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.