Politics & Current Events
Dear Community,
Our tech team has launched updates to The Nest today. As a result of these updates, members of the Nest Community will need to change their password in order to continue participating in the community. In addition, The Nest community member's avatars will be replaced with generic default avatars. If you wish to revert to your original avatar, you will need to re-upload it via The Nest.
If you have questions about this, please email help@theknot.com.
Thank you.
Note: This only affects The Nest's community members and will not affect members on The Bump or The Knot.
Our tech team has launched updates to The Nest today. As a result of these updates, members of the Nest Community will need to change their password in order to continue participating in the community. In addition, The Nest community member's avatars will be replaced with generic default avatars. If you wish to revert to your original avatar, you will need to re-upload it via The Nest.
If you have questions about this, please email help@theknot.com.
Thank you.
Note: This only affects The Nest's community members and will not affect members on The Bump or The Knot.
Who doesn't value womens' right to choose their own life path?
Women. Liberal Women.
If feminism is really about a woman's right to choose what to do with her life, it's comments like this that make it hard for some women to say they are feminist. Women who SAHM feel economic impacts just like those who work. They still have to figure out how to feed their kids, how to send them to good schools, etc.
Re: Who doesn't value womens' right to choose their own life path?
ca you not read?
Democratic Strategist Hilary Rosen generated instant *bipartisan* criticism Wednesday night for her statement that Ann Romney has "actually never worked a day in her life."
AND
Her comments drew instant criticism on Twitter from campaign advisers on *both sides of the aisle*, as well as one of Romney's sons.
So basically ONE Democrat made a comment. Way to generalize.
(I dont know why I cant bold, so I put asterisks.)
Yes, one liberal woman's comment is reflective of all liberal women's opinions.
Um, I don't think that comment indicates at all that liberal women don't value womens' right to choose their own life path. It indicates that Rosen herself has particular issues about SAHMs vs WMs which isnt really unusual as the mommy wars played out daily on these boards demonstrate.
I think her comment was out of line but I also don't think Ann Romney is going to be a great example of what most women are thinking re: the economy. Not because she stayed at home, but because I don't think she had the same financial concerns that many average Amercan women have, the same way Mitt Romney doesn't.
So was Rosen appropriate in her comment? of course not. But I also don't think it means that liberal women are opposed to women choosing their own path.
One woman talked smack about another woman and both parties reacted to the *** talker.
I hardly consider that some sort of proof that liberal women don't value the right of other women to choose their own path.
there. fixed that for you. this one person made a pretty idiotic comment. She could have said that Mrs. Romney may not have a well rounded understanding of the various issues facing women that work outside the home and/or single working mothers, but to say she's never worked was ridiculous.
I want to add that while Rosen definitely was off base on the SAHM remark, it's not unfair to suggest that Ann Romney isn't exactly reflective of the average SAHM, especially in economic terms.
Next up on vast over-generalizations: Who doesn't like black people? WHITE PEOPLE!
[evidence: George Zimmerman]
mrsbecky said it a helluva lot better than I could have.
Zuma Zoom
whoops - didnt see that this story had been posted already - here's what I posted with the article:
I actually don't disagree with Ann Romney's tweet about choosing to stay home and raise a family - kids are hard work and we should value what SAHP do for their children. What gets lost in this is that the Romney family had the ability to make that choice to have a SAHP based on their favorable economic status - and that's not a choice available to many working families.
Sisugal?
to many working families or pretty much any single parent families, typically headed by women
That's what I thought when I saw missus' comment about Pamela being able to do better than this. Maybe she's channeling Sisugal!? Cause, yeah.
I agree it was a dumb comment, shot off quick and callous. But I also agree that Ann Romney shouldn't talk about SAH to raise 5 boys like she knows what it's like to do it whilst middle class/lower class, and struggling. My dad worked two jobs for over a decade (1 day job, 1 night job) so my mom could SAH. It's what was important to them. I don't think the Romneys had to make many tough choices to ensure she could SAH comfortably. BUT, the great thing about feminism is that she HAD the choice and she took it. Good for her and her family.
Feminism is not really about choices. It's about the culture not favoring men and ensuring equal rights extended to both sexes.
I don't know anything about Ann Romney, so I don't know if she's ever held a job or not. Assuming she has never been an employee, should Rosen have qualified "worked outside of the home" or said "been employed" instead of "never worked"? If that's the case, it seems like you're dabbling in PC language, Pamela, which is most unlike you.
Anyway, all of this is moot, since your parents taught you life isn't fair and all, and so Ann Romney will have to accept that the same way other oppressed people are expected to.
Yes. The bolded is true. What I'm wondering is -- why does this matter? In any presidential election, you have candidates trying to convince us they are like us. They're not. The kind of person who has what it takes to ascend to the very top political ranks is NOT like you and me. And in modern times, they are usually wealthy. Obama's not exactly a 99%-er.
So, Romney's richer. True. But that is somehow a disqualification? Why? I don't want someone who is out of touch, but having wealth does not automatically strip someone of empathy. It is as unfair to say that the uber-wealthy are out-of-touch, selfish azzholes are it is unfair to say that the the very poorest in our nation are lazy or stupid. Financial status doesn't define a person. That's ridiculous, and something most of us would agree on, yet I don't see the courtesy extended both directions.
And, to be honest, I don't give a crap whether the president is someone I could "have a beer with" or who has sat at the kitchen table with their spouse dealing with the exact same issues I've dealt with. What I care about is that they can make fair and informed decisions that affect our national security, international diplomacy, domestic healthcare, education, civil liberties, justice system and endless list of other issues. I'm not qualified to do this. That's fine, I don't want the job. But why, then, would I expect the president or their spouse to be "just like me?"
When someone is responsible for a budget in the neighborhood of $3.360 trillion dollars, it doesn't bother me so much that they've had experience managing millions. Why is this a problem?
Zeus and Bubba
We're talking about Hilary Rosen, formerly of the RIAA, right?
Screw her and her evil organization.
I don't think anyone here is asking that a presidential nominee be just like them - I'm not. What I do want in a presidential nominee is an understanding of economic realities for most of the countries citizens - and this twitter controversy is another example of Romney & family being out of touch with that reality.
The problem is not that we, the general public, are expecting them to be "just like us" (though some do - those that voted for G.W.!), but rather that the policiticians are trying to convince us that they *understand* what the middle class is going through. This whole debacle emerged as a result of Mitt's repeated assertions that Ann is his window on the world, knowing what the concerns are facing working Americans. Um, no. She has no clue, because they've been so above the fray. Which is fine - but own it. And be honest about it. I do think they are so delusional that they think they *do* understand... this is the issue.
Well for me it "matters" for several reasons. As a threshold issue though, you are right, it shouldn't really matter how wealthy the POTUS is (or candidates for the job) and I don't care whether I can have a beer with a candidate or not. I can have a beer with lots of people. Not everyone can be an effective president. I don't really want the president or his spouse to be just like me. I want them to be smarter, more experienced, more educated, more capable of navigating murky political waters, and so on.
I think the issue has become - and I'm kind of paraphrasing this from West Wing haha -but elections have started going to the lowest common denominator so to speak. A Harvard education is viewed as a bad thing (depending on who went there, apparently.) Getting Cs at Yale is lauded and laughed about because it indicates you "understand" the average American. Candidates are trying to prove they are "one of us" and for Romney, it's falling flat (as it did for John Kerry in my opinion).
In this particular situation, the issue in my opinion is that Romney is relying on his wife's opinion as representative of women in general. So okay the economy is important. Ann Romney was a SAHM. Those two issues don't necessarily seem all that interconnected but Ann Romney's experience as a SAHM was drastically different than my mom's when I was little or my SIL's now etc. I don't think people really blame her for being a SAHM (I know Laura Bush was a librarian, but did she work as one after having the twins? All I know about her is from American Wife
but if she stopped working, I dont really recall that being an issue ever) but it goes back to the comments about having to fire people and having NASCAR owners as friends and everything else. There is a disconnect.
In my opinion, this disconnect is only an issue bc Romney and many Rs are trying to project that exact same disconnect on Obama - he spent too many years at Harvard, he's an elitist (or whatever the favored term was in 2008), and so on. It's kind of laughable and it's throwing the Romneys' inconsistencies more and more into the spotlight. Is this making sense? Did people really care that Kennedy was uber wealthy? Or that Bush was? Or Dole? I remember Dole's wealth being a general issue but I don't remember it being a focal point of the campaign. I honestly think this is part of a remnant of the Bush era - who can be the most down to earth, the most laid back president.
and also, I'm not sure what you mean about "the courtesy being extended both directions." I think Obama gets slammed frequently for his education, the way he speaks, etc.
i'm pretty sure it was a unity horse back in the SP days that we don't want someone who is like us.
Wasn't trying to imply anyone here specifically said that all wealthy people are out of touch. But surely you must see that the narrative has been that his wealth is somehow a mark against his ability to understand the middle class. There has been an obsession over his wealth.
I'm not saying whether he's in touch or not, and I don't know the origin of this current twitter controversy in it's full context (whatever full commentary Mitt was making about his wife). If anyone has that and can post or link it, it could shed more light on the substance of Hillary's attack on Ann's employment status.
But based on what I have read above in OP, it seems like she's just going after her for being a wealthy SAHM.
And, on an unrelated note, 5 boys? Sigh. That will so be me if I decide to keep trying for a girl.
Zeus and Bubba
I'm an off and on poster...what are the SP days? I'm sure I'll feel dumb when you tell me.
Zeus and Bubba