For reasons that don’t interest me much, “girl fights” have always had a particular tug on our imaginations.
Thus, when consultant/pundit/Democrat Hilary Rosen commented on CNN that Ann Romney had never held a job (and therefore was ill-suited to advise her husband on women’s employment concerns), the body politic convulsed in paroxysms of outrage.
Oh, the elitist slander. How dare she! Being a full-time, stay-at-home mom is a job!
And off they went.
Stay-at-home moms, or SAHMs, allegedly were insulted. Working mothers who allegedly envy SAHMs recoiled from the blinding truth of Rosen’s observation. Single moms with mouths to feed and no jobs allegedly were furious at the Romneys’ apparent cluelessness.
Regular folks, meanwhile, who know better than to argue about “women issues” when the political masses are engaged, somehow managed to get through another night without pondering whether the gender gap can ever be bridged.
Not so the pundit class, now fully deployed and dizzy with the ramifications of such troubling questions as: Has the (alleged) Republican “war on women” resurrected the alleged “mommy wars” of 20 years ago?
It should go without saying that this faux battle is silly and utterly off-point, not so much a clash of ideas as a peashooter contest in the Twitter Lounge. Yet, rather than treat it as such, everyone from the president of the United States to the Catholic League to the GOP and the DNC has felt compelled to inveigh.
President Obama, reminding folks that he was raised by a single mom, noted that women who stay home with children are doing hard work and that anyone who argues otherwise should “rethink their statement.” Rosen quickly rethunk and apologized for saying something true, which is never allowed in politics — but the heat is still high.
The fact is, Ann Romney has never held a job outside the home and, inarguably, doesn’t have the same experience as those scrapping to feed their families. But this has no bearing whatsoever on her ability to empathize with the challenges of others or whether she is attuned to women’s concerns.
If personal experience is a prerequisite for debate or commentary, then nobody gets to talk. Moreover, Ann Romney was merely trying to indicate what any woman should appreciate — that the sideline issue of contraception prompted by requirements included in Obamacare is not the primary concern of most women or of this election season, much as the Democratic Party and the Obama administration would like voters to think otherwise.
It was in this context, among others, that Mitt Romney has mentioned his wife as a political muse on women’s concerns. It is also in this context that Rosen’s remarks should be considered. She wasn’t insulting Ann Romney’s fortunate choice to stay home and raise her five sons. She was questioning whether she could relate to the everyday concerns of women who have been less lucky.
The comment should have been treated as off-point rather than conflated as some absurd attack on the stay-at-home mom. Instead, even some who pretend to a higher moral plane brought the debate to its lowest level, namely the Catholic League, which surely spoke for no one when it tweeted: “Lesbian Dem Hilary Rosen tells Ann Romney she never worked a day in her life. Unlike Rosen, who had to adopt kids, Ann raised 5 of her own.”
What sweeties.
Only gravel doesn’t know that the women’s vote is all-important this election season. Never mind the perennial insult that women are monolithic and only vote as their female parts dictate. Women, as Ann Romney has tried to point out, care about jobs and the economy because they are sentient human beings who do, in fact, work (57.7 percent of those over 16), or want to. And they do, in fact, worry that there will be no recognizable nation left if we don’t get serious about the debt and deficit in ways that don’t split the country into warring factions of haves and have-nots. Nothing like using women to emotionalize and distract from the hard work of governance.
Women and men should be angry, all right, but not at Ann Romney or Hilary Rosen, who are entitled to both their opinions and their choices without fear of censure or condemnation. Anger is better directed at those who take tiny utterances and inflate them into phony distractions. Visitors to preschool playgrounds have witnessed disagreements of greater import.
Kathleen Parker’s email address is kathleenparker@washpost.com.
Great points. Another nice column by Ms. Parker.
Yes, wandini, you and I both seem to be fans of Kathleen Parker’s writing.
My my, I fear Ms. Parker may be severely injured twisting herself into a knot like that to defend a fellow liberal.
Kathleen Parker, one of America’s best conservative columnists, has written another great piece. This “faux battle” is indeed “silly and off point,” as she puts it.
“If personal experience is a prerequisite for debate or commentary, then nobody gets to talk. ”
That’s just what I’ve been saying….
The war on woman is getting old. I can’t wait until the repubs bring the war on Christmas back.
Ann Romney is and has always been a woman of great privilege. However, she has shown herself to be nothing more than a shill for her husband and for his harmful policies. Given her serious health struggles and her cadillac healthcare, one would think that she would have the humanity to distinguish herself by championing the plight of those less fortunate than she who also have serious health struggles with minimal to no healthcare coverage. There is nothing admirable about how Ann Romney has joined in the spin and manipulation of Rosen’s poorly chosen words. Instead of taking the high road she has sunk to the lowest political level, bragging about how this dustup has been her best birthday gift. I do not think the American people so stupid and gullible.Remember Elizabeth Edwards, who, despite all of her many struggles always spoke to her own privilege and never gave up working tirelessly for the average person and for their struggles. Quite the contrast.
The Romneys have given 16% of their income to charity. Ann has been given awards for her charitable work with children. She has advocated for those with MS. She is nothing if not human. And her well-known compassion and humanity is what fueled the outrage over Rosen’s remarks. People who know Ann Romney know she is intelligent, articulate, generous and compassionate. Do you consider Romney’s health care law in MA to be one of his harmful policies?
Mitt has disowned his Ma. health care law. His wife completely supports that. She has publicly said so.
Ann Romney is clearly intelligent and warm. The issue is how she uses her intelligence and her privilege. She created and fueled the outrage over Rosen’s words and meaning by deliberately and cynically misusing them to pick at the scab and refight the mommy wars. She did this in support of her husband’s campaign. She has become quite the ‘Pol’. I will give her that.
I think we should leave the first lady and the potential first lady out of this. They are, in my mind, off limits.
I completely respect your opinion, but when I see Ann Romney deliberately and gleefully manipulating Rosen’s words and meaning she cheapens herself. I believe that her dishonesty is fair game.
What is being seen in this article is dabbling into another’s personal and public business and using this information against that particular person. This happens so many times, and what’s more, most of these “opinions” a person may have about someone, are totally falsified or trumped-up rumors spread throughout the media or by jealous or envious word-of-mouth as the information highway vehicle’s the poorly-conducted rumor across people lines everyplace.
The worse thing that can be said is generally the most insulting, and worthless information about someone, including the ladies spoken about in this report. Who really cares if I happen to be a “SAHM” (I do stay at home and are a mom), or drive a Cadillac (I used to buy Cadillacs, but now the vehicles we have are more expensive, reliable, and European models) or the type of home you may reside in, or where and what city do you live in?
The important things reflect a person’s character, and take several women who wormed their way into a political life and hold positions of decision-making power. They all (confirmed) must be schooled on their actions and be constantly educated on what to do, say, act, and how to perform for international leaders by their politician husbands, who also failed in their offices. This public relations act is a coverup for being a real knowing, caring person who can intelligently handle the assignment they were either voted in for or appointed, or standing on the sidelines as an aide-de-camp to their husbands.
The cat fights continue and so what? I’d rather have someone show their real names, scratch my face with their dirty fingernails, and tell me their problems to my face and then watch how the argument is ended. It is not who you are but what you conduct yourself to be in life on earth for yourself and to others which is life-meaningful