Anne Romney Hasn't Worked A Day in Her Life

[Coito ergo sum]

Well, when he puts her forth as his "advisor", he necessarily opens a discussion on her qualifications. Whether or not she's official isn't terribly relevant, it seems to me. Presidents have ceded enormous advisory powers to unofficial persons before, and if that is used as a campaign point, examining it is fair game, to me. I'm sure not going to turn of my critical thinking just because a candidate cries about me critiquing the wife which he himself introduced into the conversation.

Also, I don't think it's holding her to a higher standard. Since Betty Ford, First Ladies have been both bruited and critiqued. Nancy Reagan caught shit for her astrology, Hilary for her vocal input into her husband's Administration, and I think if Mitt is saying he's gonna listen to Anne on women's issues, then people have a right to spout off on her qualifications.

What does she know about balancing a career and a job, while worrying about a glass ceiling? Not a goddamned thing, outside of the abstract. My son is just as qualified as she is to spout off about that stuff. When does he get Mitt's ear?

I don't recall her being advanced as having any knowledge of balancing a career and a job. She was advanced as someone Romney asked what women are concerned about. Isn't she qualified to voice an opinion on that? And, even if not, there isn't a candidate around who would say they don't talk to his wife about what women care about.

When does your son get Obama's ear? Does Obama not consult his wife? They all do. And when asked, they know damn well to say they do, and to over-exaggerate the degree to which they rely on their wives input. We all know that if they don't genuflect in that regard, they'll get castrated. It's the same reason people have to say "being a mom is the hardest job in the world," and they have to be "horrified" by Ann Rosen's statement. I mean, really -- we all know that it is not the hardest job in the world and that the statement is not that bad, but it's one of those "third rails" in public discourse. We all have to SAY that being a mom is just as "hard" as being President of the US, harder in fact.

[Coito ergo sum]

And yeah, parenting is hard (for mothers AND fathers), but... it's not rocket science. What makes it hard is that it's relentless, and there's a young life at stake-- not that there are difficult theories to master, or high-stakes competition, or... you get my drift.

That depends on how you approach it. I've spent more time on researching raising of kids than I ever did studying for my nuclear engineering degree. Some child care issues are so difficult that there isn't even any established scientific theory on them yet. By comparison, rocket science is pretty cut and dried.

Granted some parents take the von Braun approach. "'Ze rockets go up, who cares where zey come down? That's not my department,' says Wernher von Braun."

You raise a good point-- I have done more reading up on childcare in the past few years than... well, I've read a lot. I study up because I'd like to do the best job I can, and studying is one of the skills I can bring to the table. And if you're talking about the science of child development, yes, it's very complex and challenging.

But, as you indicated, it's entirely possible to raise healthy, productive people without hitting the books. In the same way that it's possible to eat a steak without a knife and fork-- but they help.

And, 90%% of moms do the hardest job in the world every day without reading a single book on the subject.

One CAN read up on child care, but the stats show that the vast majority of Americans, including "moms," don't even read a single book from end to end in a year. They're certainly not burning the midnight oil, by and large, scouring the tomes and pondering the minutia of child rearing, child psychology and the latest Harvard journals on the topic.

Half of me on this issue was like, "good, fuck you, Democrats. You dish this shit out all the time, and now it's being shoved right back in your face." Then reality sets in, and I just have to admit. Ann Rosen was actually correct in what she said. Anne Romney has lived a privileged, wealthy life with all the benefits that money could buy. She raise 5 children, sure. But, so fucking what? So have many other PEOPLE - not just "moms" - and they've done so with a lot fucking less. Being a "mom" - like being a "dad" - is a choice and isn't a job. When Rosen and most other people refer to parents "working" they mean they are working for pay. Cleaning up the house, wiping asses, and disciplining children is certainly important, and can be difficult and trying, but for fucks sake on popsicle stick - I'm tired of this constant demand for parent-worship.

...next thing, people will take seriously the nonsensical proposals that the government should pay mothers a salary for staying home and taking care of the kids. I think I may lead a revolution if that shit starts happening. Fuck you! Don't have kids! I don't WANT most folks to have kids. I sure as FUCK am not willing to subsidize their poor decision making.

[Warren Dew]

One CAN read up on child care, but the stats show that the vast majority of Americans, including "moms," don't even read a single book from end to end in a year. They're certainly not burning the midnight oil, by and large, scouring the tomes and pondering the minutia of child rearing, child psychology and the latest Harvard journals on the topic.

Presidents can spend all their time on golf courses if they want to, too. Like being a full time mom, the job is only as hard as they want to make it.

[Thumpalumpacus]

I don't recall her being advanced as having any knowledge of balancing a career and a job. She was advanced as someone Romney asked what women are concerned about.

That is implicit in calling her an advisor on women's issues. Presumably, one seeks insight from those who have it.

Isn't she qualified to voice an opinion on that?

Of course she is. And other people are qualified to opine on this, based on their experience.

And, even if not, there isn't a candidate around who would say they don't talk to his wife about what women care about.

I said as much above.

When does your son get Obama's ear? Does Obama not consult his wife? They all do. And when asked, they know damn well to say they do, and to over-exaggerate the degree to which they rely on their wives input. We all know that if they don't genuflect in that regard, they'll get castrated.

Of course, but you're missing the point. If he doesn't want people questioning his wife's ability to provide insight into the issues confronting American women, he ought not tout her as his advisor.

As far as Obama goes, do you have instances where he's whined about how the media has treated Michelle?

It's the same reason people have to say "being a mom is the hardest job in the world," and they have to be "horrified" by Ann Rosen's statement. I mean, really -- we all know that it is not the hardest job in the world and that the statement is not that bad, but it's one of those "third rails" in public discourse. We all have to SAY that being a mom is just as "hard" as being President of the US, harder in fact.

Yes, and that's why I dislike this criticism of Anne Romney's detractors: it's necessarily an appeal to emotions. If Romney wants to tout his wife as some sort of expert on women's issues aside from being a stay-at-home mother, her "credentials are fair game.

So far as I can see, neither of them knows their ass from third base about what it means to be a regular American with normal concerns -- like virtually all of the politicians. Pointing that out is fine by me. Let her worry about what she's going to do for day care when they close three hours before her shift ends at work ... and how she's going to afford it. Then her status as "advisor" might garner a little more respect.

Until then, it's clearly a cheap ploy to snuggle up to family-values conservatives and nothing more, and that means it's fair game.

Pardon the phrase, but if she can't stand the heat, she should stay in the kitchen.

[laklak]

I love the "hardest job in the world" bullshit. My ex did it for years while stoned out of her gourd on Valium and Percocets. Hell, it couldn't have been all that hard, after all, she could barely manage to wash out a coffee cup without falling asleep in the fucking sink.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Parenting can be difficult. It very much depends on how concerned the parent is with doing the best job he or she can.

[Elessarina]

I'm not saying that being a mother isn't easy but she didn't get married and pop one out the next day did she?

I give any mom credit for being mom. The problem with a woman not working a day in her life at any other pursuit other than child rearing and running a household is very problematic to me because it's a totally limited world view. For the first lady? Of the United States? Yikes.

I agree.. I also think there is something incredibly selfish about it. Going from parents straight to hubby with no chance for self growth of self-sufficiency? How can a woman get married and do that? I would feel guilty buying anything for myself if I hadn't contributed towards the household income..

[Coito ergo sum]

One CAN read up on child care, but the stats show that the vast majority of Americans, including "moms," don't even read a single book from end to end in a year. They're certainly not burning the midnight oil, by and large, scouring the tomes and pondering the minutia of child rearing, child psychology and the latest Harvard journals on the topic.

Presidents can spend all their time on golf courses if they want to, too. Like being a full time mom, the job is only as hard as they want to make it.

That is certainly true. The point still stands that it is not exactly true that "being a mom" is "the hardest job in the world."

[Coito ergo sum]

I don't recall her being advanced as having any knowledge of balancing a career and a job. She was advanced as someone Romney asked what women are concerned about.

That is implicit in calling her an advisor on women's issues. Presumably, one seeks insight from those who have it.

Nobody called her an "advisor on women's issues," have they? He said he discusses things with his wife.

Isn't she qualified to voice an opinion on that?

Of course she is. And other people are qualified to opine on this, based on their experience.

Hilary Rosen implied she wasn't. But, of course, other people are also qualified to opine.

And, even if not, there isn't a candidate around who would say they don't talk to his wife about what women care about.

I said as much above.

When does your son get Obama's ear? Does Obama not consult his wife? They all do. And when asked, they know damn well to say they do, and to over-exaggerate the degree to which they rely on their wives input. We all know that if they don't genuflect in that regard, they'll get castrated.

Of course, but you're missing the point. If he doesn't want people questioning his wife's ability to provide insight into the issues confronting American women, he ought not tout her as his advisor.

He didn't tout her as his advisor. And, I think it's fine to question his wife's ability to provide insight.

As far as Obama goes, do you have instances where he's whined about how the media has treated Michelle?

Not offhand. Mainly that is because the media treats both the President and the First Lady with kid gloves. Such a statement would never come from a Hilary Rosen's mouth about Michelle Obama.

It's the same reason people have to say "being a mom is the hardest job in the world," and th]ey have to be "horrified" by Ann Rosen's statement. I mean, really -- we all know that it is not the hardest job in the world and that the statement is not that bad, but it's one of those "third rails" in public discourse. We all have to SAY that being a mom is just as "hard" as being President of the US, harder in fact.

Yes, and that's why I dislike this criticism of Anne Romney's detractors: it's necessarily an appeal to emotions. If Romney wants to tout his wife as some sort of expert on women's issues aside from being a stay-at-home mother, her "credentials are fair game.

So far as I can see, neither of them knows their ass from third base about what it means to be a regular American with normal concerns -- like virtually all of the politicians. Pointing that out is fine by me. Let her worry about what she's going to do for day care when they close three hours before her shift ends at work ... and how she's going to afford it. Then her status as "advisor" might garner a little more respect.

She doesn't hold that status. She's the guy's wife, and they all say they talk about stuff with their wives, and value their wives' opinions on various topics.

And, no first Lady has to worry about a "shift" ending or day care closing. To require that of Anne Romney is to hold her to a higher standard. Michelle Obama never had to worry about that either.

[quote="Thumpalumpacus"

Until then, it's clearly a cheap ploy to snuggle up to family-values conservatives and nothing more, and that means it's fair game.

Pardon the phrase, but if she can't stand the heat, she should stay in the kitchen. [/quote]

It's all cheap ploys. Including the "war on women" invented by the Democrat party. It's all crap. It's just a big pile of shit.

[Coito ergo sum]

...duplicate

[hadespussercats]

Including the "war on women" invented by the Democrat party. It's all crap. It's just a big pile of shit.

I don't know-- the fight to roll back access to contraception and reproductive rights across the nation seems like an attack on women.

[Coito ergo sum]

Including the "war on women" invented by the Democrat party. It's all crap. It's just a big pile of shit.

I don't know-- the fight to roll back access to contraception and reproductive rights across the nation seems like an attack on women.

Of course, there is no "fight to roll back" access to contraception. That's part of the crock of shit. We didn't give away contraceptives for free, generally speaking, in the past and are now trying to "roll that back." The push is to have contraceptives given away for free, or covered by insurance. There have been, of course, contraceptives given away by planned parenthood and other organizations, which is fine, and that hasn't been rolled back either. To say that the federal government ought not create a new mandate to require churches to pay for contraceptives is not "rolling back" anything.

And, another load of bullshit is the overuse of the word "access." People have had "access" to contraceptives to the same extent as they've had access to food and access to heat for their homes. There is no restriction on "access." It's at every drugstore in the country, and almost every supermarket (those that have drug store sections in them). Contraceptives can be ordered online. The morning after pill and condoms don't need prescriptions. A doctor's prescription is needed for birth control pills, but that's because of dosage issues. Nobody is advocating making birth control pills illegal.

As for reproductive rights, more women call themselves pro life than pro choice. Are they warring on themselves?

[macdoc]

I agree.. I also think there is something incredibly selfish about it. Going from parents straight to hubby with no chance for self growth of self-sufficiency? How can a woman get married and do that? I would feel guilty buying anything for myself if I hadn't contributed towards the household income..

Yup GF and I were discussing this today. Far too limited a life experience and no chance to develop an independent self or self reliance.

Almost every successful presidency has been a team effort and can you imagine someone so sheltered as it never had worked for anyone being first lady....

I'm surprised the cannon are not out on the whole Mormon Chosen One mine field that lurks - the dutiful wifey is just part of that whole schtick.

Great article here..

Monday, Jan 30, 2012 12:00 AM EST
Romney and the White Horse Prophecy
A close look at the roots of Romney's -- and the Mormon church's -- political ambitions
By Sally Denton

Why his Mormonism is a legitimate campaign issue

The White Horse Prophecy foresaw Mormons in politics. (Credit: iStockphoto/66North/Reuters)
Topics:Mitt Romney, Mormon Church, Editor's Picks

When Mitt Romney received his patriarchal blessing as a Michigan teenager, he was told that the Lord expected great things from him. All young Mormon men — the “worthy males” of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, as it is officially known — receive such a blessing as they embark on their requisite journeys as religious missionaries. But at 19 years of age, the youngest son of the most prominent Mormon in American politics — a seventh-generation direct descendant of one of the faith’s founding 12 apostles—Mitt Romney had been singled out as a destined leader.

From the time of his birth — March 13, 1947 — through adolescence and into manhood, the meshing of religion and politics was paramount in Mitt Romney’s life. Called “my miracle baby” by his mother, who had been told by her physician that it was impossible for her to bear a fourth child, Romney was christened Willard Mitt Romney in honor of close family friend and one of the richest Mormons in history, J. Willard Marriott.

continues

http://www.salon.com/2012/01/29/mitt_an ... _prophecy/

..and if you've read any of the actual mormon history instead of the 1984ed revision you know how whacked the whole thing is right from the get go. ( mind you most organized religions are anyways but this "new thang" is/was pretty wild )

[Coito ergo sum]

I agree.. I also think there is something incredibly selfish about it. Going from parents straight to hubby with no chance for self growth of self-sufficiency? How can a woman get married and do that? I would feel guilty buying anything for myself if I hadn't contributed towards the household income..

Yup GF and I were discussing this today. Far too limited a life experience and no chance to develop an independent self or self reliance.

Almost every successful presidency has been a team effort and can you imagine someone so sheltered as it never had worked for anyone being first lady....

I'm surprised the cannon are not out on the whole Mormon Chosen One mine field that lurks - the dutiful wifey is just part of that whole schtick.

Wait, what? Almost every successful presidency has been a team effort? Hardly. At least not where the Prez and the First Lady are that team. If by team you mean the administration as a whole, the cabinet posts, etc., then sure.

Yes, I can imagine someone so sheltered....how about Jackie Kennedy? How about Lady Bird Johnson? How about Rosalind Carter? Barbara Bush? Laura Bush?

[hadespussercats]

Including the "war on women" invented by the Democrat party. It's all crap. It's just a big pile of shit.

I don't know-- the fight to roll back access to contraception and reproductive rights across the nation seems like an attack on women.

Of course, there is no "fight to roll back" access to contraception. That's part of the crock of shit. We didn't give away contraceptives for free, generally speaking, in the past and are now trying to "roll that back." The push is to have contraceptives given away for free, or covered by insurance. There have been, of course, contraceptives given away by planned parenthood and other organizations, which is fine, and that hasn't been rolled back either. To say that the federal government ought not create a new mandate to require churches to pay for contraceptives is not "rolling back" anything.

And, another load of bullshit is the overuse of the word "access." People have had "access" to contraceptives to the same extent as they've had access to food and access to heat for their homes. There is no restriction on "access." It's at every drugstore in the country, and almost every supermarket (those that have drug store sections in them). Contraceptives can be ordered online. The morning after pill and condoms don't need prescriptions. A doctor's prescription is needed for birth control pills, but that's because of dosage issues. Nobody is advocating making birth control pills illegal.

As for reproductive rights, more women call themselves pro life than pro choice. Are they warring on themselves?

The federal government never proposed requiring churches to pay for contraceptives for its workers-- just to make sure that the insurance they offered their workers included coverage for contraception. And even then, according to Obama, the churches could refuse to choose such a plan-- but in that case, the insurance companies would have to extend their coverage to affected women, free of extra charge. At no point would churches be required to pay for contraceptives.

Your language is exactly the sort of obfuscating tactics being employed by the right to chip away at equal access to health care for women.