After weeks of race-baiting with the Trayvon Martin case, the Democrats are at it again and this time they’re dipping their toes into Mommy Wars. Hillary Rosen, Democrat strategist, has let us all know again what she and the Left (especially faux feminists) think of stay-at-home moms. You don’t count. Rosen let out her venom on CNN against Ann Romney.
‘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.’
Besides the obvious knock at motherhood and insinuating, not so subtly, that raising five children is somehow not work worthy of respect, she also assumes that most American women have to work in order to put food on the table and those who don’t simply live in the lap of luxury. Obama himself had this to say on the subject a few days ago at the White House forum for women (to which no conservative women were invited). As reported by the UK Daily Mail,
“Once I was in the state legislature, I was teaching, I was practicing law, I’d be traveling….And we didn’t have the luxury for her not to work.”
The idea that stay-at-home moms are financially able to do so is a popular one on the Left. The Democrats would have you believe that only rich women can stay home. This is a lie. On the contrary, staying at home is not a “luxury” but a sacrifice. Rosen chose to sacrifice her children for a high paying job in the Democrat Party. She could have given up pedicures, designer clothes, fancy cars and political power instead. It’s amazing what you can live without when you decide to do so. (At one point Rosen did stay home with her children for a while. I wonder if during that time she considered her ideas on the economy void.)
When Obama was a state senator in my home state of Illinois he brought home a salary of $60,000 plus an extra $32,000 as a guest lecturer at the University of Chicago. This combined salary is more than my family lives on right now and we have the same number of children and live in the same state. According to the Obamas’ lifestyle, however, it wasn’t enough for them (not surprising considering he and Michelle have a penchant for Wagyu beef and Wednesday night cocktail parties with celebrities.) You can’t serve Stevie Wonder canapes from the frozen food section at Aldi. It simply isn’t done.
What Obama and Rosen don’t understand is that a wide section of educated women who could be working if they wanted to, have chosen to give up that second salary and the comfort that comes along with it in order to focus on raising well-adjusted and firmly attached human beings. Of course, if any of those women were to look for work in Obama’s economy they wouldn’t be able to find a job. Even the Washington Post admits through clenched teeth that 92% of all jobs lost since Obama took office were jobs held by women (but Republicans are icky so it must be Bush’s fault, or something.) Even in the White House itself, under the administration of the guy who claims to be for women’s rights, women earn less than their male co-workers. And yet, Rosen is concerned that Mitt Romney’s ideas will hurt women. The hypocrisy is hilarious.
Many mothers today have seen the financial and emotional burden of daycare and after-school programs and have said, “No thanks. Not for my children.” And so we sold our second car, bought a smaller house, spent time meal planning and coupon clipping, growing gardens, and homeschooling our broods (or spent massive amounts of time on the PTA or in the principal’s office advocating for better education.) We do this because we believe the future truly does rest on the the shoulders of the people we are shaping right now. They are more important to us than any luxury a second salary could provide.
That some women need to work or want to work is their business. Some women need to be with their children and it is as valid (if not more so) than needing another vacation or a daily venti mocha from a tatted-up barista. What really annoys is the wedge Rosen is trying to drive between women.. It pits us against one another and causes the us vs. them insults to fly (like my snarky Starbucks barb above). The truth is, Obamanomics is bad for ALL women, poor, rich, middle class, working or non-working, all women are suffering under economic policies that are bankrupting our nation and saddling our children with unsustainable debt.
The chances of providing the same or better financial comfort for your children your parents were able to give you is dwindling quickly. When I go to the grocery store and see $3.98 on a gallon of milk I break out in hives. Gas at $4.19 a gallon makes my gluteal muscles clench. At the same time employers aren’t raising salaries fast enough to accommodate the higher cost of living because profits are down. The price of food is skyrocketing because of the cost to truck it into town.
In discussions with my friends, the biggest issue for all of us is rising prices which can all be traced to the fuel that turns our engines. All sensible people know that drilling for more oil and building refineries will put this country back on the right track. The Keystone Pipeline would have put thousands of people to work and increased the flow of oil from Canada to the US. But somehow, the fact that I don’t sit in a cubicle (and can wear yoga pants all day) means I can’t have an opinion on policies that sent us spiraling into this economic crisis according to Democrats like Rosen.
Au’contrair, mon ennemi! I object! The hand that rocks the cradle rules the world and buys the groceries and this mama is very concerned about the economic state of this country. As a tax-paying citizen (yes, I pay property taxes, sales taxes and income tax for the few freelance jobs I do from my house) my ideas matter. More importantly, my vote and the votes of every other full-time mom matter too.
Methinks Hillary Rosen and the rest of the Democrat Party are going to find that out this November.
you forgot the part where while the O was earning $100k+, Michelle was pulling in $300k+.
I’m so sick of the left degrading the stay-at-home women who believe that children are precious and do the best with a parent at home. The only conclusion I can make is that they hate any child unless they are timed just right and have been weighed against their own needs. Thank God my parents didn’t feel that way! To the left a child is property and its purpose is to fulfill their needs. Also, the feminist movement had a lot to do with women feeling obligated to go out and work and that staying home was taboo. I know that’s a fact because I lived it.
There are really two memes here:
1. Obama’s use of the word ‘luxury’ when it comes to staying home and raising their children. The word ‘luxury’ implies that there are also necessities and as a result you can really see where the priorities of the Obamas, the White House Occupiers, and the rest of the Left are.
2. Obama’s ‘We couldn’t afford it” is a load of crap. When it came time for my wife and I too start a family, we understood the importance of one of us being home to raise our children. It’s all about priorities. We didn’t live in the biggest house. We didn’t drive the newest cars. We didn’t have the fanciest clothes. But by God our son was being raise by US, instilled with OUR values, learning the things WE knew to be important. And we did it on a whole lot less than Little Zero’s income.
“But by God our son was being raise by US, instilled with OUR values, learning the things WE knew to be important. ”
That’s the problem–the Left is very sure about wanting all children to be indoctrinated with their values and have made that their number one priority for decades, and it’s finally paying off.
What I got sick of when I chose to stay home w/my kids were the schizo comments that went from “Oh you’re so LUCKY (read, you rich bitch)to be able to stay home w/your kids!” And in the next breathe they say, “I could NEVER stay home w/my kids I’d be so BORED!” (read, you’re such an idiot you obviously can’t do anything but watch kids all day). Rosen’s words were incredibly poorly chosen; we know that’s how they feel about us, but they, not us, are the true elitists.
I had to work because my husband’s work is sometimes seasonal, but even with that we still together made less than $60,000 and managed to keep our children in the care of family who shared our values and morals. I know my friends who stayed home to raise their children did so on less than that, and yes I said children, not child. I admire them, but I felt it better to have a consistent income for our family so off to work I went. And those woman do not regret the so called luxury of staying at home. They think it was a blessing rather than a sacrifice. Imagine thinking your little one’s are blessings rather than burdens…
I appreciate that by the second page you realized that you were being snarky to working moms. We need to take what Ann Romney said to heart and let families choose what works best for them. All options can lead to successful children. I have 3 kids. I’ve worked part time, stayed home, and worked full time. If my friends and I are any indication, most women have been on BOTH sides of the mommy wars!
– in their lives and the prez is counting on those Dem votes again.
Remember, they are not keen on the religious and conservative propaganda we fill our kids’ heads with if they stay home with us. Better they should be in a Head Start program or other places where they can be correctly indoctrinated.
Loved this! As a mom who stayed home to raise her kids (and sacrificed her car and more!), I was outraged over Rosen’s remarks. I see they’re falling all over themselves this am to make amends, as well they should! The disturbing fact is, they no more are actually sorry for what was said, but for the damage it has done! and for the record, I didn’t find your first page “snarky” at all–just factual for what many of us have experienced ourselves first-hand. Some of us had to go to work to put food on the table and we all know the sacrifice that was as well. But some of us did it for prestige, bigger houses, second and third tv’s, because we listened to the world tell us we should, etc., and our children suffered for it, whether they showed it or not. I KNOW mine did when I went to work for a short time. About one month after I came home and was home every day, my little two-year-old who never so much as uttered a peep when I left for work each morning, began to cry and stick to me like glue all day for about a week. It had dawned on her that I was home for good and she wanted to make sure I wasn’t leaving again! I was glad I made the decision to come home and stay there.
– Babara Bush, who raised her family, had spoken out on her behalf.
It’s not the Romneys, it’s Hilary Rosen who’s out of touch. I worked, I was in grad school, and parenting is by far the hardest thing I’ve done.
Some women DO have to work to support children or other family members, or because they have student loans or other obligations. And no, we are not spending our money on second cars/vacations/Starbucks/pedicures/health club memberships/fancy houses or what-have-you. Problem is, Obama has killed the job market for us as well. He just hates the middle class.
I think you missed an important point in your article: Stay at home Moms are a group of women that you CAN NOT blame for the out of control spending that has brought this country to it’s knees. They are balancing their budgets and doing what has to be done to stay above water, unlike our unrepresentative representatives.
My wife is a stay-at-home mom and a homeschooler. We sacrificed almost HALF our income for her to do this. Instead of being financially comfortable, we count pennies and do without a lot of things. Simply put, we’d be rich if she were NOT a stay-at-home mom.
Let me reiterate: We are NOT rich, BECAUSE she stays home. This is not uncommon.
Sometimes I get really angry at the amount of taxes we pay for the California public “schools” (= socialist/homosexual recruiting centers) that we can’t use. Life would be so much easier if the schools were useable, and she could return to work.
I am in complete agreement with this. While one of my children is still too young for school, I know when they are both school age I could go back to work if it weren’t for the socialist cesspools we call schools and my family would benefit greatly from the extra income. I am also outraged that I have to pay for these indoctrination centers that my conscience will not allow me to send my children to. Instead I pay more to educate them to be individuals with American values. But it’s a sacrifice I’m willing to make that I hope will contribute to the rescue of this nation.
A View From Canada:
Canada’s political spectrum is not immune to the ‘war on women’ either, odd that it is the left our Liberal (your Democrats) groupthink that perpetuates and spreads the intolerance.
Our province of Alberta is currently engaged in an election campaign to elect a new Premier and government. The leaders of the 2 main parties competing for the vote are current Premier Allison Redford of the Progressive Conservatives (an oxymoron if there ever was one) and the new Wildrose Party led by Danielle Smith.
The Wild Rose Party was formed a few years back as a refuge for true Conservatives as the Progressive Conservative may share the name but they have turned into closet Liberals thus infuriating the base of Conservatism and instead of lying down they forged a new party from the ground up based upon grass roots populism and Conservative values.
Wild Rose has continued to grow in popularity and are polling with a double digit lead which has prompted an ever more desperate Allison Redford to ‘unleash the hounds’.
Recently a PC party staffer publicly rebuked Wildrose leader Danielle Smith and her party’s platform on parents and children and the various tax funded support programs in place and how they were totally ineffectual and a waste of money. Danielle Smith stated that she would rather stop taxing Alberta families so much and let them keep more of their own money and allow them to raise their own families without so much government interference.
Wildrose Campaign pledge http://www.wildrose.ca/pledge/family-pack/
The rebuke came when the Redford campaign publicly mused that “If Danielle likes young and growing families so much, why doesn’t she have children of her own?”
That’s right you scummy Conservative women, if you have no children you have no right to discuss public policy. Sound familiar, I thought so.
Danielle Smith held a press conference a few days later, in it she revealed that she and her husband had tried for years to have a family but her infertility problems were so severe and insurmountable that they gave up.
So to defend herself from the onslaught of a smear campaign she and her husband decided to reveal the most intimate details of their lives together, in closing she stated
“Family is very important to me and I consider this to be a very personal matter. I will not be commenting on it further.”
Why she even had to comment in the first place says droves about a morally and ethically bankrupt political system that has devolved into personal attack instead of substantive debate of the issues.
BTW, the PC staffer at the heart of the attack (an unnamed high level executive assistant at Campaign headquarters) was forced to resign and apologize. Her apology consisted of 3 words on Twitter “Fine, I apologize”
Hmmmm…… enough said I think.