someone a bitch or pussy, due to habits acquired from pervasive phrases in society. Opposition will glory in it, and supporters will have to decry it.
"Not worked a day in [his/her] life" is a common phrase, and it's unfortunate that it doesn't take into account the worked=employment vs. worked=labored. Though, it is often used in a relative way, and a -for example- coal miner could use it with respect to an office worker.
I do wonder whether anyone who was outraged over Rosen's treatment of Romney ever thought of "welfare queens" as lazy people who should be forced to get a job, or if being a mother is only work if you're lucky enough to have a husband who can support you.
I do wonder whether anyone who was outraged over Rosen's treatment of Romney ever thought of "welfare queens" as lazy people who should be forced to get a job, or if being a mother is only work if you're lucky enough to have a husband who can support you.
This this this.
I second (or fourth) Ibram's 'this' to HM's post.
Seriously true!
...being a mother is only work if you're lucky enough to have a husband who can support you.
I don't want to split hairs, but, I do take objection to the use of the word "lucky" as relates to one's position in life. The implication, whether intended or not, is that results don't account for hard effort and smart choices. One might even say that this is a central issue of perception that divides a certain two quasi-classes of people (not true "classes" but those who simply subscribe to differing schools of thought...and obvioulsy not two "discrete" sets of people either).
I can say I have personally observed that this can be a misstep in thinking which has cascading effects.
You don't want to split hairs, but you do. ;)
I'm sure HM would take back his hasty and unfortunate use of the word 'lucky' if he could. Oh wow, we're back to the OP.
Okay, you caught me red-handed (but not red-herring'ed). I do love to split hairs, play devil's advocate, and other such "thought exercises" ...
Do you also like to punch people in the face? I looove that!
In a woman.
I do I do I do love to punch people in the face! :jig:
Yay! Can you and I be awesome together?
(Not like a date or anything, like "friends" awesome.)
Sure thing! It's going to be legen...(wait for it)...dary!
I don't want to
gouge out anyone's eyes.
Link SFW.
Excepting text which might make you feel ill.
I don't want to split hairs, but, I do take objection to the use of the word "lucky" as relates to one's position in life. The implication, whether intended or not, is that results don't account for hard effort and smart choices.
The difference luck makes is whether you need to make unusually good choices to do well versus unusually bad choices to do poorly.
I was very lucky in many ways. Given the advantages that luck has provided me, I would have had to make unusually bad choices to end up destitute.
The reverse is true for many.
Hard effort = hard work. That doesn't always mean lots of money.
Smart choices might not always be available/ understandable.
My Grandad worked hard all his life. He worked until the mandated retirement age.
He expected the Government to take care of him.
That was the promise he had all his life.
And yes, they did. He was taken care of. He had a council bungalow, social care visits, a cleaner once a week and after he was put in hospital he had hospice care.
He was happy with what he had, and with what he received. He lived worry-free in his last few years, although that was mostly because Mum had great advice from people who knew the system in making sure he got what he was entitled to. And because we made damn well sure we stepped up as a family. Plenty of evidence all over these pages.
Grandad was lucky.
He lived through The Blitz.
Married his first love.
Raised two children even though his family (property owners) never managed to claim back what they lost in the War.
Moved back to Central London into Govt sponsored housing.
Took us (grand)kids in during the school holidays so the 'rents could keep working during the school holidays
Later was able to "swap" to council housing in Aylesbury to be close to Mum (Uncle Jim moved to Australia)
To do this he had to move in with us and leave Nanny behind. He had to share a house with his daughter's family and work as a hospital porter. Lucky Jim.
The man never had anything to spare.
He worked hard all his life.
He was functionally illiterate.
People who don't make it into the Times £100m list aren't failures. They didn TRY less than anyone else. Not everyone who works a low wage job is dolescum. I don't know of anyone in my family who chose an easy path, or did not work as hard as they could. But the world needs some people not to advance for wiping up blood in a hospital corrider to having a sandwich chain outside said hospital or writing an award winning play about it.
Doesn't it?
The difference luck makes is whether you need to make unusually good choices to do well versus unusually bad choices to do poorly.
I was very lucky in many ways. Given the advantages that luck has provided me, I would have had to make unusually bad choices to end up destitute.
The reverse is true for many.
Okay, excellent distinction(s).
Sundae, I was just responding to a subject that was already on the table. I didn't intend to disrespect your grandfather. I actually don't think I mentioned what you're adressing, i.e. a value judgment conflating material possessions and human worth, but if I did it wasn't intentional. And I don't subscribe to that. One of my closest friends is a guy who makes just enough money to get by. We have beers together and agree on almost everything. He doesn't have alot, but he pays his own way and doesn't ask for anything from anybody.
Sundae...Flint just called your Grandad a pikey.
Get thee gone, devil woman.
Given you never met him I guessed that to be the case :D
I think I have a chip on my shoulder about family members that pulled themselves up by their bootstraps.
My Great-Grandmother used to load up the pram with the children and take them to Tower Bridge. She'd been advised that my Grandad's weak chest needed sea air. They couldn't afford to go to the seaside, and the Thames being a tidal river was the best she could do. And that was a bloody long walk as it was! No wonder Grandad supported the NHS.
I am lookin in your face though
Your face looks like your arse so I don't know
Look, you know the classic "started in the mail room and worked his way up" story? That's me, literally.
I don't think that trying to make a lot of money is the only important thing, and there are many other major considerations that as a family we try to keep in balance. It's probably been easier for me than for some, and harder than it was for some others. But I've always known that I only had myself to rely on, and that making some hard, consistent choices to delay gratification and stay on course was something I would have to stick with. To be honest, I don't think that enough people these days hold those fundamental principles close to their heart and live by them.
So when I hear "lucky" used as a throw-away term to describe what is essentially my demographic (income-earning father supports a stay-at-home mother) I take offense. It isn't easy to do what we do. It's hard damn work. We may have been lucky as hell, maybe we have been, but if we hadn't added HARD WORK into the mix it wouldn't have amounted to a hill of beans. I say "we" because I believe that my wife works harder than I do.
But I've always known that I only had myself to rely on, and that making some hard, consistent choices to delay gratification and stay on course was something I would have to stick with.
I do not disagree with this
So when I hear "lucky" used as a throw-away term to describe what is essentially my demographic (income-earning father supports a stay-at-home mother) I take offense. It isn't easy to do what we do. It's hard damn work. We may have been lucky as hell, maybe we have been, but if we hadn't added HARD WORK into the mix it wouldn't have amounted to a hill of beans. I say "we" because I believe that my wife works harder than I do.
I get what you mean. And you get what I mean I think, because of my post above.
My beef is the opposite.
A viewpoint that denigrates toilet cleaners, dustbinmen, sandwich makers, lunchtime supervisors, barmaids and all those who work hard in multiple part time jobs. I worked full time and part time so I met them. They worked hours to suit bringing up their children. The jobs
we did were mindless. Other people were at night school.
We were trying to earn enough to raise families, run cars, pay mortgages and debts.
We never thought anyone why worked hard as lucky.
Although I envied those who'd made the right choice re partners.
But hey - I was never into the Amish ;)
Every choice, every action, has a billion possible positive outcomes and a trillion possible negative outcomes. Things are so complex that it's impossible to predict the outcomes of all your decisions. "luck" is just which side of the statistical spread you happened to land on. of course personal effort matters far more than statistics can in the MIDDLE of the bell curve - where your luck is overall pretty neutral. Hard work and pulling yourself up by your bootstraps can't mean a thing at the bottom end of the curve, just like no matter how bad your decision-making is, you aren't going to ruin yourself at the top end of the curve.
So you can't assume a SINGLE thing about someone's work ethic, choices, anything, by their socioeconomic status alone. You don't know where on the "luck" statistical bell curve they fall.
You can't assume a SINGLE thing about someone's work ethic, choices, anything, by their socioeconomic status alone.
Agreed.
That they rented a $75 month basement apartment when they first got married and had their son. - Irrelevant!
That she delayed going to school to be a stay at home mom. - Irrelevant!
That she went back to school part-time so it wouldn't interfere with HER raising her kids. - Irrelevant!
Are they rich as shit? yep. So fucking what? Don't let your jealousy get the best of you.
This BS is as relevant as
"Obama pays a lower % in taxes than Buffett's secretary." Agreed.
That they rented a $75 month basement apartment when they first got married and had their son. - Irrelevant!
That she delayed going to school to be a stay at home mom. - Irrelevant!
That she went back to school part-time so it wouldn't interfere with HER raising her kids. - Irrelevant!
Are they rich as shit? yep. So fucking what? Don't let your jealousy get the best of you.
What the fuck does that mean? I'm saying that if all you know about a person, or hypothetical person, is that they are poor, you know absolutely nothing else about them, their work ethic, etc, from knowing that they are poor. I'm not sure what you're on about, and i'm not saying that to be a bitch, i really dont understand your point or what you're referencing.
Tony Hayward once said;
"we're sorry for the massive disruption it's caused to their lives. There's no one who wants this thing over more than I do, I'd like my life back.
How did spin convert that into what he did not say? Suddenly Tony has contempt for the residents and employers so harmed by an oil spill? Clearly he did not say that. But spin promoted by emotions converted his statement into something different. So many only entertain their emotions rather than grasp hard facts - what was actually said.
Politicians must be experts at playing to emotions because so many only use emotions to know how to think. Hard facts - what he really said - has little relevance to those who use feelings to hear something different.
Rosen simply said that Ann Romney, who never worked as both a mother and in the workplace, would not know how most women think. But in a world of soundbytes and emotion, what she said and what others heard are two completely different conclusions. Tony Hayward demonstrated how secret interpretations, not found anywhere in the statement, are only what matters to so many.
Ann Romney lives a sheltered and privileged life. She has little knowledge of what women want. Are most women only interested in the economy? The majority of posts here never once address the question. Are posted as if the question does not exist. The majority of posts here imply spin (what she did not say) is the truth.
Stated accurately is that Ann Romney did "Not worked a day in [his/her] life" ... professionally. She did not raise children while earning an income. She did not make compromises to pay the bills. She probably had many maids and cleaning women working for her. Which is fine. Except that does not make an expert on what a real world woman needs.
A viewpoint that denigrates toilet cleaners, dustbinmen, sandwich makers, lunchtime supervisors, barmaids and all those who work hard in multiple part time jobs.
And that is fine. But is completely irrelevant to what Hilary Rosen said and what Ann Romney did with her life. What toilet cleaners do is irrelevant to Ann Romney’s experience and knowledge. Why does that make Ann Romney an expert on what women want? What will politicians do for women? The most important and relevant question is not even discussed here. Because spin (inspired by emotions) has subverted logical discussion.
Ann Romney knows women worry most about economics issues? Nonsense. Most women (like most men) have little basic grasp of basic economic issues. And have more important issues in their life – ie paying the bills.
Spin manipulated by emotion averts the only and relevant question. For the same reason that Tony Hayward said one thing. Then spin castigated him, instead, for saying what he did not say.
Why does Ann Romney know what women want. Can anyone answer that simple question without spinning it into contempt for women?
What the fuck does that mean? I'm saying that if all you know about a person, or hypothetical person, is that they are poor, you know absolutely nothing else about them, their work ethic, etc, from knowing that they are poor. I'm not sure what you're on about, and i'm not saying that to be a bitch, i really dont understand your point or what you're referencing.
I agree with you. I added some other facts to the equation that change nothing.
Your statement still holds true.
You can't assume a SINGLE thing about someone's work ethic, choices, anything, by their socioeconomic status alone.
Now pull your panties outta your ass & relax or go argue with JBK.
Either way, don't piss on me for no reason.
Sorry mate. I assumed there was something connecting those statements in a way that I didn't understand, and that you were making a point. I read the post as hostile so I assumed you were disagreeing with me. I didn't mean to piss! i didn't think i was. Sorry for saying "fuck". to people my age "what the fuck does that mean?" isn't a hostile construction. My last sentence there was s'posed to mitigate things and make sure you knew i wasn't trying to attack!
Ann Romney lives a sheltered and privileged life. She has little knowledge of what women want. Are most women only interested in the economy? The majority of posts here never once address the question. Are posted as if the question does not exist. The majority of posts here imply spin (what she did not say) is the truth.
Stated accurately is that Ann Romney did "Not worked a day in [his/her] life" ... professionally. She did not raise children while earning an income. She did not make compromises to pay the bills. She probably had many maids and cleaning women working for her. Which is fine. Except that does not make an expert on what a real world woman needs.
This is, roughly, what I wanted to say. Just because Ann Romney is a woman does not make her an appropriate representative for all the women of the US.
Imagine the dinner conversation.
"Hey, Honey"
"Yes, Mitt darling?"
"You're an American woman. What are American women most concerned about?"
"Well, taxes on billionaire families, for one thing, whether our husbands are going to be elected president for another, what kind of drapes to have in the White House, you know. How many nannies to hire, which private schools have the best religious classes, which kinds of underwear best prevent impure thoughts, that sort of thing..."
"Great, thanks, I'll get onto those issues. Women's vote, here I come!"
President Carter asked 12 year old Amy what was the most important issue. Children knew it was "the control of nuclear arms". Amy clearly represented the concerns of all kids.
Well Obama didn't like it at all. Look at the timeline of events starting with "Ann Romney never worked
a day in her life." The White House goes into defense mode immediately. Distancing themselves from
Hilary. I felt kind of sorry for her. After looking at the timeline, shown last night, then spew your hatred
at a woman who raised 5 sons, wealthy or not!
Why have you not said the same about Jackie Kennedy? John Kerry's wife, the ketchup heiress?
FDR's wife? And on and on? It's because it's a Republican you hate. Because you hate people who have more than you?
That's called jealousy. These posts are filled with them. Obama doesn't agree with you.
Kinda funny, really, especially reading all of this. You all see one thing. Rich Republican woman.
Nothing else matters to you than that. Kind of sick to me. And kind of scary. Take out all the other rich
women in the history of politics as if they never existed. They are omitted by the mere fact that they
were/are Democrats and it's OK for them to be rich.
FDR's wife? And on and on?
When did the president know what all women wanted because they consulted their wife? When did John Kerry's wife say she knew what all women wanted? Why are you spinning the topic into something irrelevant. Democrat or Republican is 100% irrelevant. The question is only about consulting honest sources. Ann Romney represents what concerns all women? Just as Amy Carter did not represent what concerns all kids.
The only question you should be answering: Does Ann Romney know what concerns all women? Nothing political in that question or the resulting doubts. Why did you even post the irrelevant Republican word? It is a simple question. Does Ann Romney know what all women want? Where is her experience? So how does she know?
President Carter asked 12 year old Amy what was the most important issue. Children knew it was "the control of nuclear arms". Amy clearly represented the concerns of all kids.
I don't know when she was asked. But I'd have said the same 1980-1983.
1979 I cried when Thatcher got into power. I thought Daddy would lose his job.
When i was a kid and used to still say prayers before going to sleep (just in bed, not kneeling down or anything) I used to include in my prayer, along with laying me down to sleep my soul to keep etc, I also included a little plea that there wouldn't be a nuclear war in my lifetime...or in my future children's lifetime, or their future children's lifetime. I used to like to cover all bases ya know?
Fear of nuclear armageddon was a very real part of the 70s/80s childhood experience as far as I recall.
When did the president know what all women wanted because they consulted their wife?
When did John Kerry's wife say she knew what all women wanted?
When did Ann or Mitt? Lemme help you, Never.
The only question you should be answering:
I shouldn't be answering these questions, nor should you.
We are the ones who should be asking relevant questions.
Where is her experience?
If you do not know already know the answer to this, you shouldn't be posting here.
If you did, you wouldn't be asking the question in the first place.
Why did you even post the irrelevant Republican word?
What is that? What Republican word? WTH are you babbling about?
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-romneys-past-views-unearthed-on-working-women-stayathome-moms-20120415,0,611519.story
“Even if you have a child 2 years of age, you need to go to work,” Mitt Romney said in a campaign stop in Manchester, N.H., in January. “And people said, 'Well that's heartless.' And I said, 'No, no, I'm willing to spend more giving day care to allow those parents to go back to work. It'll cost the state more providing that day care, but I want the individuals to have the dignity of work.' "
childcare is only "work" if you're wealthy, I guess.
...or maybe when they say "work" they just fucking mean "employment", like most people do and there IS no attack on motherhood as difficult and important. fuckin' duh.
From Ibram's link:
"Moving welfare recipients into work was one of the basic principles of the bipartisan welfare reform legislation that President Clinton signed into law. The sad fact is that under President Obama the poverty rate among women rose to 14.5% in 2011, the highest rate in 17 years. The Obama administration's economic policies have been devastating to women and families," Amanda Henneberg, a Romney spokesperson said.
I seem to have a recollection that it was the sub prime lending fiasco and the greed of the big financial outfits that threw us into the recession that sucked up all the jobs. Obama happens to be President, not the chief CEO of Goldman Sachs. Hello?
Moms from all walks of life, along with practically all other Americans, paid to bail out the CEO's. You'd think the CEO's might return the favor, but they'd rather cut their tax rates ever further while calling upon the middle and working class to "share in the sacrifice." :right:
You can require that people have the "dignity" of work all you like, but if there are no jobs or the jobs available pay only minimum wage, much good it's going to do anyone. Moms included.
i am the last one to critique stay at home parents of any kind... i was one...
but to be fair, it seems very likely that Romney's wife would have a maid for cleaning and possibly cooking - or at least afford taking her family to eat out whenever she doesn't feel like cooking - be able to send her kids to the best daycare in town, best schools and best after school activities and tutors, quite possibly with a driver...
once those are covered, you have pretty much covered most - if not all - of the hours most employed parents would otherwise be employed in, and aren't actually doing anymore parenting then an employed parent would do. its quite possible Romney himself could have had about as much quality time with the kids as she did if he didn't pick a job that required so much traveling. and that is all assuming she didn't also have a nanny...
They rented a $75 month basement apartment when they first got married and had their son. Then she delayed going to school to be a stay at home mom. She also went back to school part-time so it wouldn't interfere with HER raising her kids.
Traceur - be careful before posting on assumptions.
They rented a $75 month basement apartment when they first got married and had their son. Then she delayed going to school to be a stay at home mom.
That was for a short time. And then they became so wealthy as to afford a cleaning ladies and other hired help. Most of the time, the Romneys were well off. That little reality gets lost in massive spin about a $75 apartment.
I thought mitt's family already had money? Guess I don't really know their story.
Ann and Mitt married in 1969, the year that his father went from being governor of Michigan to being the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, and well after he was CEO of American Motors. There's no way Mitt would have been wanting for money if he needed it, but he made either the political or the ethical decision to start out NOT taking advantage of his father's wealth, at least immediately. The Romneys weren't in any danger of POVERTY, but clearly decided that there's a problem with starting his family with the same level of wealth he would have potentially enjoyed from his father.
Her story is a good read. I learned a lot about her.
Others are more interested in "massive spin"
As a parent if I had the ability to stay home, I would.
As a grandparent if I had the financial means to allow my daughter or son to stay home
and raise their child(ren) I would willingly do that as well.
Some are too partisan to grasp that. They'd rather bitch moan and demean others for their wealth.
This isnt about demeaning them for their wealth. It's about whether or not someone who has never experienced really being on the breadline and making those decisions has the kind of expertise to speak for others in that position.
Whether they ever were in that position i dont know.
This isn't about demeaning them for their wealth.
To you, I believe. To many others, that's exactly what it is.
Its OK, IIRC, There were some pretty good presidents that were wealthy.
Kennedy, for one, was pretty well thought of as a pres and look at the money he came from.
This isnt about demeaning them for their wealth. It's about whether or not someone who has never experienced really being on the breadline and making those decisions has the kind of expertise to speak for others in that position.
Whether they ever were in that position i dont know.
^THIS!!!!
People born with a silver spoon do not know whats is like to live without one. They especially CANNOT speak for people who didn't. Its insulting.
What an asinine theory. So who would you have running the country?
Virtually all politicians should not be in office, from both parties according to you.
Classic, the ENTIRE point of EVERYTHING Rosen said was that, since Ann Romney has no contact with the world of employment, she has no business "advising" Mitt on what it's like for unemployed women. My understanding was that that's all Pico's saying - that Ann has no qualifications or experience with the challenges facing unemployed people, and has never been unemployed or impoverished herself, so claiming that she has some sort of advisory knowledge on the subject is unreasonable and misguided.
They rented a $75 month basement apartment when they first got married and had their son. Then she delayed going to school to be a stay at home mom. She also went back to school part-time so it wouldn't interfere with HER raising her kids.
Traceur - be careful before posting on assumptions.
that... doesn't make sense to me. on one hand he had his own family's resort thing that lead to the whole Niger scandal because it had it in its name, and in the same time they where struggling for money?
have they thought of selling or renting it out (possibly after a name change)?
Nobody said their experience and wealth made them unfit to run the country. Just that she was not qualified to advise Mitt on what life is like for unemplyed women.
If he wants to know what unemployed wiomen, or indeed anyone on the breadline, face in life, he should find someone else to ask. That's all.
How does that differ from virtually any other politician, Dana?
Its a BS argument. Thats all.
Because NOT EVERY POLITICIAN claims that their WEALTHY WIFE is their advisor on UNEMPLOYMENT AMONG WOMEN. most politicians have advisors who have spent a career working on the subject, and even if they dont have personal experience, have academic or otherwise relevant experience with the subject matter at hand. Just like, living in Taipei for six years in/around high school doesn't make me a China expert, so if I were who Obama was getting to advise him on China policy, it would be a terrible shortcoming. Likewise, being a woman and once living in a cheap apartment doesn't make Ann an expert on poverty and the struggles of working-class women, and to point to her as his chief advisor in that capacity is laughable.
Ann Romney has no contact with the world of employment, she has no business "advising" Mitt on what it's like for unemployed women.
THAT I agree with. Unfortunately NO ONE ever said she was speaking on behalf of "unemployed women"
claims that their WEALTHY WIFE is their advisor on UNEMPLOYMENT AMONG WOMEN.
No one ever claimed that she was, nor that she did.
Provide supporting evidence please.
What was said:
“my wife tells me that what women really care about are economic issues, and when I listen to my wife, that's what I'm hearing."
THATS EXACTLY WHAT HE SAID. And he is correct. I see nothing wrong with it. Do you? Is he wrong?
What I see is the left is distorting the shit out of this. You are buying into it hook, line & sinker. Step back and TRY to assess what was actually said and how it was distorted for political purposes.
Please quote where he actually said those things you claim and I'll shut up about it.
Oh, and one last quote -
"They're focusing on the economy, and that's what women overwhelmingly say they really care about in poll after poll.
Whether it's a typical pattern or not, women are seeing jobs come back much more slowly than men are.
Is there anything really wrong, then, with reaching out to women on an issue that they care about, the economy?"
Who are Ann Romney's peers, the ones who she would be commiserating with about what women really are worried about? They are NOT women who are concerned about jobs, or the rising cost of groceries and gas and medical expenses. So, the women she hangs out with know NOTHING about the worry and anxiety regular women deal with on a daily basis. And so using her to speak about what the majority of women care about is just dishonest.
It's also kind of sexist. Like women have this deep and innate understanding of each other, simply on the grounds they're all female. We don't make the same assumption about men. Why would she have any greater understanding of what a working-class woman goes through and worries about than Mitt himself?
It's also kind of sexist. Like women have this deep and innate understanding of each other, simply on the grounds they're all female. We don't make the same assumption about men.
wait... if you don't have some deep and innate understanding of each other - and thus other women then yourself - simply on the ground of being female... how do you know that other women aren't making that assumption about men?
also, how do you know that other women don't make that assumption about themselves, believing that they have a deep and innate understanding of other women - regardless if its true or not?
also, how do you know other women don't actually have a deep and innate understanding of other women, and for some obscure reason you weren't included in the secret hand-shake?
By 'we' I meant our society in general.
Western culture generally assumes a level of female consciousness that somehow bonds women together in ways men don't experience.
This is probably not the time for me to have a rant about some of the feminist readings of eighteenth century female identity. It just adds to the noise. It's the consolation prize. Men have the economic and political power, but dont worry ladies, you have the close bonds and sisterhood and the power of life blahdeblahdeblah.
... and the distortion/distractions continue. Unfortunate, but expected.
For what it's worth, here's my 2 cents. I believe Ann Romney has had a priveledged married life. That doesn't exclude her from having the right to offer her opinions to her husband regarding women's issues, anymore than Hilary Clinton or Michelle Obama or any first lady for that matter. But every person's life experience is different and I think it is a mistake to rely on only one voice for opinions or advice on ANY subject. Over half this country is female and if you want to be president you better talk to a lot of them to find out the best way to serve them as president.
Wait, what? We're allowed to VOTE? Since when? ;)
For what it's worth, here's my 2 cents. I believe Ann Romney has had a priveledged married life. That doesn't exclude her from having the right to offer her opinions to her husband regarding women's issues, anymore than Hilary Clinton or Michelle Obama or any first lady for that matter. But every person's life experience is different and I think it is a mistake to rely on only one voice for opinions or advice on ANY subject. Over half this country is female and if you want to be president you better talk to a lot of them to find out the best way to serve them as president.
Right. And he goes and picks a rich one. Like that isn't gonna ruffle feathers?
Interesting piece in the Guardian about this, and how it fits in the general 'war on women' idea. This bit in particular seems to articulate why Mitt's reliance on Anne's advice in this area might be problematic:
...narrowing the analysis to which campaign more effectively moved their pawns across the electoral board not only insults Rosen (and Romney, for that matter), but completely blows past the policy argument Rosen was commenting on: what is the probable impact of Romney's understanding of women's needs on his policy-making, if it is – by his admission – filtered through the viewpoint of his wife's discussions with other conservative women? Ann says they're concerned about the deficit, which is a happy coincidence for a candidate who's staked his claim to Paul Ryan's "marvelous" budget proposal and its emphasis on deficit reduction over the social programs that disproportionately benefit women (because women are disproportionally represented in economically disadvantaged groups).
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2012/apr/19/qanda-anamariecox-war-on-womenI'm not sure on the context and don't care enough to find it but is it possible he just said that as a joke or in a different context?
Romney has issues but one of them isn't his intelligence. I don't believe in a second that Romney actually gets all his advice about women voters from his wife. The only way that could remotely be true is if his wife went out and talked to thousands and thousands of women voters from all classes. Even that is sketchy because it is definitely not Romney's style.
Interesting piece in the Guardian about this, and how it fits in the general 'war on women' idea.
Equally interesting response ...
There is no war on women. using the word war in this context trivializes the concept and reality of war itself which is abhorrent given the real wars that are currently being waged. women outlive men by 6-7 years and with a very small amount of legal research it is easy to conclude that women have all the rights men have and also female gender-centric rights which men do not have.
Women may have the same de jure rights, but de facto rights are imbalanced. As is economic power.
...as is the world ...as is reality
Acknowledging that it's a common problem doesn't absolve us of the responsibility to try to solve it.
But that's precisely what we're talking about. The world. Reality.
The reality is that statistically women suffer more in the way of job loss and redundancy than men, are less likely to be in the kinds of employment that pay good redundancy packages than men and are slower to be rehired than men, during a recession.
Though there are exceptions, women are statistically more likely to be coupling external employment with carer duties such as looking after parents, more likely to have had a gap in their career to look after children, and more likely upon returning to work to find themselves at a reduced level.
Economically, women are generally less powerful than men. They, and the employment types that are predominantly female are less valued than men and predominantly male employment types. That makes them particularly vulnerable to certain kinds of economic stress. Coupled with a cultural assumption of male work being proper work and female work being a handy add on to boost the family income (I know it's changing, but we carry the remnants of earlier outlooks with us still), and an education culture that still, in subtle ways directs girls one way and boys another, what we are left with is a situation in which women are legally as protected as men, but in reality have a much more precarious and contingent relationship to the workplace.
It is a well-noted and commented upon phenomenon, that at times of economic turmoil, when job security is low and wage levels and working conditions are under threat, the cultural output starts to ask questions both about the nature of true womanhood (can a woman be a mother and a worker?) and the need for proper jobs and wages for family men. Sometimes the two are explicitly linked: suggestions are made that women really should be at home raising kids, and men need the validation of supporting their family financially as a proper husband should. It's no accident, I don't think, that out of the recession of the 90s a movement grew up of professional women who were giving up those decisions more traditonally associated with men, and allowing their husbands total control over the family finances and major household decisions.
There is often, at such times, an increasing sense of unease around female physicality, sexuality and moral health. This recent attempt to force vaginal ultrasounds on all women seeking abortions, is a fairly typical example of the way a culture of unease about women and their reproductive power, their competetive threat to male employment and their political outspokenness starts to leak into the relationship between the government and women's physical self. Correct me if I am wrong, but I can think of no male equivalent.
There are many examples of this throughout history. Some from the 18th and 19th centuries resonate rather shockingly with the ultrasound requirement.
Cultural and social distress aways ends up played out on the bodies of women. 'Figuratively and literally' it's been said by some historians.
Here we go. had to nip and check me dates :p
The Contagious Diseases act caused massive controversy in Britain. It was the focus for a lot of proto-feminist activity, much like the recent ultrasuond requirement:
The Contagious Diseases Acts were originally passed by the Parliament of the United Kingdom in 1864, with further alterations and editions made to it in 1866 and 1869. In 1862, a committee was established to inquire into venereal disease in the armed forces; on its recommendation the first Contagious Diseases Act was passed. The legislation allowed police officers to arrest prostitutes in certain ports and army towns, and the women were then subjected to compulsory checks for venereal disease. If a woman was declared to be infected, she would be confined in what was known as a ‘Lock Hospital’ until ‘cured’. The original act was only lawful in a few selected naval ports and army towns, but by 1869 the acts had been extended to be in operation in eighteen ‘subjected districts’[1]
The Act of 1864 stated that women found to be infected could be interned in locked hospitals for up to three months, a period gradually extended to one year with the 1869 Act. These measures were justified by medical and military officials as the most effective method to shield men from venereal disease. As military men were discouraged from marriage and homosexual behaviour was criminal, prostitution was considered a necessary evil. However, no provision was made for the examination of prostitutes' clientele, which became one of the many points of contention in a campaign to repeal the Acts.
After 1866, proposals were introduced to extend the acts to the north of England and to the civilian population. It was suggested that this extension would regulate prostitution and stop street disorders caused by it in large cities.
The issue of the Contagious Diseases Act and venereal disease created significant controversy within Victorian Society. Known as the ‘Social Disease’, the acts themselves affected thousands of people's lives, from campaigners to prostitutes themselves. It exploded the debate over the double standards between men and women. It was one of the first political issues that led to women organizing themselves and actively campaigning for their rights.
The acts demonstrated the degree of double standards between men and women in Victorian society. Men were responsible for the demand for prostitutes, yet only women had to endure humiliating personal medical examinations and be contained in locked hospitals if found to be infected; women's reputations were threatened but not men's. The double standards of men were a key part in Josephine Butler's campaigns for the repeal of the acts.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contagious_Diseases_Acts
I am aware by the way that this is a massive tangent :p But it interests me, so I figure it might interest someone else.
Incidentally, just to be clear about something: none of this is 'what men to do to women', it's what we, a society of men and women, do to ourselves.*
* ...:condom:
I'm not sure on the context and don't care enough to find it but is it possible he just said that as a joke or in a different context?
Romney has issues but one of them isn't his intelligence. I don't believe in a second that Romney actually gets all his advice about women voters from his wife. The only way that could remotely be true is if his wife went out and talked to thousands and thousands of women voters from all classes. Even that is sketchy because it is definitely not Romney's style.
I do have issues with Romney's intelligence. And this particular kerfuffle is just another instance of several that make me question his depth of understanding about the economic and social world **I** live in. He has not shown much, if any, evidence that he knows practically anything about it.
He's made many comments that, taken individually, are groan worthy. "Corporations are people", "I like to fire people", "I don't know about what team he'll wind up with, but I have a couple friends that own football teams and..." And the same with his NASCAR team owner friends. And his fleet of vehicles "two Cadillacs", etc. Etc. Etc. They're tossed off so casually, so... naturally that they seem real. I believe they are real. And I take this as pretty reliable evidence that his "intelligence" on the subject of how I live is meager at best. It's good that he seeks input from others, no one knows everything, no one. Good on him. And his wife is as good a source as any for advice (though I don't know much about her creds) since she almost certainly has his (and their) best interests at heart. But the same disconnect applies for her when it comes to being able to "speak for" most women. I find the suggestion that she knows much about the workaday lives of "most women" laughable. And the economic disconnect is the major piece of that.
That Mitt Romney would tout Ann as a valid, informed source of good data about "what women want" (so to speak) is yet another of these faux pas (what is the plural??? whatever). He doesn't impress me with his intelligence when it comes to describing his inner dialog like this.
Business smart? Well, he sure has gotten results. Does he have experience governing? Yes. Is he like me? No, not really. And when he talks about what my life is like, me, the 99%, he shows his lack of understanding. I don't find that comforting. I find his delusion somewhat alarming.
I'll cherrypick this part as I tend to agree with most of the rest of your post, V.
I find the suggestion that she knows much about the workaday lives of "most women" laughable.
Me too - And who is it that made that assertion?
Is Romney really that much different than past presidential candidates? I remember the same talk against Kerry in 2004 and I would think most representatives in Washington don't understand the lifestyle of the 99%.
Romney definitely is out of touch with most of America, I fully believe that, but I still have trouble believing that Romney lacks any knowledge about such an important demographic. That is one aspect that Romney's campaign is good at: knowing which views will resonate with certain people. His advisers even admitted that his campaign will change views with the 'Etch a Sketch' comment.
The female demographic is considered extremely important this election and will probably determine who wins. I would think that Romney's advisers, who probably are not from the 1%, have done a great deal of research figuring out ways to get women voters on his side. Maybe I'm wrong but that is how I see it.
Good Job! Demonize Stay at Home Moms! Winning points there! :thumb:
Ok, let's now categorize men.
Do men who have been out of work for:
1- one month. (this one just graduated from college and thinks the government should pay off his student loans)
2- two months. (this one is about to lose it all, 2 kids, wife, bills stacked up.)
3- four months. (this one is a new college grad and has no anxiety about work because he is still on his moms insurance and is living at home)
4- eight months. (this one was laid off and can't find work in his field)
5- sixteen months. (this one was laid off and thinks it would be great to take time off to stay home with his kids while his wife made the money)
6- thirty-two months. (this one wants to work terribly and wants to kill himself because his wife can't find a job either and they are about to lose their house)
7- or Stay at home Dads who have been only in that capacity for X months ( you fill in your magical mythical number between 1 and 100 months while mom worked because she made a shit load more than dad could make).
Ok, so geniuses, please explain to me who has more worth, who has a valid understanding of the working world, and who is more qualified than some other non-working Dad to make those judgements? Be sure to ID each category that is worthy of the ability to understand what it is like to work and which one is not and why one has greater worth than the other.... thanks.
Now replace all of the terms "men" with "Women".
Now tell me about the worth of a woman who does not have to worry about that and where she it says she should be penalized, persecuted, and pilloried in the press because she was fortunate?
Uh - ya lost me.
Its quite obvious.
Dude. If it was a man who stayed at home everyone would have treated the issue differently. But some dumb assed political Demoncratic Hack thought she would make political Hay out of the issue because Romney's wife was a stay at home mom. I know plenty of stay at home dads in the military. And if you told them they didn't know jack about the working world they would kick your ass. The dumb bitch that made that statement is a fool. Don't ever tell a stay at home mom she has no idea what she understands about the working world. Many work harder than some fool who goes off and tries to sell cars or advertising space everyday.
I'll cherrypick this part as I tend to agree with most of the rest of your post, V.
Me too - And who is it that made that assertion?
I find Mitt Romney's actions and words suggestive of it. Why else would he say what he said? Why would he turn to her for information on what women want? And the advice he got was kind of..it was just some fucking talking point made up by his campaign. Mitt Romney said of his interactions with is wife Ann:
I’ve had the fun of being out with my wife the last several days on the campaign trail. And she points out that as she talks to women, they tell her that their number one concern is the economy.
What is she? His female-talk interpreter? The Woman Whisperer? I'll tell you what. We have lots of women here in the cellar. Think about what kinds of concerns they post about. Yes, they do post about the economy, but it's not anything like "their number one concern is the economy". Sometimes it's being proud of their kids, sometimes it's learning a new scream from her husband. Sometimes it's morning sickness or frustration with parents or spouses or kids. Or their jobs and cow orkers. I've been around here awhile and I haven't seen what Mitt says is being reported to him. Probably Ann is talking with a different group of women I talk with, sure.
Mitt's kind of a clumsy doofus with his words, and his words regarding women are no exception. You know, I can't find the quote from Mitt that started this. And that's too bad, but my memory of it is that he was touting his understanding of women's concerns by touting the fact that he talks to his wife, Ann. I got no problem with that, EXCEPT that I just don't see anything in her experience that makes me feel like Ann knows the stuff he thinks she knows about, or at least that he thinks she's telling him. It doesn't jive with MY experience about listening to what women are saying is their number one concern. Dammit, it's just dumb.
"Hi Ann, what is the number one concern of the women you're talking to?"
"Ann, what are those women you're talking to saying?"
And the answer is "It's the economy, stupid"? No. just... no.
They're tossed off so casually, so... naturally that they seem real. I believe they are real. And I take this as pretty reliable evidence that his "intelligence" on the subject of how I live is meager at best.
But he's keenly aware of how the demographic he intends to serve live.
Dude. If it was a man who stayed at home everyone would have treated the issue differently. But some dumb assed political Demoncratic Hack thought she would make political Hay out of the issue because Romney's wife was a stay at home mom. I know plenty of stay at home dads in the military. And if you told them they didn't know jack about the working world they would kick your ass. The dumb bitch that made that statement is a fool. Don't ever tell a stay at home mom she has no idea what she understands about the working world. Many work harder than some fool who goes off and tries to sell cars or advertising space everyday.
You know what, merc, I agree. Staying home to raise children is not the lazy, easy option. It's hard work, valuable work.
Which is why I feel so angry when politicians and rightwing correspondents focus their ire on single welfare moms. They're not 'sponging' they are staying home to raise their children.
Personally, I am in favour of paying a stayhome parenting benefit, equivalent to unemployment benefit, and lasting until the youngest child reaches ten years old.
You know what, merc, I agree. Staying home to raise children is not the lazy, easy option. It's hard work, valuable work.
Which is why I feel so angry when politicians and rightwing correspondents focus their ire on single welfare moms. They're not 'sponging' they are staying home to raise their children.
Personally, I am in favour of paying a stayhome parenting benefit, equivalent to unemployment benefit, and lasting until the youngest child reaches ten years old.
That gets my vote!
Personally, I am in favour of paying a stayhome parenting benefit, equivalent to unemployment benefit, and lasting until the youngest child reaches ten years old.
It's kind of a bad idea to pay people to have babies they would not otherwise want. Stupid women already deliberately have extra babies because they can get a new set of child support payments from BabyDaddy #4. Meanwhile, the reason there are so many shitty and abusive foster parents in the system is because there is the lure of taking a kid on for the money.
Stupid women already deliberately have extra babies because they can get a new set of child support payments from BabyDaddy #4.
That is a popular urban believe. Where are facts that support that claim with numbers?
In my whole life I have met two women who deliberately had children to avoid going back to work. One told me candidly that she loved being a mother, had no work experience and qualifications and was therefore a better Mum than she was a worker. I disagreed, but kept my mouth shut. She was a drinker and a brawler. Hence my opinion and my reason for not expressing it. She had three children, so not excessive.
The other was my boyfriend's ex, who chose to stop birth control once her first son (not his) went to pre-school. He swore she trapped him this way, but admitted he knew she'd come off the pill and carried on having sex anyway. He was too stupid to keep in the long run - she moved on as did I, I can't be doing with men who abandon their children.
If you have personal experience of women who squeeze out babies for benefits Clod, then I'd be interested to hear it. As I say, of all the hundreds of pregnant women I've known, only two have been thus afflicted. I don't count the ones I read about in the Hate Mail.
yeah...I hear that a lot myself. But have found very little evidence of it in the world around me.
They used to say it when I was a kid too. Because back then there really was a council house or flat ready for you if you had a baby. I knew a few girls who had babies when we were teens. One of them, a lass called Donna, was 15 when she realised she was pregnant. She was thrilled. And yes, being able to get a flat was part of why she was thrilled. It would, in her words, get her away from her mum and dad's house, where she was woefully unhappy. But it wasnt why she had the baby. And it wasnt the only reason she was thrilled.
The particular demographic who might rely on such housing if they have a baby are also statistically likely to have had family breakdowns and a chaotic homelife. For a young lass in that situiation a baby can mean a lot of things, including something that is truly 'their own'.
very few of us do anything major in our lives because of a single solitary motivation. Even those for whom extra beneifts or a social house are part of their rationale, will have other reasons all mixed up in there. Including, potentially, the notion that this is what you do as a grownup. This is how you mark yourself an adult: you have a baby and you get your house and you're all set in the grownup world.
Just as an aside, I also think that, given the paltry amount of help these girls actually receive from the State (bad in the uk, but at least they get actual currency not just food stamps), anybody who actually chooses that as a better option in life deserves our pity and sympathy.
The Government is not the answer. AND tax payer dollars should not support those who choose to stay home. This is not a country the size of Rhode Island.... It is not feasible. The bottom line is stop demonizing those who have the choice.
The bottom line is stop demonizing those who have the choice.
That means religious extremists and the Tea Party disagree with you. They are anti-choice. They will even say that god tells us all what to do. Choice is advocated by evil liberals - according to them. When did you and they have a falling out?
If you have personal experience of women who squeeze out babies for benefits Clod, then I'd be interested to hear it. As I say, of all the hundreds of pregnant women I've known, only two have been thus afflicted.
Sorry, I've been behind on threads and just now saw this. My personal experience is not with women looking for state/federal benefits (which, like in the UK, is not much money at all,) but rather those aiming to get child support payments from the father, which are on a sliding scale with his income and have no upper limit. Get pregnant by someone with a $100,000 per year income, and you've got yourself as much as $30,000 a year for the next 18 years. Repeat as necessary for each different father. As an offhand count right now, I can think of... at least 5 women who either deliberately got pregnant (with additional children, not their first,) or kept babies they otherwise would have aborted if the dads had been brutally poor, because they wanted the child support money.
I was on the other side of that. Clods right on as usual.
Unfortunately there are plenty who do it for the gov't money as well.