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 fired 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/opinio...tml?hpt=hp_bn7

Infi's nailed it.

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.

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/...ckfire/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.

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.

This this this.

I second (or fourth) Ibram's 'this' to HM's post.

Seriously true!

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" ...

That's OK. Me too.

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.

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.

Well said that Monkey.

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?

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.

Am I bovvered?

Is it though?

Look in my face.

I am lookin in your face though

Your face looks like your arse so I don't know

Arx me if I'm bovvered.

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.

I do not disagree with this
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.

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."

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; 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.

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?

I agree with you. I added some other facts to the equation that change nothing.
Your statement still holds true.
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!

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.

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?

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 Ann or Mitt? Lemme help you, Never.
I shouldn't be answering these questions, nor should you.
We are the ones who should be asking relevant questions.
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.
What is that? What Republican word? WTH are you babbling about?

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics...0,611519.story

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:

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.

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.

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!!!!

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.