The war on women, by women
This was rather predictable: Democratic “strategist” and DNC adviser Hilary Rosen was being interviewed by Anderson Cooper about the so-called “war on women,” and said the following about Ann Romney, “Guess what, [Romney’s] wife has actually never worked a day in her life.”
A predictable firestorm erupted, with not only Ann Romney, but even Michelle Obama and David Axelrod getting into the act to counter Rosen and to say that women’s choices—whether to work or stay at home—should be respected. Rosen, on the other hand, predictably doubled down; it sure doesn’t appear that any apologies will be forthcoming from her, to say the least.
The whole thing is merely one more salvo in the ancient battle between stay-at-home mothers and working ones and vice versa, a fight that’s been going on as long as I can remember and that has no chance of ending any time soon, if ever. Rosen also tried to give it a predictable (gee, I’m using that word a lot here, aren’t I?) class war spin, which has been part of the attack on Romney from the start from both his Democratic and Republican opponents.
I refuse to get pulled into the working/home battle, although I will say that I think Rosen’s comments were not only offensive but stupid “strategy” as well. My opinion on working mothers vs. stay-at-home ones? I think some of the impetus for the fight comes from envy and/or guilt, on both sides. I think that women are not all that gentle with each other, to say the least. And I think most people try to do their best to bring up their children in a world where money must be made and children must be raised. Sometimes that involves a decision to stay home, sometimes to work, and sometimes to alternate the two or do each part-time. As long as nobody abuses or neglects the kids, I’m with the program.
[ADDENDUM: I’m in complete agreement with this by Ann Althouse:
This is creating so much interest in Ann Romney now, shining a sudden bright light on her, and she is so ready. She’s a great persona, better than Mitt at talking to people and generating warmth.
Read the whole thing.
It’s not a good idea to attack Ann Romney; she’s a formidable opponent.]
[ADDENDUM II: Well, I guess the pressure was on, because Rosen did offer an apology—although not an especially good one:
“I apologize to Ann Romney and anyone else who was offended,” Rosen said in a statement. “Let’s declare peace in this phony war and go back to focus on the substance.”
The war isn’t phony, as I pointed out. It has a rather lengthy lineage. And if Rosen didn’t want to engage in it, why fire a shot?
I also always take note of apologies that don’t say anything about the act itself, but locate the focus of the problem in the perceiver, who is offended. This sort of apology is very common, and hardly limited to the left. “I’m sorry if you were offended”–you stupid over-reacting fragile flower, you.]
What can one say except to observe that, from time to time, no matter how well educated, lesbians like Rosen don’t quite understand what goes into raising children in a real family situation. This is one case where one’s sexual identification may well play a big role in general cluelessness.
vanderleun: I’ve seen plenty of statements just as stupid, and very similar, from heterosexual women. I’ve also seen lesbian couples fighting about how best to raise children in very much the same way that hetero couples do. I think Rosen is tone deaf, but I don’t conclude it’s got to do with her being a lesbian. From the linked piece that she wrote, I do conclude that she’s a typical Democrat operative, toeing the party line with vigor. Trouble is, in her zeal to get Romney, she stepped in a steaming pile of doo-doo.
She is exactly the kind of feminist/activist I hate. None of the really accomplished women I know would ever make such a remark. Only classless people like Rosen have to denigrate others to booster their own self image.
Well, I do. So conclude.
There’s more brewing on the feminist angle. And ICYMI, Ann Romney’s comments on Fox News are here: ‘Ann Romney Responds to Democrat Hilary Rosen’s Disgusting Stay-at-Home Mom Remarks.’
http://americanpowerblog.blogspot.com/2012/04/ann-romney-responds-to-democrat-hilary.html
The hope and change crew in the WH is really bringing people together, isn’t it? They’ve found a way to pit people against each other in terms of race, class, religion, gender, you name it. Really, it’s astounding.
I heard this afternoon that Rosen “apologized” but really, I think they’ll regret running this play once again (remember Hillary and the cookies comment? Or Teresa Heinz Kerry taking similar potshots at Laura Bush–who actually had a graduate degree and a career as a librarian?)
The left keeps trotting out this insulting meme but this time it’s shining a spotlight on Ann Romney and she is ready for her close-up.
Heh.
The hope and change crew in the WH is really bringing people together, isn’t it? They’ve found a way to pit people against each other in terms of race, class, religion, gender, you name it.
What next? Fisticuffs between adherents of “less filling” and “tastes great?” Daggers drawn over proponents/opponents of the DH rule?
This fight is woman vs woman. Men are on the sidelines. Men are voting against Obama, anyway; thus men voters were not the target of Rosen’s remarks. This is woman vs woman. Sort of like the bulk of the harsh feelings against Palin: that, too, is largely a woman vs woman thing.
Am reminded of Ace of Spades’ observation that the recent criticism of Ashley Judd’s “puffy” face … was blamed on a patriarchy which was paying exactly zero attention to Ashley Judd, and which could not recognize a puffy face if their life depended upon it. The Ashley criticism was strictly a woman vs woman thing, with maybe a gay man thing tossed in, b/c those are the only groups which would EVER take notice of a puffy face.
Why do the Dems insist on involving spouses in politics, either as targets (for Republicans) or as unelected officials (for Democrats)?
Non-political wives (Laura Bush, Ann Romney) should be left out of this; political wives (Rosalynn Carter, Hillary Clinton, Michelle Obama) should be non-political wives. Denis Thatcher set the standard for how a politician’s spouse should comport him/herself.
gcotharn: they don’t call them catfights for nothing. Women can be very, very, very hard on other women.
And I agree that women are the group that’s being fought over here. Obama’s stronger support is among women, not men. Rosen was trying to appeal to this group as well as the class war issue (which was really her focus, if you read her remarks in context). She certainly miscalculated, but I doubt it will make a major difference in Obama’s support among women.
Occam’s Beard: Rosen was responding to a remark Romney had made that did bring Ann into it. But it was still very, very, very stupid of Rosen.
According to the left, Republican women are only honorary women anyway, not real women (as in victims, underprivileged, etc.). Just like Republican blacks are uncle toms. So it’s okay to attack them :-).
“Women can be very, very, very hard on other women.”
Yes. This issue fight is like a down and dirty knife fight: its personal, infused with overt hard feelings and subconscious grudges (including against Mom). That reads more dramatically than I want, yet it is my impression of this kerfuffle.
What next? Fisticuffs between adherents of “less filling” and “tastes great?” Daggers drawn over proponents/opponents of the DH rule?
Oh, come now. If you’re not already willing to go to blows over the DH rule, you don’t really care about baseball anyway.
Excellent summary:
Trouble is, in her zeal to get Romney, she stepped in a steaming pile of doo-doo.
The Rosen remark was a double attack. Not only was she bashing traditional women, but she also was putting a dig in for Ms. Romney’s wealth. Both were intended to hurt Mitt Romney. I find it puzzling that these people who bash wealth are usually chasing it — often at the expense of others. Michelle’s $300K “job” is but one example. Her vacations are another.
I want to thank the sleazy, hideous Rosen for her Clueless, though Real, work on bahalf of Mitt’s win in November. Thank you, Honey Bun. No, really, THANK YOU.
First the help provided(and providing much to come)from the Race Hustlers, Left Zealots, MSNBC in general, etc for jumping on the Trayvon Martin tragedy. Please, PLEASE keep it coming, Useful idiots! Now, the added attraction of a skirt wearing thug for the DNC sleazing the incredible wife of the Republican Candidate. ‘Yo!!
I was listening to Hannity on my drive home today. There was some female dem operative on there defending Rosen. Her basic message was a woman without a career was borderline retarded and shouldn’t comment on issues such as the economy.
The uninformed arrogance of the left is breathtaking.
“The more women there are about, the softer a wise man steps.”…. Matrim Cauthon …
from “the Fires of Heaven”
My favorite character in the Wheel of Time series by Robert Jordan
I believe the women who’ve never had a real job includes those on welfare. as were their mothers.
Now, it would be hard to get them to not vote dem, although it might be hard to get them to vote, so they’re not a direct loss, if they were to take this personally.
So I guess it’s only white women whose husbands were successful enough that the wife didn’t have to work–that includes making the decision at income rates down toward poverty–who are being slammed for being…something or other.
Now, of those, how many might rethink voting for zero because of this? Some will, regardless, for whatever reason. Some won’t. But how many will swing toward Romney vs. how many will think, “Rosen’s right.” Why vote for a guy whose wife never had to work?”
Hard to imagine how they did the math on that one.
vanderleun says:
“What can one say except to observe that, from time to time, no matter how well educated, lesbians like Rosen don’t quite understand what goes into raising children in a real family situation. This is one case where one’s sexual identification may well play a big role in general cluelessness.”
Why, V, didn’t you say that her cluelessness is because she is Jewish? Why didn’t you say it was because she is from NJ? Why didn’t you blame her education? Why didn’t you blame her wealth?
Why the sudden need for (borderline) anti-gay comments on Neo’s blog lately? Jeez!
Thank you Neo for trying to set things right. I have generally enjoyed your posts AND the comments; but the last couple of days the comments have have been, well, less than “nice.”
Occam’s Beard Says:
April 12th, 2012 at 3:23 pm
I’d go for that. I’m agin it.
Pull yourself out a plum, Charles. You get the “what a good boy am I” award of the day for setting us all straight on what to think and say.
Must be me because I really didn’t think to notice that she might be Jewish until you brought it to my attention. I’ll have to be more sensitive in the future.
Why the sudden need for (borderline) anti-gay comments on Neo’s blog lately?
Only borderline? I’m losing my touch.
Harridan Rosen:
“Let’s declare peace in this phony war and go back to focus on the substance.”
Her rhetoric starred the war. Like most libs, she is shocked that there are people who have the overweening gall to disagree with Goddess Rosen and tell her a thing or two. We all should have bowed down to her and kissed her feet.
My 1st wife quit working with her 1st pregnancy. She thoroughly enjoyed being a stay-at-home mom and was very good at it. The kids did fine and I brought home the bacon. A decade later she became a feminist and remains so to this day. Musta been my fault, something I either did or did not do or should’ve done.
Obviously, all men are pigs.
Having her wide fanny spanked aplenty by her Demomidget overseers, Hilary goes to bed knowing that a.)she only honestly expressed what she’s heard from them repeatedly off-mic/camera and..b.)tahat she ain’t gonna be coaching Debby Blathermouth Schultz any further on sensitivity. Buu-Byeeeeeee, Honey Bun.
The class warfare part is especially interesting because Rosen appears not to know that the Romneys were not at all well off when they started their family.
I suppose they had some security because they knew that they could get help from their families, if they ever needed it, but they were on very tight budgets until MItt Romney got his first consulting job.
(Those budget lessons stuck with them. There’s a funny story from one of Mitt’s subordinates at Bain. To celebrate a big financial win, the man had bought a fancy sports car. He showed it to Mitt, who admired it and said he wished he could own a car like that. The man thinks that Mitt was being serious, that he really didn’t think of himself as someone wealthy enough to own a fancy sports car — even though he was. And in fact, Mitt drove rather humble cars then.)
I would think you would have easy access to statistics on child crime when related to working mothers versus stay and home mothers. Well, and drug use, abuse (from within and without the home), etc. If being a working mother greatly increases the risk to children, then it is a problem.
Working women? So long as they aren’t harming non-existent children… fine, I guess. Perhaps wealthier women can afford proper care, though I doubt if that actually works either (nannies). But they do have the money to buy the research that favors their call. Whatever.
At the age of 40, my wife gave birth to twin boys. We already had a teenager and I had just gotten another job after being out of work for a while. With child care being difficult we learned to live on my salary while she became a stay-at -home mom. While at a grocery store, a woman looked at the twins and said “your husband does let you stay home him, doesn’t he?” When she said yes, the woman nodded and said “good for you”. My wife got this same comment from many women after that, including many working moms. Since then we have discovered that many working moms would secretly love to stay at home with their kids but can’t because of being single moms or having to keep up with a more expensive lifestyle. It cost us lots of forgone income to do this, but I know we are all happier for it. Now the twins are 16 and I started to prod her to get a job but to my surprise, the twins protested. They like having their mom around when they need her. My wife also does lots of volunteer work and I can tell you that many schools and other public services would be in serious trouble if it weren’t for the volunteer time provided by stay-at-home moms.
It is not a war of women upon women, it is a war of a totalitarian mindset against freedom. Radical feminism is but a skirmish. Keep your eye on the ball.
How many lesbian intellectuals are there exactly in the democrat party and why do they all give off the vibe they’re about to go Amy Bishop on us?
James Taranto got a great headline out of this contretemps.
She had a big thick grin
With a punched out chin
And a punched out wart
And I loved her for it.
She had a lovin eye
Child, one each per thigh
Hanging on, sucking thumb
Quiet, solvent, almost numb.
Remembrance, I loved her
I think more than any other.
Mama was best, the first
Now she is called the worst.
Neo, let’s call a truce in this phony war. I’m ready for peace between us. 🙂
From John Hawkins blog: http://tinyurl.com/7fo5evq
“20) Only in America could the people who approve of slaughtering 25 million female babies via abortion accuse OTHER PEOPLE of waging a “war on women.”
Sounds about right to me. Too bad Ms Rosen and her ilk can’t see it.
More power to stay at home moms, working moms, part-time working moms, and business owning moms. It’s all good.
NOW has weighed in on working moms. Hot Air has the video:
http://hotair.com/archives/2012/04/13/now-president-ann-romney-lacks-life-experience-and-imagination-to-relate-to-most-americans/
Hugh Hewitt:
Feminism springs from polluted sources: the Nazi-like racialist Sanger and Communists Friedan and de Beauvoir. Rosen represents both mainstream and academic feminism, filled with loathing and hatred for “the other.”