Romney's wife

I can see the T-shirt: Your slogan with a row of round photographs of the biggest loudmouth trolls (from both sides) with a big red strikethru over each face......somebody could easily put that up on cafepress.com and spin it.

I love marriage and believe in it, but I will never put myself entirely at someone else's economic mercy. I have counseled too many women who married alcoholism and physical/emotional abuse (or who didn't, but it came later), or who are desperately unhappy, and feel they have no way out because they have not learned basic skills of survival in this society and this economy. Not being able to cook a hot meal is not the same as ending up in a homeless shelter. Besides, my husband finds strong, self-sufficient women pretty sexy ;) Trusting in god and keeping my powder dry....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by puglogic

Besides, my husband finds strong, self-sufficient women pretty sexy ;) Trusting in god and keeping my powder dry....

---

My own wife's husband feels the same way.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gregg

I agree that the comment was picked from a larger context. I saw the infamous line delivered without the benefit of the rest of the conversation on that last bastion of conservatism: the Today show. I also noticed how quickly that right wing extremist, President Obama, reacted to distance himself from Ms. Rosen's comments. Where anyone on the right messed up has nothing to do with the comment itself. A very few on the far right, the Catholic League in particular, attempted to attack Ms Rosen's sexuality (apparently she is half of a committed lesbian relationship) or the validity of her family (apparently she and her partner adopted one or more children). If her comment was ignorant, that is more so.




Truthful? The other SAHMs of five boys in the room apparently disagree. It was an inflammatory comment designed and delivered as a sound bite. The logical conclusion is that Ms. Rosen said what she said hoping to get her fifteen minutes of fame. If that is true, it worked. I've never seen her on anything as high profile as the Today show before this. Actually, I've never seen her anywhere before this.




In the coverage of Mrs. Romney I have seen she seems quite proud of her family, especially her kids. She has said she made the choice to stay at home with the boys rather than seek a position outside the house. She has also said she was grateful to have been in the position to have had that choice. That just doesn't strike me as something an angry, ashamed person would say.

---

wow! chill out people! Mitt said he was going to his wife for economic advise as far as working women went and the consultant said his wife wasn't the best one to go to. I never said she wasn't proud of her family, or a good mom (do i really need to pull up the video of John Stewarts 'republican victimization brilliance' yet again?)
In truth, she hasn't had to struggle, or work outside the home. That is the truth. Period. Sure, the cut sound bites sound bad, they are cut to be that way. But the TRUTH of the statement is , well, true.

What I meant about her 'shame' is, she seems to have taken offense at this truth. That's her problem. If she has taken offense at this woman saying she has never worked outside the home, then again, that's her problem. She hasn't worked out side the home.
I suppose we could all pretend she has struggled and worried whether to buy groceries or medicine, but we all know that's just not the truth. That doesn't make her a bad woman, or a bad mother, it's just the truth. Period. And the fact that she has taken offense at this truth is more offensive to me, than the statement, because this tells me that staying home and taking care of your family is somehow a thing to take offense at. This 'Faux' outrage from the right tells me more of the value the right puts on women than anything. If they truly valued the mother staying home to take care of the family then why would they take offense at someone saying she stayed home and took care of her family? Why aren't they saying 'damn right she did!' Or, 'thank goodness they had the means for her to stay home and take care of the family'

If this was their choice, then she needs to own it. Instead of taking offense at the truth of her situation, she should stand up and own it, and be proud of their choice. It offends me more that they would be offended and ashamed by their choice, because , the truth is, the consultant didn't say an untruth. What she said was the truth. Mitt's wife hasn't worked a day outside the home and isn't qualified to advise the (potentially) future president on economic issues facing working women.

Sorry Peggy, but we all struggle. They may be different struggles perhaps sometimes, but we all have our issues and our demons to deal with. Just because I make more money than I did in my 20's, doesn't mean my life is idyllic all the time.

But I do agree someone who has not worked outside the home is not qualified to talk for those that do.

Quote:

---

And the fact that she has taken offense at this truth is more offensive to me, than the statement

---

I hear you. It is the truth. But properly contextualized it is the truth of pretty much anyone we get in the upper realms of power these days. A political system in which the most important voices are Walmart workers, low level medical workers, and cubical drones is definitely a political system we do not have (but keep the pressure on - I don't know what stay at home moms think, but as a working person I think: SOLIDARITY FOREVER!).

If his wife is now his economic advisor on the issues of working women well that is some major affirmative action there, don't tell me, she only got the job because of her gender :laff:

Ann Romney has Multiple Sclerosis - that in itself is a terrible struggle, which many couldn't even begin to relate to. My FIL has MS and I know what this disease does. Ann Romney has had anything but an easy life....

Interesting and sad how one person’s (Hilary Rosan) statement sparks such emotion. A powerful example of words unnecessarily spoken.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by peggy

Mitt said he was going to his wife for economic advise as far as working women went

---

This is something I don't get - what exactly ARE the economic issues of working women? To me it seems that economic issues that effect women with families are the same that effect men with families - whether the guy is a SAHP (we have one on this board), a working stiff with a spouse and family to support, or a single Dad with full or shared custody. Why does anyone even need to be advised on "seperate" women's economic issues. The only women-specific issues I can think of would be reproductive issues and equal rights issues. Since I've been divorced I dated 2 men who were single, working, full time parents of young kids (one guy had 3 kids under 10 and the other had 2 under 10). They did the exact same things as a working or SAH Mom and they had the exact same economic and social concerns as a working or SAH Mom. And there is a huge number of divorced men that have shared custody of their kids. I imagine they have the same economic concerns as women do too. Even men in traditional families where the wife is at home as the caregiver while he works, still has the same economic concerns as do any other person raising a family. To seperate the concerns of family men as different - and maybe less important - as that of women from political economic or social policies diminishes the role of men in the family life IMHO. And of course there are the single, childless, working men and women - don't we count when it comes to economic issues?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bae

I find it sad that the culture of money/get-a-job/be-your-own-dog has become so pervasive that it is viewed as "foolish" to rely upon others for your economic survival. We are social creatures - no human lives for long on their own. We must interact with family, neighbors, community members, even strangers for our continued happy survival. We do as a species rely upon each other for hundreds of things - you can see this by examining for even a moment any non-money-based "primitive" society.

To have culturally been pushed to the point where even the closest family members are "foolish" for relying upon one another, to view as "wisdom" that each should have to work in a cube receiving pieces of paper with a President's picture on it for economic security, well, we've surely lost something essential along the way.

If people want to be lonely cogs in a machine serving the almighty economy, that's their choice. But I don't think it is foolish to follow another path.

---

While I agree that it isn't foolish to rely on others - be it a spouse or a community - to help us, support us, or to share duties in exchange for that support, I also see so many people, generally women who had been SAHP's), who suffer so much when a divorce or death of a bread-winner spose happens. With a divorce rate of greater that 50% (as well as possible death of a spouse), and the likely impovishment that can come afterwards, I do think it is wise to prepare the same way we prepare for any potential disaster - something I know you do really welll Bae. If that means that a SAHP takes a few classes while the kids are in school, or works part time to keep up their skills then I think that is a wise choice. If I had kids I would choose to be a SAHP if I could - and would make huge financial and lifestyle sacrifices so that I COULD stay at home - but I would also try to find a way to prepare myself for the possibility that my spouse dies, becomes unemployed or leaves me (or I want to leave him) so that I can continue to support my kids. I think that preparing yourself to be the possible sole support of your family, is one of the most important aspects of parenting. Like many others on this board, I came from a very impoverished single parent family household and saw the extreme struggles and workload that a 15 year SAHM had to go thru to just maintain even the barest of existance for her 3 kids following a divorce. Things happen and I think it's always best to be prepared rather than "count on the kindness of strangers".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spartana

This is something I don't get - what exactly ARE the economic issues of working women? To me it seems that economic issues that effect women with families are the same that effect men with families

---

I think that things that would fall under this are things like family leave (although sometimes men take that too).

In general work-life balance would do working parents a world of good (and childless people too! :)), but fat chance you know. My goodness what would even a true 40 hour week and real overtime law do (you know where employers actualy had to pay for the overtime hours they worked their employees - so many people are exempt from that these days, it's ridiculous). Many mothers I knew (professionally of course!) went right back to work after their 6 week or so leave was up, at companies that threatened anyone who only wanted to work a 40 hour week with termination (and yet here they are having a very *young* child to care for as well. Are they supposed to have any time to spend with them? All encouragted because overtime was literally free to the employer. Do you imagine the Romney's care?)

Other things are just basic economic pressures that affect everyone, but I wouldn't want to be paying for a family medical plan, I'll tell you that! Ouchy, no wonder both parents work.

Quote:

---

And of course there are the single, childless, working men and women - don't we count when it comes to economic issues?

---

And married childless people. But have you ever heard any politician ever act like such things even existed? We literally don't matter (but oh are our taxes useful, because since we don't have all the deductions we sure are paying them. But that doesn't mean politicians will even acknowledge our existence or anything).