 |
| Hilary Rosen (b. 1958) |
Last week’s “Mommy Wars” was the latest of the political skirmishes in the U.S. They were ignited by responses to the comments of Democratic strategist and pundit Hilary Rosen, who said on CNN that it didn’t make much sense for presumptive Republican nominee Mitt Romney to look to Ann (Mrs. Romney) for advice on women’s issues because she was out of touch with the problems faced by most women in America.
“His wife has actually never worked a day in her life,” Ms. Rosen said. “She’s never really dealt with the kinds of economic issues that a majority of women in this country are facing.”
Within minutes of Ms. Rosen’s comments, Ann Romney joined Twitter, and as of late Wednesday night last week had tweeted out only one post: “I made a choice to stay home and raise five boys. Believe me, it was hard work.”
A number of conservative women, including Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA), soon took the Obama administration to task for Ms. Rosen’s comments. (As you may have heard, Rep. Rodgers is one of the people being talked about as a possible vice-presidential candidate on the Romney ticket.)
Other Republicans jumped at the chance to criticize the Democrats because of Ms. Rosen’s remarks. For example, they started marketing a coffee mug that boldly proclaims “Moms Do Work! Vote GOP.”
So if we recognize that moms are, in fact, working, no mother (or stay-at-home father) who is doing such work should be considered unemployed. Presto! The problem of high unemployment is solved!
Mr. Romney claims that “92.3 percent of all the jobs lost during the Obama years have been lost by women.” But since all of those women who have children at home are actually working, how can they be classified as unemployed?
Obviously, that is not what the Republicans meant when they criticized Ms. Rosen and stood up so staunchly for Ann Romney.
But it is just as obvious that Ms. Rosen was talking about gainful employment and was not at all belittling or demeaning the hard work of being a homemaker and mother.
I am writing about this matter mainly to emphasize how politicians should deal with the real issues, the clear differences in political positions, and the proposed solutions to the principle problems of the day rather than disseminating statements taken out of context, half-truths, innuendos, and all sorts of uncivil pronouncements.
One way to disagree more constructively is to use language that is not incendiary, that is, avoiding pejorative, emotionally-laden words, name-calling, labeling, assigning guilt by association, and the like.
As we move through the next 6½ months of intense political campaigning, I earnestly hope there will be a profusion of civility with focus on solutions to the real unemployment problem, along with the myriad of other issues facing the nation.
Sadly, I’m afraid that will not be the case.
Sadly, I’m afraid that will not be the case.
