PJ: The author's point should be taken to heart: stop the insane rhetoric and stick to the facts because details matter. For some that will mean removing the blinders that prevent them from seeing reality versus the worn out talking points of the politician who represents their chosen political party. It's a tough battle but an individual owes it to themselves and their country to do so. For instance, during this non-controversy about stay-at-home moms (Rosen v Romney), Mrs. Romney has said that her husband tells her that she, as a stay-at-home mom, has a tougher job than his. Point taken. She has also said that she made a "career choice" to be a stay-at-home mom. Point taken. So the importance of her work (her job) as a stay-at-home mom and her right to make that choice should not be debated. Oh dear...here come those details. But a little over one year ago, in January of 2011, Mitt Romney said that low income women (who are in need of assistance) should be working (that is to say, have a job outside the home): "that even if you have a child two years of age, you need to go to work" (article plus video: http://www.salon.com/2012/04/15/mitt_romneys_doubletalk_on_motherhood/). So if I'm understanding this...his wife has an important and vital 'job' as a stay-at-home mom and it was her choice to do so. But for a low income woman, taking care of children is not a job and they should not have a choice but to go outside the home to work (while the government assists with child care). Pesky things details.
The Economist
Women, the Romneys and Hilary Rosen
Divide and conquer
WHATEVER you think of Mitt Romney as a presidential candidate, he seems to have a nice family. I watched their campaign ad on the topic earlier this week, with the occasional heart shooting out of my eyes. I've publicly admired Ann Romney's Pinterest board. I can't tell the sons apart, but I'm aware that one of them has inspired a Tumblr. Still, this week's drummed-up controversy about the comments of Hilary Rosen, a Democratic pundit, on Mrs Romney is wearying.
Yes, Ms Rosen was snide in saying that Mrs Romney "has actually never worked a day in her life." And Ms Rosen's larger point wasn't compelling: in the next sentence, she said that Mrs Romney isn't in a typical socioeconomic situation and therefore doesn't count as evidence that Mr Romney understands the economic issues women face. But Mr Romney hasn't actually been saying that his wife's situation is typical. He's been saying that his wife reports to him "regularly", and based on her conversations with women, that economic issues are uppermost on their minds. That's what I've been hearing from women (and men) too, and it might be a useful clarification on Mrs Romney's part; there's been so much argument over social issues lately that you could get the impression that women in 2012 are more concerned about access to contraception than access to stable employment. Further, it's not really fair to say that Mr Romney is suddenly talking about his wife as a bid to convince women that he gets them, in the "some of my best friends are women" way. He talks about his wife all the time and has done for years.
With all of that said, it's a little condescending the way some critics are clutching their pearls over this. A sensible take on this episode comes from Ruth Marcus at the Washington Post. "In some ways, the most interesting aspect of Rosen’s comments was the swiftness with which the Obama campaign moved to criticize them," she writes. "...this after Romney adviser Eric Fehrnstrom quickly posted video of Rosen’s remarks and incorrectly describing her as an 'Obama adviser.'"
Just so. Nothing distracts people from the issue at hand better than a polarising comment on a sensitive topic that calls up people's deeply-seated views about identity, equality and family. And that's the opportunity cost of this whole fracas. I doubt that the economic issues facing women would have become a major campaign issue in any case, particularly as men faced higher unemployment than women during the recession. There are, however, some economic issues that disproportionately affect women, and now we're definitely not going to talk about them. Women still earn less money than men, for example—a phenomenon that Mr Romney fumbled in addressing this week, before Ms Rosen's tone-deaf comment trumped his. They pay more for health care than men do, a situation that would not be improved if, for example, America's leading provider of family-planning services was in fact shuttered. They face higher poverty rates than men, and in old age, women are among the groups more likely to be wholly dependent on Social Security than men—a fact that gives entitlement reform a feminist dimension, as it means that the looming shortfall will disproportionately affect women. Mr Romney doesn't need to invoke his wife to discuss any of those issues. He could just invoke data, logic and analysis.
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2012/04/women-romneys-and-hilary-rosen
No comments:
Post a Comment