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

[MrsYoungie]

I completely agree with you, because you are reacting to something she actually SAID, not the vague accusation that since she "has never worked" she CANNOT speak for those who have.

After all, we elected Obama despite his lack of military experience- and he now commands the entire military. Many on this board defended this as perfectly appropriate. But Ann Romney is not, according to some, even entitled to an OPINION on the issues of working women, due to her lack of direct experience.

I think the Romney's need to stop pretending that they relate to others. They don't, and I'm not sure they need to. People of wealth and priviledge have been making decisions for others for most of this nation's history. Some have made good decisions, some have not. I think the issue here is which type of rich leader we think the Romney's will turn out to be.

The difference is that Obama hired advisors for areas where he did not have a lot of knowledge or experience. Romney just asks his wife for her opinion on women's issues. She is not an expert. Unless she, in turn, has other advisors that we don't know about. But if she is advising him based on her lack of experience with 99% of the women in the States, then this is the blind leading the blind.

[emmiedahl]

This. She might be able to empathize with (although TBH, not the vibe I get) other moms, but I don't think she can relate to a lot of our issues. When you have the sort of money they do, you are always going to be able to find childcare, always going to be able to pay for school options for your kids, always going to be able to decide whether or not you work.

I'm a single mom. I'm not poor, and I make a pretty decent salary, have a steady job, and my ex pays child support regularly. I KNOW exactly how lucky I am. You know what my major issue is? Being a single mom in an environment where everything is built around two-parent families, where there is only bus service for kids who are severely disabled because everyone is within walking distance of the school, and a whole bunch of daycare providers who aren't willing to do what I need them to do. How much do I think Ann Romney - or to be honest, any of the candidates' wives - can relate to my issues? Not a whole lot.

I can make a list of systemic issues that need to be tackled before people can pull themselves up by the bootstraps, and I could not have done that before my husband lost his job. Experience matters. And conservatives hate poor people so much that there is no way in hell Congress will be calling in a single mom on welfare to ask them why they are still poor. But even I could tell them why people are still poor and exactly what laws would give them a better chance because I see it. Certain state policies work actively against poor people and keep them in poverty.

[desertvixen]

I can make a list of systemic issues that need to be tackled before people can pull themselves up by the bootstraps, and I could not have done that before my husband lost his job. Experience matters.

Not even just poor people, but policies that would benefit working parents who aren't managing to stay too far ahead of the threats out there. Our country seriously needs to stop looking at all the problems like daycare as "individual parent problems" and start looking at them as Problems to be Solved.

Or like Mike Huckabee in his book where he was complaining about how parents couldn't even get it together enough to get their kid a bowl of cereal before they head out the door to school - not realizing that maybe parents have to be at work way before it's practical to feed the kids, or that parents are taking them to babysitters because we have to be at work at the crack of dawn, or a thousand other reasons besides being lazy asses who want everything provided for them. That shit pisses me off. I'd love to sit down and have breakfast with my kid every morning, but it just doesn't work that way. Tell it to the US Army.

[meda]

I completely agree with you, because you are reacting to something she actually SAID, not the vague accusation that since she "has never worked" she CANNOT speak for those who have.

After all, we elected Obama despite his lack of military experience- and he now commands the entire military. Many on this board defended this as perfectly appropriate. But Ann Romney is not, according to some, even entitled to an OPINION on the issues of working women, due to her lack of direct experience.

I think the Romney's need to stop pretending that they relate to others. They don't, and I'm not sure they need to. People of wealth and priviledge have been making decisions for others for most of this nation's history. Some have made good decisions, some have not. I think the issue here is which type of rich leader we think the Romney's will turn out to be.

*edited a typo

It was not a vague accusation, it was a very specific statement. Some one who has not worked should not set themselves up as a person who is qualified to give opinions about working women to the person who could be the next POTUS. Mitt Romney has dubbed his wife an adviser on womens issues. Do you really think Ann Romney has any sort of qualifications that entitle her to offer opinions that could have a major impact on public policy as it relates to working women?

[AmyP]

The difference is that Obama hired advisors for areas where he did not have a lot of knowledge or experience. Romney just asks his wife for her opinion on women's issues. She is not an expert. Unless she, in turn, has other advisors that we don't know about. But if she is advising him based on her lack of experience with 99% of the women in the States, then this is the blind leading the blind.

I think a better thing to argue about would be what Mitt and Ann actually did for poor and working women in their capacity as Governor and First Lady of Massachusets. After all, they are not unknown entities here. We really don't have to go on Ann Romney's opinion, or lack thereof, we can look at their record. How well did they represent poor and working women in Massachusets? I really doubt that Mitt entends to have Ann as his sole advisor if elected. Perhaps we could look at his record as Governor for this information as well? Did he have expert advisors on various issues or not? Did he have a cabinet, or did he just let his wife direct his opinions every night at the kitchen table?

[Austin]

I agree they probably should do something, but those welfare queens are few and far between. I live right in the middle of the projects, so I can safely say a lot of poor people *are* flipping burgers. And the government pays more in daycare than it would cost to just give them welfare benefits. We are not saving money, just making conservatives feel better about the situation.

I don't understand why Christians, who are so pro-breeding, pro-let God providing, pro-SAHMing have a problem with a woman who is staying at home with her eight kids. There is no real difference.

Sorry, I was just being sarcastic and do not believe the welfare queen myth.

If a conservative woman (or any woman) of means puts her kids in daycare, then she is shortchanging them. If a poor woman does it, it's because she needs "the dignity of work".

I am all about work and have worked since I was fourteen. I spent 10 of those years working primarily in my home with my children, and I do know that it is work. I personally believe that human beings are meant to work, at least towards a purpose, and I don't honestly understand people who don't work or don't want to, at least. But I also recognize that some of what the conservatives propose with regard to single mothers raising children is just silly.

And there is nothing wrong with flipping burgers, but it is not the type of job that a mother can raise a child on. She needs education or job training so she can actually get a job at some point with which she can truly support her child(ren).

[emmiedahl]

Oh, I know you are not perpetuating a welfare queen myth. I just like to bring it up in these discussions, because the worst possible hypothetical welfare queen is doing the same damn thing as Michelle Duggar. Breeding beyond her capacity to raise and hoping God kicks in the difference.

[desertvixen]

But I also recognize that some of what the conservatives propose with regard to single mothers raising children is just silly.

Yes, yes it is.

[Witsec7]

Ann is back in the news with a reoccurrence of foot in mouth disease.

“My hats off to the men in this room too that are raising kids — I love that, and I love the fact that there are also women out there that don’t have a choice and they must go to work and they still have to raise the kids,†Romney said. “Thank goodness that we value those people too. And sometimes life isn’t easy for any of us.â€

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/2 ... 48759.html

[Loveday]

Ann is back in the news with a reoccurrence of foot in mouth disease.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/2 ... 48759.html

:shock: Amazing. You couldn't make this stuff up if you tried, yet it just flies right out of her mouth without a...well, I was going to say second thought, but clearly she didn't have a FIRST thought before speaking, did she? :think:

[Glass Cowcatcher]

Ann is back in the news with a reoccurrence of foot in mouth disease.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/2 ... 48759.html

:oops: WTF is this? She makes it sound like women ought to kiss the ground the father of their children walks on if they stick around to raise the kid, and how dare she ask for child support or alimony or anything else if he takes off?

[Rosie]

Has anyone else seen this piece by Katha Pollitt? Spot on, I think.

http://www.thenation.com/article/167456 ... king-woman

But the brouhaha over Hilary Rosen’s injudicious remarks is not really about whether what stay-home mothers do is work. Because we know the answer to that: it depends. When performed by married women in their own homes, domestic labor is work—difficult, sacred, noble work. Ann says Mitt called it more important work than his own, which does make you wonder why he didn’t stay home with the boys himself. When performed for pay, however, this supremely important, difficult job becomes low-wage labor that almost anyone can do—teenagers, elderly women, even despised illegal immigrants. But here’s the real magic: when performed by low-income single mothers in their own homes, those same exact tasks—changing diapers, going to the playground and the store, making dinner, washing the dishes, giving a bath—are not only not work; they are idleness itself. Just ask Mitt Romney. In a neat catch that in a sane world would have put the Rosen gaffe to rest forever, Nation editor at large Chris Hayes aired a video clip on his weekend-morning MSNBC show displaying Romney this past January calling for parents on welfare to get jobs: “While I was governor, 85 percent of the people on a form of welfare assistance in my state had no work requirement. And I wanted to increase the work requirement. I said, for instance, that even if you have a child 2 years of age, you need to go to work. And people said, ‘Well that’s heartless,’ and I said, ‘No, no, I’m willing to spend more giving daycare to allow those parents to go back to work. It’ll cost the state more providing that daycare, but I want the individuals to have the dignity of work.’†(Don’t be fooled by the gender-neutral language—he’s talking about mothers.) In 1994 he told the Burlington Business Council that “work is ennobling†and that “we will do everything in our power to make sure that people who are on welfare have an opportunity and an obligation to go to work, not after two years but from day one if we could.â€

[Austin]

Has anyone else seen this piece by Katha Pollitt? Spot on, I think.

http://www.thenation.com/article/167456 ... king-woman

But the brouhaha over Hilary Rosen’s injudicious remarks is not really about whether what stay-home mothers do is work. Because we know the answer to that: it depends. When performed by married women in their own homes, domestic labor is work—difficult, sacred, noble work. Ann says Mitt called it more important work than his own, which does make you wonder why he didn’t stay home with the boys himself. When performed for pay, however, this supremely important, difficult job becomes low-wage labor that almost anyone can do—teenagers, elderly women, even despised illegal immigrants. But here’s the real magic: when performed by low-income single mothers in their own homes, those same exact tasks—changing diapers, going to the playground and the store, making dinner, washing the dishes, giving a bath—are not only not work; they are idleness itself. Just ask Mitt Romney. In a neat catch that in a sane world would have put the Rosen gaffe to rest forever, Nation editor at large Chris Hayes aired a video clip on his weekend-morning MSNBC show displaying Romney this past January calling for parents on welfare to get jobs: “While I was governor, 85 percent of the people on a form of welfare assistance in my state had no work requirement. And I wanted to increase the work requirement. I said, for instance, that even if you have a child 2 years of age, you need to go to work. And people said, ‘Well that’s heartless,’ and I said, ‘No, no, I’m willing to spend more giving daycare to allow those parents to go back to work. It’ll cost the state more providing that daycare, but I want the individuals to have the dignity of work.’†(Don’t be fooled by the gender-neutral language—he’s talking about mothers.) In 1994 he told the Burlington Business Council that “work is ennobling†and that “we will do everything in our power to make sure that people who are on welfare have an opportunity and an obligation to go to work, not after two years but from day one if we could.â€

Thanks for this. This is what I've been trying to express in conversations for two weeks.