Most people have already heard the story. CNN political contributor Hilary Rosen told Anderson Cooper, '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 actually never 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.' Stay-at-home moms, working-outside-the-home moms and their husbands across the country took to Twitter with complaints. Many high-ranking Democrats disagreed with Rosen and suggested she apologize. What did Rosen do? First, she took to Twitter, along with supporters, and attacked. Then she took to Huffington Post...and attacked. For 12 hours, she kept going.
Did Rosen actually say that stay-at-home moms are bad? No. However, her condescending attitude and assumption that women who stay home to raise their kids have no idea what is going on in the world or can't comprehend the economic problems facing most moms is wrong. Many women who stay home do so after being in the workforce for many years, some volunteer, some handle the household and business finances...the list goes on. In addition, most LDS women, like Romney, go to college before marriage (and after for Romney) and often serve a mission for the Church. The elitist liberal mindset is against women in traditional roles and that is probably where Rosen's sarcasm comes from. Is her apology real? No way.
Right after Rosen's CNN appearance, Ann Romney opened a Twitter account and tweeted, '@AnnDRomney ''I made a choice to stay home and raise five boys. Believe me, it was hard work.' Rosen's unbelievable response? @HilaryR 'I am raising children too. But u do know that most young american women have to earn a living AND raise their kids don't u?' She doesn't think this is a 'war' about stay-at-home moms? Okay, how about rich moms vs. poor moms? Has Rosen been poor? Later, President Obama, while acting like he was alarmed by what she said, mentioned his wife didn't have 'the luxury' to stay home. Most stay-at-home moms have given up the second car (or even a car at all), nicer house, eating out, and loads more to raise their kids. It is not a luxury, it is a sacrifice-well worth it.
Why did the major Democrat players come out in droves to make the point of distancing themselves from Rosen? Political suicide. They didn't think about it enough to stop their manufactured 'War on Women', and when they've worked up their followers to a fevered pitch of indignation, they abandon them. When Rosen is down, they kick her in the teeth. The DNC denies she was an adviser, White House press secretary Jay Carney said he personally knew three people called Hilary Rosen (wow), did not know how often she had been to the White House and had 'no idea' about any meetings! Rosen has made 35 visits to the White House. 35! That's more than the Secretary of Defense, Leon Panetta has visited! (Sounds an awful lot like what happened with Media Matters) Mr. Press Secretary doesn't know why? Mixed up priorities, perhaps? They all threw Rosen under the bus.
Many on the left are now coming out saying that this isn't an attack from them. Granted, but what happened with Rush Limbaugh and countless others? The same applies. The president and others shouldn't have to apologize for this woman's behavior, but maybe they took a page from their own playbook and assumed they would be attacked for her comments? Now, they're trying to turn it around on conservatives by saying Rosen was being attacked because she is a lesbian! Who knew that? Absurd. Their 'evidence' is a tweet by the Catholic League and apparently about 1,500 idiotic other people. How many people attacked stay-at-home moms in defense of Rosen? Even as Rosen herself was saying it wasn't about stay-at-home moms.
After being pushed and pushed, Rosen apologized to Ann Romney for her 'poorly chosen words'. But, before that she threw in, 'Let's put the faux 'war against stay-at-home moms' to rest once and for all.' She just doesn't get it. In interviews, she kept blaming Mitt Romney, 'If I had the do-over, what I would be saying is that Mitt Romney should not be on the campaign trail saying to women, my wife tells me how it is for mom—for women out there. Because people of wealth sometimes take for granted some of the niceties that they have in life. And the Romneys are people of wealth. She doesn't just—she's not just a one-mom -' Just not a what, Hilary? Too rich to understand? So, maybe it's not really a war on stay-at-home moms...just wealthy stay-at-home moms.
Photo: Facebook
© Margie Wilson-Mars 2012
recommend
Facebook
Twitter
bookmark 
print
Comments: 33
Is there any other kind?
Many so-called feminists on the left have demeaned women for opting to stay at home with their children.
"I suppose I could have stayed home and baked cookies and had teas" - Hillary Clinton
Feminist Linda Hirshman argued that it's imperative for women not to "opt out" of employment to stay home with the kids. Only by working, she claimed, can women can have a fully "flourishing" life.
Why? Why would feminists care what choices women want to make in their own life? Does it have anything to do with an agenda?
Do you know what a statistically invalid sample is? Apparently not.
The "War on women" strategy has taken a hit.
They need a shiny object to distract America from the fact that Obama is ruining our economy.
The whole Ann Romney brouhaha is the frightwing's latest attempt to distract from the fact that the Repubs are going to TRY to institute the same policies that got us here in the first place.
The "War on women" strategy has taken a hit.
They need a shiny object to distract America from the fact that Obama is ruining our economy."
So true.
Not saying that being a stay at home mom isn't work, because it is. And it's honorable, even noble, work. But most women don't get that option because in today's economy, it takes two salaries to get by.
This statement is obviously what caused the uproar, and technically it's the truth. It was directed at one person, as I'm sure Rosen wasn't lumping Romney with all SAHM's. To have the media, lawmakers, pundits, & strategists blow this up to monumental proportions is shameful AND idiotic, jmho.
Nice try, it will be over soon.
Take responsibility for your failure.
Why don't you go be not useful somewhere else?
I'll be sure to call you if I want the regressive fascist viewpoint on anything, which will never happen.
Absolutely. Nothing more to do with his (Opinion Nate Ted) life than be a loser on this forum
I think it's clear that the Romney campaign is desperately hoping that this can help him pick up more women voters, but I doubt it's going to work for him. They may be able to get a little boost by spinning it as an attack on poor Ann Romney and stay-at-home mom's everywhere, but I think most people understand that Mrs. Romney isn't representative of the vast majority of mothers, whether they work outside the home or not. And they'll remember Mitt's comments about Ann driving "a couple of Cadillacs" and about how he's one of the unemployed, too. And how he said that $374,000 wasn't very much money.
And as right-wing pundits try to insist that Hilary Rosen's comment represents the "real war on women", I think most people will recognize the difference between pointing out that a millionaire's wife has little understanding of the economic pressures faced by women who aren't married to millionaires and with creating legislation requiring doctors to insert probes into women's vaginas for purely political, rather than medical, reasons.
Excllent. I could not have said it better. I hope the writer Ms Wilson-Mars takes a clue from what you have said and thinks before he writes another peece of crap like she did here. LOL
Ms Wilson-Mars
This whole issue should be a discussion of Romney and the Republicans policies which make it hard for middle and lower class families to live. I know no Republican who follows the teaching of Chirst as I understand it.