Fake outrage seems to be in high fashion with the Aristocracy this spring.
The reaction to Rosen’s inflammatory comments was almost instant. First of all, Rosen got hammered by critics on Twitter, and Ann Romney herself started a Twitter account to tweet this response:
I made a choice to stay home and raise five boys. Believe me, it was hard work.
Oh, boy, Ann. Nobody is doubting that, but does being the wealthy mom of five boys necessarily qualify you to speak on behalf of all women’s work experiences? No, it does not. Rosen’s choice of words was definitely poor, but you know what else is pretty poor? The decision of Romney spokesperson Eric Fehrnstrom to tweet this:
Obama adviser Hilary Rosen goes on #CNN to debut their new “kill Ann” strategy, and in the process insults hard-working moms.
Yes, yes… being a mom is work. Absolutely no doubt about it.
But here’s the difference between Ann Romney’s choice to be a stay-at-home mom and the daily reality of millions of U.S. moms:
She never had to worry about buying food for her children. Or healthcare. Or clothes. Or school supplies. Or how to pay for college. Or literally anything else. Ever.
So did she struggle occasionally? Sure, MS is no picnic no matter how rich you are, but she sure as shit didn’t go bankrupt from medical bills. And she sure as shit didn’t wonder where her children’s next meal would come from because she couldn’t work.
The fact of the matter is that neither Mitt nor Ann have any fucking idea what it’s like to be a working class person with a family to support. None. And it’s offensive, frankly, for them to pretend otherwise.
And it’s equally offensive for an incredibly rich, privileged asshole like Mitt Romney, who says shit like this about working moms…
“I wanted to increase the work requirement. I said, for instance, that even if you have a child 2 years of age, you need to go to work. And people said, ‘Well that’s heartless.’ And I said, No, no, I’m willing to spend more giving day care to allow those parents to go back to work. It’ll cost the state more providing that daycare, but I want the individuals to have the dignity of work.”
to accuse liberals and Democrats of hurting women.
Here is the reality about who’s looking out for mom in this country:
The opposition to women’s suffrage in the United States included organizations like the National Organization Against Women’s Suffrage and women like Helen Kendrick Johnson. In New York, upper class women who thought they had a behind-the-scenes voice often opposed suffrage because it would dilute their influence. At first the anti-s let the men do the talking, but increasingly they adopted the mobilization techniques pioneered by the suffragists.The antis easily won the 1915 New York State referendum, using the argument that women voters would close the saloons. But the suffragists won the 1917 referendum, arguing that the saloons were Germanic (at a time when Germany was hated); the Tammany Hall machine in New York City deserted the antis as well. Nationwide, male voters made the decision and the opposition was led by Southern white men (afraid that black women would vote), ethnic politicians (especially Catholics whose women were not allowed a political voice) and the liquor forces (who realized correctly that most women would vote dry.)
Executive Order 11375, signed by President Lyndon B. Johnson on October 13, 1967, banned discrimination on the basis of sex in hiring and employment in both the United States federal workforce and on the part of government contractors.
By the late 1970’s, the Carter administration was using the rules established under Executive Order 11375 against large businesses like Uniroyal, which had sex-segregated manufacturing facilities. Most companies went to court to obstruct the government’s attempts to monitor and regulate their hiring practices and decisions. Only General Dynamics and United Airlines negotiated settlements.
The United States Congress passed the Comprehensive Child Development Bill in 1971. If this bill had become law it would have provided a multi-billion dollar national day care system designed partially to make it easier for single parents to work and care for children simultaneously, thereby alleviating strain on the welfare system. President Richard Nixon vetoed the bill in 1972.
The Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) was a proposed amendment to the United States Constitution. The ERA was originally written by Alice Paul and, in 1923, it was introduced in the Congress for the first time. In 1972, it passed both houses of Congress and went to the state legislatures for ratification. The ERA failed to receive the requisite number of ratifications before the final deadline mandated by Congress of June 30, 1982 expired and so it was not adopted.
The political momentum changed during the late 1970s and throughout the 1980s. At the 1980 Republican National Convention, the Republican Party platform was amended to qualify its support for the ERA. The most prominent opponent of the ERA was Phyllis Schlafly, a conservative Republican. Critchlow and Stachecki argue that public opinion in key states shifted against the ERA as opponents, operating on the local and state levels, won over the public to their side. The state legislators in battleground states followed public opinion in rejecting the ERA.
Many ERA supporters blamed their defeat on sinister undemocratic special interest forces, especially the insurance industry and conservative organizations, suggesting they funded an opposition that subverted the democratic process and the will of the pro-ERA majority. They argued that while the public face of the anti-ERA movement was Phyllis Schlafly and her STOP ERA organization, there were other important groups in the opposition as well, such as the powerful National Council of Catholic Women and (until 1973) the AFL–CIO. Critchlow and Stachecki say the anti-ERA movement was based on strong support among Southern whites, Evangelical Christians, Mormons, Orthodox Jews, and Roman Catholics, including both men and women.
Generally, presidential opinion has been split between major party lines. The Roe decision was opposed by Presidents Gerald Ford,Ronald Reagan, and George W. Bush. President George H.W. Bush also opposed Roe, though he had supported abortion rights earlier in his career.
President Jimmy Carter supported legal abortion from an early point in his political career, in order to prevent birth defects and in other extreme cases; he encouraged the outcome in Roe and generally supported abortion rights. Roe was also supported by President Bill Clinton. President Barack Obama has taken the position that “Abortions should be legally available in accordance with Roe v. Wade.”
A first bill to amend the statutory limitations period and supersede the Ledbetter decision was introduced in the 110th United States Congress but was never enacted, as after having been passed by the House it failed to survive a cloture vote in the Senate due to the opposition of most of the Republican Senators.
During the campaign for the 2008 elections, the Democrats criticized Republicans for defeating the 2007 version of the bill, citing Republican presidential candidate John McCain’s opposition. Then-candidate Barack Obama supported the bill.
A new version of the bill was eventually re-introduced in the first session of the 111th United States Congress, obtaining this time the necessary support to pass cloture. The bill was then brought to the attention of the President and became the first act of Congress signed by President Obama since his inauguration on January 20.
You may have noticed a pattern here.
When it comes to women’s rights, which really are human rights, there is always a distinct line of opposition put up by conservatives .
So when you hear the howls from conservatives about liberals denigrating moms, just remember which side they’re really on…
Because it ain’t Yo Momma’s.