Ann Romey, SAHM, has "never worked a day in her life."

[lilwriter85]

i also came to add zsu zsu's two cents, predictable and bland as they are.

Yup her comments were predictable and she has said stuff like that before.

[starfish]

The media is trying to make this into "mommy wars" and I hate it.

I respect every person's choice, but the Rommneys speak from a position of great wealth and privilege. The fact that they don't seem to understand that is troubling. Check your privilege at the door, Romneys.

[Kitten]

Loved this in today's paper:

http://www.oregonlive.com/opinion/index ... e_the.html

Fave quotes:

"My wife...reports to me regularly that the issue women care about most is the economy."...Note to candidate: Women aren't a foreign country. You don't need an interpreter to talk to them.

Re: the "Family" video released by the Romney campaign:

(it) offers an unintentional glimpse of Ann's own frustrations..."I hate to say it, but often I had more than five sons," Ann recalls. "I had six sons, and he would be as mischievous and as naughty as the other boys."

But yeah, hate the "mommy wars" this is inciting... :evil:

[Hisey]

First of all, I think most SAHMs are not like Ann Romney. She and her husband have vast wealth. I doubt she is up at dawn, putting beans on to soak. I'm sure her life is rather luxurious, and why shouldn't it be? Why should all women slave away like some of these fundie moms?

I am sure she had nannies and housekeepers. So, while she may have worked a bit ("let me put a bandaid on that, sweetie"), it is not the way I work (I am a SAHM). Her SAHM experience is very different than mine. But that's OK. She's rich, I'm not.

I get a lot of comments and hints that I am a bon-bon eating lazy bum. I hate it, but I don't let it dominate my life. I've chosen to stay at home with my kids, I think it's worthwhile, I mostly love it, and I realize I am privileged. I am hardly going to cry "persecution!" because some folks think I'm lazy. Personally, I am in awe of some working women--the ones who do a good job with their kids and their jobs. I don't know how they do it.

So I don't think this should descend into working mom vs. SAHM. I think this is more of a rich mom v. all other moms. The rich moms don't really work at home or at a job. The other moms do.

[Third]

I bet most typical SAHMs don't even identify with her - working or staying at home - being incredibly secure money wise makes her different. She has probably never had the worries, hurts, fears, struggles that the majority of either group face.

[Katiebug]

I'm with everyone else - this is a class issue, not yet another battle in the Mommy Wars. Ms. Rosen's comment was poorly worded but her intent was clear, and I hate that the right has pounced on it as an attack on "traditional" family values.

The 1950s idyllic American family with a SAHM is an image that was only reality for white, middle and upper middle class married women in the post-WWII economic boom. For minorities, the poor, the working class, and many in the middle class, being a working mother is and always has been reality. Women have found ways to bring in income/contribute financially when needed or wanted for generations. The "SAHM" 150 years ago may have been doing piecework in her crowded tenement with her baby, and her older children were off working in a mill. I suggest reading "The Way We Never Were: American Families and the Nostalgia Trap" by Stephanie Coontz; it's very enlightening.

Ann Romney's life has been one of privilege and financial security. I'd venture that not only is she incredibly out of touch with the realities of being a working mom, but she's probably out of touch with the reality of the overwhelming majority of SAHMs today. I'm not saying that Michelle Obama is truly in touch with being a working class or middle class mother either, but she's certainly closer to it than Ann Romney has ever been. Mrs. Romney comes from an affluent family and married into an even more affluent family. She's never worked in part because she's never HAD to work (and in part because their denomination tells them that the pinnacle of a woman's life is marrying, having children, and staying home with those children).

The Romneys have never had to negotiate a payment plan with a hospital for a kid's ER visit, they've never had to worry about finding and paying for a decent babysitter or nanny, she's never had to try to pump breastmilk during a 10 hour workday, he's never had to worry about his work hours being cut or getting laid off. They've had the financial resources for luxury cars, multiple houses, and household help/staff - and when she got MS and cancer they not only had the money for all the best medical care, but for supplementary activities and therapies, like riding horses.

[Austin]

I'm with everyone else - this is a class issue, not yet another battle in the Mommy Wars. Ms. Rosen's comment was poorly worded but her intent was clear, and I hate that the right has pounced on it as an attack on "traditional" family values.

The 1950s idyllic American family with a SAHM is an image that was only reality for white, middle and upper middle class married women in the post-WWII economic boom. For minorities, the poor, the working class, and many in the middle class, being a working mother is and always has been reality. Women have found ways to bring in income/contribute financially when needed or wanted for generations. The "SAHM" 150 years ago may have been doing piecework in her crowded tenement with her baby, and her older children were off working in a mill. I suggest reading "The Way We Never Were: American Families and the Nostalgia Trap" by Stephanie Coontz; it's very enlightening.

Ann Romney's life has been one of privilege and financial security. I'd venture that not only is she incredibly out of touch with the realities of being a working mom, but she's probably out of touch with the reality of the overwhelming majority of SAHMs today. I'm not saying that Michelle Obama is truly in touch with being a working class or middle class mother either, but she's certainly closer to it than Ann Romney has ever been. Mrs. Romney comes from an affluent family and married into an even more affluent family. She's never worked in part because she's never HAD to work (and in part because their denomination tells them that the pinnacle of a woman's life is marrying, having children, and staying home with those children).

The Romneys have never had to negotiate a payment plan with a hospital for a kid's ER visit, they've never had to worry about finding and paying for a decent babysitter or nanny, she's never had to try to pump breastmilk during a 10 hour workday, he's never had to worry about his work hours being cut or getting laid off. They've had the financial resources for luxury cars, multiple houses, and household help/staff - and when she got MS and cancer they not only had the money for all the best medical care, but for supplementary activities and therapies, like riding horses.

Michelle Obama does not come from wealth. Her father worked at the water plant, and her mother was a clerical worker (IIRC). Also, both she and the president struggled to pay their student loans after marrying, when their loan payments were higher than their mortgage.

[lilwriter85]

I'm with everyone else - this is a class issue, not yet another battle in the Mommy Wars. Ms. Rosen's comment was poorly worded but her intent was clear, and I hate that the right has pounced on it as an attack on "traditional" family values.

The 1950s idyllic American family with a SAHM is an image that was only reality for white, middle and upper middle class married women in the post-WWII economic boom. For minorities, the poor, the working class, and many in the middle class, being a working mother is and always has been reality. Women have found ways to bring in income/contribute financially when needed or wanted for generations. The "SAHM" 150 years ago may have been doing piecework in her crowded tenement with her baby, and her older children were off working in a mill. I suggest reading "The Way We Never Were: American Families and the Nostalgia Trap" by Stephanie Coontz; it's very enlightening.

Ann Romney's life has been one of privilege and financial security. I'd venture that not only is she incredibly out of touch with the realities of being a working mom, but she's probably out of touch with the reality of the overwhelming majority of SAHMs today. I'm not saying that Michelle Obama is truly in touch with being a working class or middle class mother either, but she's certainly closer to it than Ann Romney has ever been. Mrs. Romney comes from an affluent family and married into an even more affluent family. She's never worked in part because she's never HAD to work (and in part because their denomination tells them that the pinnacle of a woman's life is marrying, having children, and staying home with those children).

The Romneys have never had to negotiate a payment plan with a hospital for a kid's ER visit, they've never had to worry about finding and paying for a decent babysitter or nanny, she's never had to try to pump breastmilk during a 10 hour workday, he's never had to worry about his work hours being cut or getting laid off. They've had the financial resources for luxury cars, multiple houses, and household help/staff - and when she got MS and cancer they not only had the money for all the best medical care, but for supplementary activities and therapies, like riding horses.

This. Back in the 1950's my paternal grandfather worked part time during the school year and during the summer she worked full time as a hotel housekeeper in a resort town. Several of my great aunts also had either part time or full time jobs. In the past there were also women who do small jobs at home to bring in extra money.

[emmiedahl]

Michelle Obama does not come from wealth. Her father worked at the water plant, and her mother was a clerical worker (IIRC). Also, both she and the president struggled to pay their student loans after marrying, when their loan payments were higher than their mortgage.

Barack Obama *did* come from wealth. He was raised with wealth that most of us cannot imagine, spending a lot of his formative years in the most expensive and most beautiful place in the US, financed by wealthy grandparents. And yet he obviously cares more about us--the real people, the ones figuring out whether to pay the rent or the electric first because there is no money for both. Even if you are not poor on that level, for most people money is a limited resource. You spend it on this OR that, not both. Obviously his wife has had a huge effect, and also the President strikes me as a naturally empathetic person.

Saying that Ms. Romney has never worked a day in her life is not an assault on SAHMs. It's an accurate assessment of her lifestyle. She is not a typical SAHM, and she has never experienced the things that define the rest of us. Mitt might as well take economic advice from my spoiled, adored 9-year-old, who has experienced more hardship than Ann Romney has seen in her lifetime.

[bananacat]

The truth is that working-class SAHPs and working-class working parents have far more in common with each other than either group has in common with Ann Romney. Childcare and domestic work are both undervalued by society, but the truth is that Ann Romney has never done either of those things. She certainly never cooked (except for fun) or cleaned or did laundry or dishes and I wouldn't be surprised if she hasn't even changed a diaper. A working mom's idea of a vacation is more work than Ann Romney's daily life as a SAHM because the working mom still has to take care of her children even when she gets a break from her paying job. And Ann Romney hasn't been a SAHM in a long time as all of her children are adults now and she still has the luxury of not working for money. What does she do all day with no job AND no kids? She can't relate to the vast majority of people in this country who don't have the luxuries she has.

[bananacat]

Also, I'm sure that Ann Romney is secretly filled with glee at the "accusation" that she has never worked a day in her life. I grew up rich and that is quite the status symbol, especially because it marks a transition when "new money" becomes "old money".

[mnb357]

I thought the only qualification necessary to be First Lady was to be married to the President of the United States.

[Austin]

Barack Obama *did* come from wealth. He was raised with wealth that most of us cannot imagine, spending a lot of his formative years in the most expensive and most beautiful place in the US, financed by wealthy grandparents. And yet he obviously cares more about us--the real people, the ones figuring out whether to pay the rent or the electric first because there is no money for both. Even if you are not poor on that level, for most people money is a limited resource. You spend it on this OR that, not both. Obviously his wife has had a huge effect, and also the President strikes me as a naturally empathetic person.

Lots of people live in Hawaii who are not wealthy or did not come come from "wealth". Obama did live in Hawaii with his maternal grandparents, who had lived in a number of homes, none of them particularly swanky:

http://www.obamasneighborhood.com/homes.html

His grandmother eventually became a bank vice president, after starting as a secretary and spending many years moving up the ranks, often getting passed over by men. His grandfather was a ne'er-do-well who could never really figure out how to provide for his family. Obama attended the prestigious Punahou school on a scholarship.

Compared to a great deal of the world, which lives on less than $2 a day, Obama would have been considered wealthy. But I am pretty sure that adjusted for inflation, we have a significantly higher household income than the Dunhams did. And I would never describe us as wealthy and it would be laughable for someone to describe our sons as coming from wealth.

There is nothing wrong with being wealthy and it wouldn't matter to with regard to Obama either way, for me, frankly. But I just don't believe that's a factually correct representation of his situation.

[AmyP]

Who cares about Ann Romney's "qualifications". And I hate the fact that we are still defining women's worth and intelligence by whether or not they "work".

[Katiebug]

Michelle Obama does not come from wealth. Her father worked at the water plant, and her mother was a clerical worker (IIRC). Also, both she and the president struggled to pay their student loans after marrying, when their loan payments were higher than their mortgage.

Oh, I knew that both of the Obamas came from working/middle class backgrounds and went to school with loans, but let's be honest - the Obamas have not been hurting financially for at least the last decade, if not longer. Through education and hard work they pulled themselves into a relatively affluent lifestyle before he entered politics on the national level and there's absolutely nothing wrong with that! That said, because of their middle class origins I think they're more more in touch with the financial pressures facing American families than the Romneys are - they're just not experiencing it now (or recently).

I just don't think Mittens and co. have any concept of what life is like for the rest of us. As a middle class working mother I find it absurd that he'd say that he polls his wife on the issues facing American women today - she's just not even remotely representative of American women, and it's largely because of those issues of wealth and class.

[Dhani_C]

Where do you live? I think you might be in the minority of Mormon women. Also, not to say this will be you, but I have known many (many many) Mormon women who have gotten professional degrees and worked a few years then quit once they had kids. Yes, Mormons strongly encourage education and self-sufficiency, but I think it's tough to argue they don't encourage women to stay home to raise their children.

I'm from the Midwest, born and raised (and attending college at a Big 10 school). I'm aware that the church does encourage women to stay home and raise their children, but it's certainly not mandated. My mom worked while I was growing up (still does) and was still able to be there for us whenever we needed her because she had a job with flexible work hours. I also don't see the issue with Mormon women who choose to be stay-at-home moms because the great majority have been taught in public schools and at least attended college (even if it is BYU and they are looking for an MRS degree) so they haven't been completely sheltered like the fundies that are talked about here.

As for my future career, who knows. My priorities may change when I have children (they will) and I will make the decision about becoming part-time, stopping for a while until my children are in grade school, or giving it up entirely to be with them (least likely, but still a small possibility) at that time like all women have to.

[gilora]

I think Rosen's comment was intentional and not just a poor choice of words.

"Never worked a day in her life" is incendiary enough to provoke a response from the Romney camp, leading to a discussion about how privileged and out-of-touch the Romneys are.

[Austin]

Oh, I knew that both of the Obamas came from working/middle class backgrounds and went to school with loans, but let's be honest - the Obamas have not been hurting financially for at least the last decade, if not longer. Through education and hard work they pulled themselves into a relatively affluent lifestyle before he entered politics on the national level and there's absolutely nothing wrong with that! That said, because of their middle class origins I think they're more more in touch with the financial pressures facing American families than the Romneys are - they're just not experiencing it now (or recently).

I just don't think Mittens and co. have any concept of what life is like for the rest of us. As a middle class working mother I find it absurd that he'd say that he polls his wife on the issues facing American women today - she's just not even remotely representative of American women, and it's largely because of those issues of wealth and class.

Oh, absolutely no argument. I was not trying to suggest (let's be honest?) that they don't live in affluence, and have had for some time some measure of affluence. He did author two books, and she worked for a power law firm for some time. In many ways, they both embody the American dream, which is supposed to be the ability to work hard and get an education and achieve some measure of financial success.

But even if they both had come from affluence, I don't think that automatically would make them unable to relate with working or middle class people. With the Romneys, however, we're talking about super-wealth, the kind of wealth that makes money no object ever, who can order up anything they want any time they want, own any home they want, and have never had any connection to being working class or trying to make ends meet. The behavior of Mitt Romney and his persistent stiffness and awkwardness when trying to relate with "regular folks" is glaring, in particular. Ann Romney is somewhat warmer, so I don't think it's as evident or cringeworthy with her. Still, she's a very hard-sell as an "everywoman".

[Dhani_C]

I know women who have taken the advice the male leadership of the church dishes out in general conference, considered it, and then dropped it into the round file as not applicable to their lives. They are few and far between. I don't know where you live, but I've lived in the Jell-O belt for the last 18 years of my life, and the optimal lifestyle for a Mormon mother is to be a SAHM. This is what you hear in church. This is what you hear in general conference. The apostles and seventies do not get up and praise women who work outside the home. They're not mentioned. Rather, the guilt is laid on about how the most important role for women is that of a wife and mother.

As for not waiting to have children...well, with all due respect to the elderly gentlemen in Salt Lake City, we know statistically that if you marry young and start having children right away without the proper financial stability, your marriage may not last. Even if you do get married in the temple. Finances can and do cause enormous stress in a marriage. Encouraging young women to marry young men just off their missions with MAYBE two years of college under their belts, MAYBE, is just asking for trouble. And, once women have started having children, it's easier to lay on the guilt trip about how important it is to be a mother, how one should stay at home to be with the kids, this is the most important role Heavenly Father has given you, etc., etc.

Let me be blunt here. As a former member who resigned over Prop 8 in 2008, maybe I'm bitter. But the fact is that the LDS Church works well for people who fit into a certain groove, and that groove is marriage, family and following the example of your priesthood leadership, which generally includes Stay At Home Momhood. As a woman who never married, never had kids and is now in menopause, I FAILED at the Mormon prime directive for women. So yeah, even though I got two university degrees and a law license, and then went on to another career and hold down a full time job and have a mortgage, I am an incomplete woman according to Mormonism. I think I'm entitled to be a little bit bitter about that.

I do know when Ezra Taft Benson gave a talk called "To the Mothers in Zion" in 1987, that it was published as a pamphlet by the church and handed out. I also know, from church scuttlebutt, that talk got more comments from anguished women who worked outside the home, not for luxuries, but to keep their families fed, and yet, this was held up as the goal. I don't see this has changed very much in the ensuing 25 years.

I wish you all the luck in your future endeavors, but please don't come here and tell those of us who have been through the mill that we don't know what we're talking about. We do. And Ann Romney is a very privileged woman who didn't have to work very hard to live up to the LDS ideal, because she is wealthy. Unlike many of the women I knew who stayed at home and scrimped and saved to try and obey the words of the prophet to be stay at home moms. Or worked outside the home and felt guilty during Sacrament Meeting, Sunday School and Relief Society when the role of women is hammered over and over.

http://emp.byui.edu/SATTERFIELDB/PDF/To ... ofZion.pdf << the notorious talk.

Hello, I know where you are coming from and I understand how you feel. I did not grow up anywhere near Utah and both of my parents were converts to the Gospel (I'm a second generation member), which may be why I have a different view of things as I didn't grow up in the "shadow of the temple". I was always taught that being a mother is the most important role a woman has (which, I agree with), but that doesn't mean it's the only thing a woman is allowed to pursue. In my own personal prayer I have always felt from the time I was a little girl that I would be needed somewhere when I grew up in an occupation of some kind and I have always had this feeling (still do), but would still be able to be a mother. My parents are completely supportive of me whether I choose to work or not work and so is my boyfriend.

I can also sympathize with your situation as a woman who never had the opportunity to marry or have kids and was looked down upon. I have an aunt (a member) who is approaching sixty that divorced from her husband a long time ago and never had children because of him (he had a vasectomy and never told her even though he knew how badly she wanted children), but had a successful career as a social worker. She too was looked down upon by some women in the church who didn't know anything about her situation and thought she just didn't want children. I know that if my aunt had had it her way her life would not have turned out the way it did and she would be happily married with children and grandchildren by now. I think that a big problem with some members of the church is that they are very quick to judge and point out everything every Prophet said that you aren't doing right (while not realizing that they aren't taking this advice themselves). I choose instead to listen to the words of the Prophet, do my best to live by them, and also be guided by my own revelation (and not judge the life situations of others, as my mother always taught me "every person has sorrows within them that you cannot see, so we must do our best to uplift every person that crosses our path").

[Dhani_C]

I also think there is a minority of Mormon women who don't want to be SAHM's. I have heard of several Mormon families in which the moms continue to work after having children. But I have heard of several Mormon women who get degrees work awhile and then quit when they start having kids. There are some Mormon women that do bash working moms quite a bit.

Oh yes, the 'bashers' do exist. Since I attend a singles branch I don't interact with them much, but I find it sad that they think it's right to judge the life choices of another. I certainly don't care one way or the other if a woman chooses to be a SAHM or a surgeon- as long as it's their decision and they have been given equal access to both options. I also don't get the bashing when the mom has to work out of necessity (even when she wants to be a SAHM). I think everyone needs to mind their own business, haha.

[delilahdog11]

I stopped to listen to a Family Values run radio station. The host, guests, and callers are always so entertaining with their totalitarian view of how America should be govern. It should be governed based on Christian fundementalist beliefs. Anyway they were discussing Ann and the comment made.

First, they briefly discuss that no only was she able to raise five kids, was strong enough to beat breast cancer, but her kids went off to spawn a whole football team of grandchildren. Mormons are impressed with here dedication to her family and growing her family for god and the religious right is following suit because this speaks to her values. She values the American way of life. Okay...

I also found it interesting that they, of course, are spinning this to show that democrats only support working and are happy to hand out welfare and offer social programs for working moms and dads. The Dems consider SAHMs an non entity and by doing so they are agaisnt traditional American values. The democrats are what is wrong with the country because they are giving support to the working mom and not the SAHM. .

[Katiebug]

Oh, absolutely no argument. I was not trying to suggest (let's be honest?) that they don't live in affluence, and have had for some time some measure of affluence. He did author two books, and she worked for a power law firm for some time. In many ways, they both embody the American dream, which is supposed to be the ability to work hard and get an education and achieve some measure of financial success.

But even if they both had come from affluence, I don't think that automatically would make them unable to relate with working or middle class people. With the Romneys, however, we're talking about super-wealth, the kind of wealth that makes money no object ever, who can order up anything they want any time they want, own any home they want, and have never had any connection to being working class or trying to make ends meet. The behavior of Mitt Romney and his persistent stiffness and awkwardness when trying to relate with "regular folks" is glaring, in particular. Ann Romney is somewhat warmer, so I don't think it's as evident or cringeworthy with her. Still, she's a very hard-sell as an "everywoman".

OK, we're basically on the same page then. :lol:

[ladypuglover]

I agree with several of the posters who said this all about "mommy wars", working mothers vs SAHMs and self worth.

I don't care who said what, the point boils down again to the place that women are are lesser creatures that do not deserve respect because of (insert reason here). So what she was lucky enough to be born to wealth? Or if she had to fight for every mouthful. It still boils down to forcing women to having to prove their self worth and we as women will never get anywhere if we still have to play these stupid ass games from Jr high.

Women are women, no matter if we are rich or poor. We are all sisters even if we work, stay home, have children or are childfree. Until we get past this kind of bullshit, we as women will never be where we need to be and will still have to fight certain men for every single thing. We need to get on the same page and leave the crap of I'm better because... or we are just what the asses like Rush and Doug Phillips is a tool say we are and that is nothing worth respecting. I'm not saying those kind of men are right but we acting like this to one another will never open their eyes.

* the we and you used in my post were not pointed at anyone but the general use of we and you.

[Austin]

I disagree, PLP. I get what you're saying and totally agree in principle (b/c I hate the mommy-wars with a white, hot rage), but I do not see this as SAHM vs. WOTHM. I see this more of an economic issue which is being dressed up as something to ignite the mommy wars. I can totally put myself back in my SAHM shoes and I just can't conjure up any outrage at Rosen's remarks, because I understand her remarks to mean that Ann Romney is not in a position to report on the issues of working and middle class women to her husband (who seems to be unable to recognize that women are a constituency and not a "special interest group", and seems also not to be able to relate with "women's issues" by himself).

[PennySycamore]

I agree. Staying at home and raising five boys is hard work, but probably a lot nicer than working for a living and raising five boys.

That said, has the United States ever had a president in the 20th and 21st century who was NOT from an elite background with an elite or at least very well-to-do family supporting him? Clinton and Obama come to mind, maybe Jimmy Carter, but apart from them? I have the impression that the Clintons and Obamas were very keenly aware of the problems of the poor and tried to honestly work on these issues during their presidency. I wonder whether the Romneys would do the same if they ran for president and won.

Neither Harry Truman nor Lyndon Johnson were from affluent backgrounds. Truman's only chance to go to college would have been an appointment to one of the military academies, but his eyesight was too bad. Lyndon Johnson came from a dirt poor family. He did marry into wealth. Lady Bird's family was well-off and she herself made money on several radio stations in the 30s and 40s.

Dwight Eisenhower seems to have come from a middle-class background. He, of course, graduated from the US Military Academy at West Point. Ike probably wouldn't be a Republican nowadays. He established the Department of Health Education and Welfare, expanded Social Security by 10 million people and built the Interstate Highway system with taxpayer money.