Stay At Home Moms Devalued

[Log]

Apparently Hilary Rosen has apologized to Ann Romney.

http://www.huffingto...kusaolp00000009

An apology which admits no wrongdoing, neither details any change of position. Yeahhhhhhh riiiiiight.

[selek1]

An apology which admits no wrongdoing, neither details any change of position. Yeahhhhhhh riiiiiight.

Gotta love the contradiction between these two statements:

"I think your husband needs to stand up for women's economic struggles and so far we have not seen how he's going to do that on the campaign trail. It hasn't come out of his mouth and maybe it will at some point, but this is a distraction that his campaign is forcing on the american people to avoid his record on the issues."

"Let's put the faux 'war against stay at home moms' to rest once and for all," she said.

Rosen and her political masters picked this fight.

They threw the first punches. Now that they've gotten a black eye, they all just want to get along.

Hypocrites.

[bluebell]

Apparently Hilary Rosen has apologized to Ann Romney.

http://www.huffingto...kusaolp00000009

Why couldn't she just be honest with her intentions and say, "I'm sorry that all of you people have decided to be offended for no reason," instead of being all passive/aggressive about it?

[Libs]

Hilary Rosen was being criticized by both Republicans and Democrats. I think that is why she finally decided to apologize (or, at least, further explain why she said what she did).

[selek1]

Hilary Rosen was being criticized by both Republicans and Democrats. I think that is why she finally decided to apologize (or, at least, further explain why she said what she did).

A gaffe has been defined as "a politician accidentally telling the truth."

Rosen was criticized by the Democrats after the public backlash began- not because they disagree with what she said.

You'll notice that there was no objection nor any attempt to correct when she actually made the comments- only knowing smiles and sage nods of agreement.

Rosen's tirade fits in perfectly with the last forty years of NOW and Betty Freidan.

It was a calculated political hit- and perfectly in keeping with the administrations agenda.

And now she's whining- with some justification, I think- about being thrown under the bus.

The only reason Rosen is being excoriated by the Left is because she failed....

In that sense, Rosen is the DNC's version of Seneca Crane.

[bluebell]

Hilary Rosen was being criticized by both Republicans and Democrats. I think that is why she finally decided to apologize (or, at least, further explain why she said what she did).

I agree. She realized that her statement wasn't popular, and that's why she apologized. It had nothing to do with her being sorry.

[selek1]

Here's another reason why Ann Romney is in the cross-hairs.

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/erikajohnsen/2012/04/06/family_a_message_from_mitt_romneys_better_half

[bluebell]

A gaffe has been defined as "a politician accidentally telling the truth."

Rosen was criticized by the Democrats because of the public backlash- not because they disagree with what she said.

Her comments were no different than the last forty years of NOW and Betty Freidan.

Betty Freidan was very much disliked by feminists such as gloria stein (whatever her name is) because Betty did not believe as they did.

Are you sure you're not confusing her with radical feminism?

[Libs]

A gaffe has been defined as "a politician accidentally telling the truth."

Rosen was criticized by the Democrats after the public backlash began- not because they disagree with what she said.

You'll notice that there was no objection nor any attempt to correct when she actually made the comments- only knowing smiles and sage nods of agreement.

Rosen's tirade fits in perfectly with the last forty years of NOW and Betty Freidan.

It was a calculated political hit- and perfectly in keeping with the administrations agenda.

And now she's whining- with some justification, I think- about being thrown under the bus.

The only reason Rosen is being excoriated by the Left is because she failed....

In that sense, Rosen is the DNC's version of Seneca Crane.

Well, as someone who is on the left, myself, I have to disagree that Hilary said, exactly what she meant. I know, when her head was finally a little clearer, she did not mean to say that stay at home moms do not work. That's just silly, on it's face, and I know most women, for sure, know better than that. Hilary spoke rashly and didn't say exactly what she meant, IMO. And, I sincerely hope, more is not made of this, than is really there.

There is already so much division and hate between the political elements, in this country, and we really need to start finding some areas of compromise and general agreement, instead of setting more fires (as Hilary undoubtedly did, with her unthinking comment) or this country is going to continue going downhill.

[selek1]

Are you sure you're not confusing her with radical feminism?

Considering that my first reaction was, "There's a difference?"- it's possible.

That having been said, the feminism of the last forty years has been remarkably mysoginistic towards women who chose to be stay-at-home moms or otherwise challenged their orthodoxy.

That's one of the primary reasons why that brand of feminism is an endangered species and why the attack on Ann Romney blew up in their faces.

Most women today are rejecting the extremist, chanting, man-hating, all-or-nothing approach in favor of a more balanced, more nuanced version- and embracing views more in keeping with those of the original Suffragettes.

That's why the administration has been pushing the "war on women" meme- to shore up the sisterhood against the invidious influence a smart, thoughtful Conservative woman will have on the world stage.

That's why the media was so desperate to demonize and discredit Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachmann, and others.

The smear campaign worked- rare is the commentator who can tell the difference between what these women actually said and what was said by an impersonator on Saturday Night Live.

The fact that Rosen's first salvo blew up in her face might prevent them from doing the same to Ann Romney.

But I'm not holding my breath, either.

[selek1]

Well, as someone who is on the left, myself, I have to disagree that Hilary said, exactly what she meant. I know, when her head was finally a little clearer, she did not mean to say that stay at home moms do not work.

Spin, spin, spin, and bull.

Rosen was given a chance to recant and double downed on her bet not once, not twice, but three times.

And then offered a non-apology that convinced precisely no one.

Hilary spoke rashly and didn't say exactly what she meant, IMO.

Thank you for your opinion.

Your opinion, however, does not counter the facts of the matter:

Rosen is a paid political consulant for the DNC.

She was brought in specifically to help craft the party's message for the campaign (and to make Debbie Wasserman Schultz look slightly more stable). Guess she failed that one.

Rosen was given several opportunities to walk back her foot-in-mouth disease and stubbornly refused to do so for almost twenty four hours- and then issued a combatative "apology" that was nothing more than another thinly veiled attack.

There is already so much division and hate between the political elements, in this country, and we really need to start finding some areas of compromise and general agreement, instead of setting more fires (as Hilary undoubtedly did, with her unthinking comment) or this country is going to continue going downhill.

I agree. But what you are (deliberately?) overlooking is the fact that this particular fire was set intentionally.

Rosen is a political arsonist- and one of the architects (sorry for mixing my metaphors) of the blatantly false "War On Women" meme that the media has been trotting out for the last several weeks.

With the exception of attacking Ann Romney by name, Rosen's comments closely echoed a speech given by the President the night before.

No- Rosen's comments were no accident, but rather were a carefully crafted part of that deliberate hateful, divide-and-conquer strategy.

The only difference is Rosen got her fingers burned.

But even her self-immolation will be made to serve a purpose.

Doesn't she make a dandy distraction from the fact that the Obama Whitehouse only pays women 80 cents on every dollar they pay men?

[bluebell]

Considering that my first reaction was, "There's a difference?"- it's possible.

Freidan was actually pushed out of the movement by the radical feminists and went fairly willingly because she believed that they were destroying everything she had worked for.

[selek1]

Freidan was actually pushed out of the movement by the radical feminists and went fairly willingly because she believed that they were destroying everything she had worked for.

Fair enough- but she said some pretty dispicable things all on her own, arguing that motherhood and homemaking were soul-deadening occupations and that pursuing a professional career was the way for a woman to "become complete." She agreed with the midcentury misogynists that a stay-at-home mother was, in Friedan's words, "castrative to her husband and sons."

And if they kicked her out because she wasn't radical enough......

[bluebell]

Fair enough- but she said some pretty dispicable things all on her own, arguing that motherhood and homemaking were soul-deadening occupations and that pursuing a professional career was the way for a woman to "become complete." She agreed with the midcentury misogynists that a stay-at-home mother was, in Friedan's words, "castrative to her husband and sons."

And if they kicked her out because she wasn't radical enough......

That's what stay at home moms were telling her, so she believed them.

It was a symptom of the type of 'stay at home mothering' which was permitted during the 1950's-where buying tupperware really was, for the majority of the upper middle class stay at home mothers Friedan was in contact with, a right of passage. Where high schools had classes about how to be a good wife because that was the absolute most a girl could aspire to.

It's natural that when you mess up the meaning of being a wife and stay at home mother to the degree that it was messed up in the 1950s (not for everyone but in general), kick back is going to occur. That's not saying that the pendulum swinging all the way to the other side is acceptable either, but i think it should be acknowledged that the swinging was only possible because it was much to far one direction to begin with.

[selek1]

That's what stay at home moms were telling her, so she believed them.

If you say so.

It doesn't jive however- not even remotely- with the experiences of other women of the era with whom I've discussed the subject.

One might argue that Freidan was doing just what Ann Romney was- reporting what was told to her.

The problem is that both logic and current polling support what Mrs. Romney has said.

Friedan's narrative has been called into question more than once.

It was a symptom of the type of 'stay at home mothering' which was permitted during the 1950's-where buying tupperware really was, for the majority of the upper middle class stay at home mothers Friedan was in contact with, a right of passage. Where high schools had classes about how to be a good wife because that was the absolute most a girl could aspire to.

I'm really not interested in debating the Feminist meta-myth.

I know that I won't convince you (nor, I expect, is the reverse at all likely).

In my experience, too much of Friedan's story (and the feminist narrative as as a whole) has taken on Martha Beck-type air of unreality and dogmatic acceptance.

It doesn't matter how irrational or far-fetched the claims may be. Nor does it matter that people who were actually there have unequivocally and unflinchingly contradicted the story.

You're a brute and insensitive clod for even daring to question her story.

I find the concept of an avowed feminist hiding behind her gender to avoid having her story carefully examined to be both hypocritical and paradoxical.

I find such attempts to intellectual/emotional blackmail to be extremely distasteful.

It's natural that when you mess up the meaning of being a wife and stay at home mother to the degree that it was messed up in the 1950s (not for everyone but in general), kick back is going to occur.

And yet the evidence that the meaning was "messed up" exists almost exclusively in the fervid imaginations of the gender hustlers such as Freidan.

Forgive me for saying so, but that's like going to Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton for the "truth" about the Trayvon Martin case.

There is a vested interesting in exaggeration and distortion that a rational thinker cannot and must not overlook.

That's not saying that the pendulum swinging all the way to the other side is acceptable either, but i think it should be acknowledged that the swinging was only possible because it was much to far one direction to begin with.

As stated, the idea that the pendulum had swung that far is not exactly "settled science".

I would also point out that feminists today are using exactly the same caricatures of "marital serfdom" against Mormons today.

[bluebell]

If you say so.

It doesn't jive however- not even remotely- with the experiences of other women of the era with whom I've discussed the subject.

One might argue that Freidan was doing just what Ann Romney was- reporting what was told to her.

Well, to be accurate, Friedan was a stay at home mother herself for many years, but was unfulfilled with the role she was told she had to play so conducted research to see if it was just her or if other women were also restless and unhappy without knowing why exactly.

I'm really not interested in debating the Feminist meta-myth.

Me neither, but i grow tired of the often knee-jerk reaction that a lot of men have to feminism-as if wanting women to be treated equally to men (which was Friedan's ultimate goal) is somehow evil.

I'm fine with disagreeing with her methods and specific beliefs, but i'm not o.k. with pretending that society at that time wasn't messed up in the way that it viewed women and men and their worth and that such a messed up view didn't need to be changed.

[selek1]

Me neither, but i grow tired of the often knee-jerk reaction that a lot of men have to feminism-as if wanting women to be treated equally to men (which was Friedan's ultimate goal) is somehow evil.

I don't think it's a reaction to the idea of equality as much as a well-justified distaste for the hyper-partisan, hateful, and mysanthropic emotional baggage tacked on to an otherwise laudible goal.

I'm fine with disagreeing with her methods and specific beliefs, but i'm not o.k. with pretending that society at that time wasn't messed up in the way that it viewed women and men and their worth and that such a messed up view didn't need to be changed.

Again, I believe that the devil is in the details.

Were some individuals- or even some subsets of the community as a whole- disfunctional? Almost certainly.

Was American as a whole the bleak, post-Apocalyptic, Orwellian waste land that Friedan and her fellow ideologues portray? Certainly not.

In any event, we're getting rather far-afield on th topic.

[bluebell]

In any event, we're getting rather far-afield on th topic.

Very true!

[Calm]

Well, as someone who is on the left, myself, I have to disagree that Hilary said, exactly what she meant. I know, when her head was finally a little clearer, she did not mean to say that stay at home moms do not work. That's just silly, on it's face, and I know most women, for sure, know better than that. Hilary spoke rashly and didn't say exactly what she meant, IMO. And, I sincerely hope, more is not made of this, than is really there.

There is already so much division and hate between the political elements, in this country, and we really need to start finding some areas of compromise and general agreement, instead of setting more fires (as Hilary undoubtedly did, with her unthinking comment) or this country is going to continue going downhill.

Libs, I see you are a good hearted person and want to give others the benefit of the doubt that they are underneath as kind and thoughtful as you are. In general, I try hard to do the same.

But I think in this case you are giving a bit too much of a benefit. People do tend to mean what they say in the heat of the moment, they also can feel the complete opposite as well as we can possess feelings and beliefs on many different levels that are not always consistent, at least in appearance to outsiders. I agree she likely didn't mean to attack SAHMs, but I think she said exactly what she meant because it was a personal attack on Ann Romney.

It is very sad that more fires are being set because honestly it is so easy to do so and so much harder to put them out once started such that I see little hope for working together. If something like what happened on 9/11 only managed to do it for a few days, what would it take to wake enough people up to face the reality and to put aside their own biases long enough for long term, effective change to actually occur?

[Libs]

Thanks for your kind response, Calmoriah. You could be right.

I do think Hilary was attacking Ann Romney's "status" as one of the "super rich", who likely had all kinds of advantages that most women (most "people") do not have. She was probably coming from the assumption that the Romney's had all kinds of household help (maids, servants, nannies, etc) to help with the kids (which her son, Josh said, on Piers Morgan, tonight, was not true). But, Hilary is thinking, "how can this woman possibly relate to those poor working women out there who struggle so?"

This is a big part of the divide, right now, as the gap between rich and poor keeps widening. I wish we could all take a step back and try to understand where each side is coming from, rather than just attacking.

[Libs]

I'm fine with disagreeing with her methods and specific beliefs, but i'm not o.k. with pretending that society at that time wasn't messed up in the way that it viewed women and men and their worth and that such a messed up view didn't need to be changed.

Well said, Bluebell. I am old enough to remember the "good old days". Things were very messed up and in need of serious change, not just for women, but for a lot of severely discriminated against groups. We are not there yet, but still working on it.

[thesometimesaint]

What Rosen said:

“What you have is, Mitt Romney running around the country saying, ‘Well, you know, 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.’ Guess what: his wife has never really worked a day in her life. She’s never really dealt with the kind of economic issues that a majority of the women in this country are facing in terms of how do we feed our kids, how do we send them to school, and why do we worry about their future".

Within the context of economics which Mitt was talking about Rosen was absolutely right. Mitts wife has never had to face the problems, she had five nannies to help with the load for heavens sake, that the vast majority of American women do. To blow this into a riff on democrats and/or liberals is disingenous at best.

[Libs]

Did she really have five nannies? Her son reported on Piers Morgan, tonight, that she had no help raising five boys, other than a housekeeper that came once a week for a couple of hours.

[Calm]

Did she really have five nannies? Her son reported on Piers Morgan, tonight, that she had no help raising five boys, other than a housekeeper that came once a week for a couple of hours.

It is certainly more in line with the what happened on the vacation with all the kids in the car, they put the dog on top. Why not rent a bigger van or an RV if they were doing the rolling in the dough or take two cars, one for the family and then hire someone else to drive up with the other stuff.

[Calm]

What Rosen said:

“What you have is, Mitt Romney running around the country saying, ‘Well, you know, 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.’ Guess what: his wife has never really worked a day in her life. She’s never really dealt with the kind of economic issues that a majority of the women in this country are facing in terms of how do we feed our kids, how do we send them to school, and why do we worry about their future".

Within the context of economics which Mitt was talking about Rosen was absolutely right. Mitts wife has never had to face the problems, she had five nannies to help with the load for heavens sake, that the vast majority of American women do. To blow this into a riff on democrats and/or liberals is disingenous at best.

Unless they are misrepresenting what type of input Ann Romney is providing. As a bishop's wife, it is almost a guanatee that women came to her for help and counseling, she has likely held other callings that have provided opportunities for women to share their experiences with her.

Very few of politicians have had the same personal experiences of their constituents. It makes sense though that women are reaching out to Ann Romney to tell her their story and she is relaying it to her husband. If so, it is not her own personal experiences that matter but her skills of communication and empathy.

It would be good political tactics for the Dems to try and create a picture of an isolated Ann Romney....the question is if this picture is real or not; few women who had been in her positions in the Church would be accurately described as isolated, if she spent time driving the boys to various activities, carpooling perhaps even, volunteering at their schools, she would have more opportunities to discuss what was going on in their lives with other women even before her husband became a politician and she a conduit to his attention many women may have been more comfortable seeking out.