Hilary Rosen / Ann Romney

[Anonymous]

But if this is the GOP's best shot at getting women to vote for them, they are dead in the water.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:But if this is the GOP's best shot at getting women to vote for them, they are dead in the water.

Why? I agree with the poster who is quoting Bruni. Rosen's comments seem to betray a hypocrisy in the Democratic party mindset. They say women can do what they want and that they are the party for women's rights but if a woman decides to stay home and never works a job outside the home, or does as I have done and stay home after a decade in the workforce, that person becomes the subject of ridicule. I don't think that Romney basis all his views about women and their economic struggles on his wife's views. The fact that he does consider her views is normal. A woman may or may not be inclined to vote for Romney but I don't think Hillary Rosen's comment is going to sway anyone away from Romney or Republican's in general. I think it is more likely to make some women who stay at home with their children wonder whether they will vote for Democrats.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:But if this is the GOP's best shot at getting women to vote for them, they are dead in the water.

Why? I agree with the poster who is quoting Bruni. Rosen's comments seem to betray a hypocrisy in the Democratic party mindset. They say women can do what they want and that they are the party for women's rights but if a woman decides to stay home and never works a job outside the home, or does as I have done and stay home after a decade in the workforce, that person becomes the subject of ridicule. I don't think that Romney basis all his views about women and their economic struggles on his wife's views. The fact that he does consider her views is normal. A woman may or may not be inclined to vote for Romney but I don't think Hillary Rosen's comment is going to sway anyone away from Romney or Republican's in general. I think it is more likely to make some women who stay at home with their children wonder whether they will vote for Democrats.

Wishful thinking. DEMS are not saying that aa SAHM should be ridiculed. One person made one comment taken out of context. This is not Rush Limbaugh harping on whores and sluts for nine HOURS on his show, day after day. (Not that he speaks for anyone other than himself and maybe some of his fans).

Rs can try to spin this all they want. One CNN talking head does not make up for months of vaginal wandings.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:But if this is the GOP's best shot at getting women to vote for them, they are dead in the water.

Why? I agree with the poster who is quoting Bruni. Rosen's comments seem to betray a hypocrisy in the Democratic party mindset. They say women can do what they want and that they are the party for women's rights but if a woman decides to stay home and never works a job outside the home, or does as I have done and stay home after a decade in the workforce, that person becomes the subject of ridicule. I don't think that Romney basis all his views about women and their economic struggles on his wife's views. The fact that he does consider her views is normal. A woman may or may not be inclined to vote for Romney but I don't think Hillary Rosen's comment is going to sway anyone away from Romney or Republican's in general. I think it is more likely to make some women who stay at home with their children wonder whether they will vote for Democrats.

Democratic party mindset?? No one is falling for that.

[Anonymous]

What about Romney's hypocrisy?

3 months ago, he made a speech about his policies as Massachusetts governor that required women with children over 2 to work.

His reason: "These women need the dignity of work."

How does that not translate to "SAHMs have no dignity."?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What about Romney's hypocrisy?

3 months ago, he made a speech about his policies as Massachusetts governor that required women with children over 2 to work.

His reason: "These women need the dignity of work."

How does that not translate to "SAHMs have no dignity."?

That must be for poor people. Politicians feel good when they "give them dignity".

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What about Romney's hypocrisy?

3 months ago, he made a speech about his policies as Massachusetts governor that required women with children over 2 to work.

His reason: "These women need the dignity of work."

How does that not translate to "SAHMs have no dignity."?

That must be for poor people. Politicians feel good when they "give them dignity".

Yes, he wants welfare moms to have to work.

[Anonymous]

This discussion is an interesting sidebar to the complaints that Obama is dependent on the teleprompter. Any politician would be crazy to speak spontaneously, knowing that any sentence that is not edited in advance by three or more pros is apt to contain a phrase that can be taken out of context and used to bludgeon the speaker.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Yes, he wants welfare moms to have to work.

But then the poor would have to have access to affordable and quality child care
There is no hope for you if your salary is too low to cover child care and your man is not rich and you are not an heiress or do not have a rich father

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the reason SAHM are so upset is because deep in their hearts, they know that the job of staying at home, especially after the children are school age, is not that tough. Add in the housecleaner, baby sitter, accountant and the SAHM have a leisured life, I mean job, compared to WOHM. For that reason, they get so excitable when it is pointed out

I think the reason WOHM are so upset is because deep in their hearts, they know that the job of working away from home, especially after the children are school age, is not that tough. Add in the housecleaner, baby sitter, accountant, and nanny and the WOHM have a leisured life, I mean job, compared to SAHM. For that reason, they get so excitable when it is pointed out

Fighting over who suffers more only makes you both look bad. Like MIL's in training.

Not fighting at all--just showing the stupidity of the original comment.

[Anonymous]

Do you really think that all WOHM have nannies and housecleaners?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Yes, he wants welfare moms to have to work.

But then the poor would have to have access to affordable and quality child care
There is no hope for you if your salary is too low to cover child care and your man is not rich and you are not an heiress or do not have a rich father

I am not saying I agree or disagree with the idea of a welfare recipient being required to work.

What is interesting about Romney's comments made In January is that, apparently, being a SAHWM, the W being for Welfare, means one lacks dignity.

To have dignity, these women should be working. His comments.

So a woman who IS rich and has someone to pay her bills so she can choose to stay home apparently has dignity.
A woman who is poor and has taxpayers pay her bills does not have dignity.

Just saying this whole thing about who is judging whom and finding them wanting is not as black and white as some are suggesting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What about Romney's hypocrisy?

3 months ago, he made a speech about his policies as Massachusetts governor that required women with children over 2 to work.

His reason: "These women need the dignity of work."

How does that not translate to "SAHMs have no dignity."?

That must be for poor people. Politicians feel good when they "give them dignity".

Yes, he wants welfare moms to have to work.

I think the point is that neither Rosen's nor Romney's comments are really an attack on the validity of SAHM's. But we can spin them that way if we ignore their real meaning.

[Anonymous]

I am totally befuddled about this Rosen SAHM thing. Has anyone not looked at her resume? She quit RIAA in 2003 and stayed at home for three years with her preschool-aged twins. She only went back to work when she and her partner split in 2006.

In other words she was a SAHM.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am totally befuddled about this Rosen SAHM thing. Has anyone not looked at her resume? She quit RIAA in 2003 and stayed at home for three years with her preschool-aged twins. She only went back to work when she and her partner split in 2006.

In other words she was a SAHM.

But she has worked a day in her life.

SHE NEVER CONDEMNED SAHM. She was talking about being rich = being worry free when it comes to the economy/money etc.