"Never worked a day in her life"?

49 posts / 0 new
Last post
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 10 months ago
Joined: 05/31/06
Posts: 4780
"Never worked a day in her life"?

[h=1]Ann Romney rejects Democratic pundit?s claim that she ?never worked a day in her life?[/h]By Philip Rucker

The rhetorical war over women between President Obama and Mitt Romney escalated Wednesday night as Romney?s wife Ann launched a Twitter account to personally respond to a Democratic pundit who had dismissed her knowledge about the economy by saying she ?never worked a day in her life.?
Ann Romney visits Georgia's Romney campaign headquarters in Atlanta on Thursday, March 1, 2012. (David Tulis - AP)

Hilary Rosen, a political consultant who advises the Democratic National Committee, questioned on CNN Wednesday night whether Ann Romney understands the economic issues facing women.
?His wife has actually never worked a day in her life,? Rosen said on Anderson Cooper?s ?AC360? show. ?She?s never really dealt with the kinds of economic issues that a majority of the women in this country are facing in terms of how do we feed our kids, how do we send them to school and how do we ? why we worry about their future.?
Two hours later, Ann Romney debuted a new Twitter account, @AnnDRomney, and wrote: ?I made a choice to stay home and raise five boys. Believe me, it was hard work.?
One of the Romneys? sons, Josh, tweeted: ?@AnnDRomney is one of the smartest, hardest working woman (sic) I know. Could have done anything with her life, chose to raise me.?
The tweet by Ann Romney, who has battled multiple sclerosis and is a popular force on the campaign trail, drew a quick reaction from the top brass of Obama?s reelection campaign, who roundly condemned Rosen?s remarks.
Within minutes, Obama campaign manager Jim Messina tweeted: ?I could not disagree with Hilary Rosen any more strongly. Her comments were wrong and family should be off limits. She should apologize.?
David Axelrod, Obama?s top strategist, tweeted: ?Also Disappointed in Hilary Rosen?s comments about Ann Romney. They were inappropriate and offensive.?
And Stephanie Cutter, Obama?s deputy campaign manager, tweeted: ?Families must be off limits on campaigns, and i personally believe stay at home moms work harder than most of us do.?
On Twitter, Rosen did not apologize, but wrote several tweets trying to explain her comments, saying her point was that Mitt Romney should stop saying on the campaign trail that Ann is his guide to the economic problems facing women because ?she doesn?t have any.?
Rosen tweeted at Ann Romney, saying: ?I am raising children too. But most young American women HAVE to BOTH earn a living AND raise children. You know that don?t u?? Later, Rosen tweeted again at Romney: ?Please know, I admire you. But your husband shouldn?t say you are his expert on women and the economy.?
Wednesday night?s tweets are the latest example of how Twitter has emerged as a new battlefield in presidential politics.
The comments also underscored the political fight underway over the support of women voters, as Obama and Romney this week have stepped up their efforts to court this prized constituency.
The swift and strong responses from Obama?s campaign team speak to how damaging it could be for the Democrats among independent voters if they are seen as dismissive of stay-at-home moms.
In 2004, Teresa Heinz Kerry, the wife of then-Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry, was forced to apologize after saying that she was unsure whether First Lady Laura Bush had ever held a ?real job.?

Were Rosens comments offensive and "off limits", or true and on target?

Does a non working (or never having worked) woman have a place in the discussion of todays economy? Further, do you believe that Obama (and others) swift condemnation of the remarks were because they really believe that the comments were wrong, or because they are working to show that they support SAHM's amongst the independent crew (which is what I am, incidentally, an indep SAHM).

Offline
Last seen: 3 years 5 months ago
Joined: 10/22/06
Posts: 1033

I think if Romney is putting his wife out there in the campaign as a source of his economic information, then people have a right to critique that source. I don't personally agree that SAHMs or people who haven't held positions with a paycheck automatically have no contribution to economic discussions, but it doesn't bother me that some don't value the input. SAHP are still a large economic spenders, often controlling or having large influence on the family budget...that definitely warrants some consideration. But at the same time, I can see where Rosen is coming from in regard to not thinking Ann would be a good representative of working women and those struggling financially. It's fine for Rosen to hold that opinion and that comment to be made, IMO. I am fine with family being off limits, as long as the candidates keep references to their participation in future presidential decisions out of their campaign spiel.

wlillie's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 years 5 months ago
Joined: 09/17/07
Posts: 1796

If Romney hadn't brought her into it, it would have been "off limits" and offensive even if it was true and on target. I don't see how she could possibly understand what the normal woman is going through since their financial circumstances are vastly different from most families; just like almost all politicians.

She (and all SAHPs) should have a place in the discussion of the economy, but it is kind of scary (to me) that someone who might become the President of the US would consider having someone who hasn't worked and has never worried about money as their guide to the economic problems facing women .

I think all of the swift comments were showing their support of SAHPs.

I think there should be a word to seperate the work that a person who gets a paycheck does and the work that a SAHP does. Obviously raising 5 boys (or just 1) is not a bon-bon eating, soap opera watching, spa pedicure getting type of job, but it is true that she has never had to deal with the issues facing most mothers today (even the SAHM's). Most of the SAHM's I've known also struggled financially and had to make a *LOT* of sacrifices to both parent's retirement accounts, vacation opportunities, and day to day living.

Offline
Last seen: 1 day 23 hours ago
Joined: 03/08/03
Posts: 3347

"wlillie" wrote:

If Romney hadn't brought her into it, it would have been "off limits" and offensive even if it was true and on target. I don't see how she could possibly understand what the normal woman is going through since their financial circumstances are vastly different from most families; just like almost all politicians.

She (and all SAHPs) should have a place in the discussion of the economy, but it is kind of scary (to me) that someone who might become the President of the US would consider having someone who hasn't worked and has never worried about money as their guide to the economic problems facing women .

I think all of the swift comments were showing their support of SAHPs.

I think there should be a word to seperate the work that a person who gets a paycheck does and the work that a SAHP does. Obviously raising 5 boys (or just 1) is not a bon-bon eating, soap opera watching, spa pedicure getting type of job, but it is true that she has never had to deal with the issues facing most mothers today (even the SAHM's). Most of the SAHM's I've known also struggled financially and had to make a *LOT* of sacrifices to both parent's retirement accounts, vacation opportunities, and day to day living.

Could not agree more with everything you have said.

Alissa_Sal's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 4 months ago
Joined: 06/29/06
Posts: 6427

"wlillie" wrote:

Obviously raising 5 boys (or just 1) is not a bon-bon eating, soap opera watching, spa pedicure getting type of job, but it is true that she has never had to deal with the issues facing most mothers today (even the SAHM's). Most of the SAHM's I've known also struggled financially and had to make a *LOT* of sacrifices to both parent's retirement accounts, vacation opportunities, and day to day living.

I totally agree with this. I think that a SAHP has just as much input on the economy as a working parent because presumably they are still involved in the budgeting and financial decisions for their family. But there are two parts where I don't think Ann Romney is totally an expert - a if we are talking about the actual life experience of a WOH parent - like if she were to weigh in on ways to find a work/family balance for a working parent I would orobably roll my eyes, since she doesn't have experience with that. And the other more important part is that I don't think her experience is typical of most American families when it comes to their finances and sometimes having to struggle to make ends meet. That doesn't have anything to do with whether she has ever WOH, it's just that the Romney's are very wealthy, and so I doubt she totally has her finger on the pulse of the sorts of financial struggles and sacrifices that the average family goes through. It all kind of adds to the perception that the Romneys are out of touch with the average American family; if Mitt Romney thinks his wife is some sort of expert on what the average American woman goes through financially, I really have to question that.

Offline
Last seen: 2 years 10 months ago
Joined: 05/31/06
Posts: 4780

"Alissa_Sal" wrote:

I totally agree with this. I think that a SAHP has just as much input on the economy as a working parent because presumably they are still involved in the budgeting and financial decisions for their family. But there are two parts where I don't think Ann Romney is totally an expert - a if we are talking about the actual life experience of a WOH parent - like if she were to weigh in on ways to find a work/family balance for a working parent I would orobably roll my eyes, since she doesn't have experience with that. And the other more important part is that I don't think her experience is typical of most American families when it comes to their finances and sometimes having to struggle to make ends meet. That doesn't have anything to do with whether she has ever WOH, it's just that the Romney's are very wealthy, and so I doubt she totally has her finger on the pulse of the sorts of financial struggles and sacrifices that the average family goes through. It all kind of adds to the perception that the Romneys are out of touch with the average American family; if Mitt Romney thinks his wife is some sort of expert on what the average American woman goes through financially, I really have to question that.

ITA with the bolded, and think that Rosen made a big mistake making it a SAHM vs WOHM thing. I actually think that due to ROmneys career Ann may have a lot more economic knowledge than the average woman, regardless of whether that woman is working or not. To make it a SAHM thing VS WOHM thing is stupid, just because someone popped out some kids and is a kindergarten teacher or a cartoonist or a waitress in no way means that they know squat about the economy. Likewise, because someone isn't or hasn't worked doesn't mean that they have no valid or valuable input into issues regarding the economy.

I think that she would have a lot more support and a lot less backlash had she made it a privilege vs. non privilege thing. It would have been hard for anyone to have disagreed with that. I think that Mitt using Anne, in general, shows exactly how out of touch he, and the entire party, are with women voters. Its why I left the party.

KimPossible's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 hour 26 min ago
Joined: 05/24/06
Posts: 3471

If Romney had said "So and so will be my guide" and it was a non-family member, they would have been analyzed and scrutinized....so in that sense, no i don't think she is off limits just because she is his wife.

As for the comments themselves? I pretty much agree with what has been said already. Being a well-to-do SAHP doesn't mean she can't have valuable input into the subject matter, its all about how much she values seeing herself in the role and the effort she puts into it. But i can also agree with the point that she is lacking some perspective that would be pretty valuable in that role.

I think the condemnation is a combination of both things. I think the dems genuinely believe that her comments weren't right...they were poorly phrased which sends the wrong message, something they don't believe. And of course they want to reinforce that they support SAHM's. Since Rosen's words were poorly phrased, i think a little damage control is reasonable.

As an aside, since they were bolded...i think Cutter's words were equally inflamatory. I don't think there was any reason to get into the "who works harder than who" game.

AlyssaEimers's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 week 5 days ago
Joined: 08/22/06
Posts: 6803

As far as Mrs. Romney not not having experience with the money problems of most Americans, neither does Mrs. Obama. That does not mean that either of them do not know how to make financial decisions. I would say running a large estate is a job in it of itself. Even though I am a SAHM I do all of the shopping, so I do have a part in today's economy.

KimPossible's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 hour 26 min ago
Joined: 05/24/06
Posts: 3471

"AlyssaEimers" wrote:

As far as Mrs. Romney not not having experience with the money problems of most Americans, neither does Mrs. Obama. That does not mean that either of them do not know how to make financial decisions. I would say running a large estate is a job in it of itself. Even though I am a SAHM I do all of the shopping, so I do have a part in today's economy.

I don't think Obama ever stated his wife was going to be his guide on such issues though. I would have found it very odd to criticize Michelle for not having the right experience in this role because it was never suggested she would be a good fit for it in the first place.

Alissa_Sal's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 4 months ago
Joined: 06/29/06
Posts: 6427

"AlyssaEimers" wrote:

As far as Mrs. Romney not not having experience with the money problems of most Americans, neither does Mrs. Obama. That does not mean that either of them do not know how to make financial decisions. I would say running a large estate is a job in it of itself. Even though I am a SAHM I do all of the shopping, so I do have a part in today's economy.

Sure, but has Obama ever said that Michelle is to be his advisor on the economic issues facing American women? This wouldn't have even come up if Romney hadn't indicated that he was looking to his wife for input on this issue.

wlillie's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 years 5 months ago
Joined: 09/17/07
Posts: 1796

I personally got just as aggravated when President Obama said that they were feeling the pain of the economy and less than a week later his wife rented a hotel in Spain for their friends to have a vacation.

It's the same issue; they think that their experiences are common and they aren't.

Cutter sucks donkey balls for that comment; he has no clue what he's talking about and pretending like all SAHM's or WOHM's or SAHD's or WOHD's all have the same (or even close to the same) experience is stupid.

Offline
Last seen: 2 years 10 months ago
Joined: 05/31/06
Posts: 4780

I never understand the "SAHM have the hardest job in the world" thing. If thats what they think, go back to work :)!!!!

Total aside. And Lillie, ITA with you on the Spain issue: same type thing. The whole "common man" thing always falls flat, yet they all keep doing it, which I simply don't understand.

AlyssaEimers's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 week 5 days ago
Joined: 08/22/06
Posts: 6803

"Alissa_Sal" wrote:

Sure, but has Obama ever said that Michelle is to be his advisor on the economic issues facing American women? This wouldn't have even come up if Romney hadn't indicated that he was looking to his wife for input on this issue.

I can't believe I am defending a man I can't stand and won't vote for, but I think it is normal for a man to say he will look to his wife on issues relating to woman. Obama might not have his wife on the pay roll, but I am sure he looks to her for her insight in similar issues.

KimPossible's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 hour 26 min ago
Joined: 05/24/06
Posts: 3471

I think there is this belief among presidential candidates that you have to show the voters that you understand their wants and needs and whats important to them. Which makes sense. I think any attempt that they may make to try to connect though is going to be met with criticism since they are not 'common'....yet it feels necessary to do to get voters to believe in you.

I think its a catch 22.

Offline
Last seen: 2 years 10 months ago
Joined: 05/31/06
Posts: 4780

I will also say that her telling the president that in talking to women, the issue that they are most worried about is the economy.......well, that is a far cry from saying that he is looking to her for economic advice! I mean, having ever formally worked or not, she is out there campaigning for her husband, and as such probably attends a TON of women's events, so she probably IS more in touch than him with what actual women voters are concerned about because they TELL her.......this does not take a job outside the home to validate.

Spacers's picture
Offline
Last seen: 6 months 2 weeks ago
Joined: 12/29/03
Posts: 4104

ITA with the others who say that Ann Romney is fair game since her husband keeps referring to her as his point-person for what women are thinking about the economy. And I think Hilary Rosen is getting too much fire for her "never worked a day in her life" comment, when Angel she's right, and (b) what she said right after that was the real point. Here it is:

She [Ann Romney] has never really dealt with the kind of economic issues that a majority of the women in this country are facing, in terms of how do we feed our kids, how do we send them to school, and… we worry about their future.

That's exactly right. Ann Romney has never had to make decisions about whether to get the food that's good for her kids or the food she can afford, she's never had to scramble to find after-school care because she has to work until 6pm, she's never had to wonder how to pay for college, and she's never going to have to worry about whether her kids will be successful in life because they, like their father, have been handed a pre-funded financial existence that should, short of incredible stupidity, last a good lifetime. The fact that Mitt Romney thinks his wife has the heartbeat of American women on this issue is just sad and shows just how far out of touch they both really are. A wiser woman in the same situation would have told her husband to leave her out of it & quote his paid experts.

mom3girls's picture
Offline
Last seen: 10 months 2 weeks ago
Joined: 01/09/07
Posts: 1537

"Spacers" wrote:

ITA with the others who say that Ann Romney is fair game since her husband keeps referring to her as his point-person for what women are thinking about the economy. And I think Hilary Rosen is getting too much fire for her "never worked a day in her life" comment, when Angel she's right, and (b) what she said right after that was the real point. Here it is:

That's exactly right. Ann Romney has never had to make decisions about whether to get the food that's good for her kids or the food she can afford, she's never had to scramble to find after-school care because she has to work until 6pm, she's never had to wonder how to pay for college, and she's never going to have to worry about whether her kids will be successful in life because they, like their father, have been handed a pre-funded financial existence that should, short of incredible stupidity, last a good lifetime. The fact that Mitt Romney thinks his wife has the heartbeat of American women on this issue is just sad and shows just how far out of touch they both really are. A wiser woman in the same situation would have told her husband to leave her out of it & quote his paid experts.

So you have to have experienced something in order to understand it?

mom3girls's picture
Offline
Last seen: 10 months 2 weeks ago
Joined: 01/09/07
Posts: 1537

I think that this was a very bad moves by the democrats. Questioning whether or not a woman is able to give a valid opinion based on work history is bull. I do not think this will blow over quickly and it shouldnt.

I also wonder what President Obama thinks of the media attacking Ann Romney. In 2008 he said his family was off limits and that if they chose to attack Michelle is would be "low class"

GloriaInTX's picture
Offline
Last seen: 13 min 50 sec ago
Joined: 07/29/08
Posts: 4227

Even though they were probably better off than most, it sounds like they at least lived within their means and didn't start off wealthy. So I'm not so sure she never had to live off a budget.

“They were not easy years. You have to understand, I was raised in a lovely neighborhood, as was Mitt, and at BYU, we moved into a $62-a-month basement apartment with a cement floor and lived there two years as students with no income.

“It was tiny. And I didn’t have money to carpet the floor. But you can get remnants, samples, so I glued them together, all different colors. It looked awful, but it was carpeting.

“We were happy, studying hard. Neither one of us had a job, because Mitt had enough of an investment from stock that we could sell off a little at a time.

“The stock came from Mitt’s father. When he took over American Motors, the stock was worth nothing. But he invested Mitt’s birthday money year to year — it wasn’t much, a few thousand, but he put it into American Motors because he believed in himself. Five years later, stock that had been $6 a share was $96 and Mitt cashed it so we could live and pay for education.

“Mitt and I walked to class together, shared housekeeping, had a lot of pasta and tuna fish and learned hard lessons.

“We had our first child in that tiny apartment. We couldn’t afford a desk, so we used a door propped on sawhorses in our bedroom. It was a big door, so we could study on it together. And we bought a portable crib, took the legs off and put it on the desk while we studied. I had a baby sitter during class time, but otherwise, I’d hold my son on my lap while I studied.

“The funny thing is that I never expected help. My father had become wealthy through hard work, as did Mitt’s father, but I never expected our parents to take care of us. They’d visit, laugh and say, `We can’t believe you guys are living like this.’ They’d take us out to dinner, have a good time, then leave.

“We stayed till Mitt graduated in 1971, and when he was accepted at Harvard Law, we came east. He was also accepted at Harvard Business School as part of a joint program that admits 25 a year, so he was getting degrees from Harvard Law and Business schools at the same time.

“Remember, we’d been paying $62 a month rent, but here, rents were $400, and for a dump. This is when we took the now-famous loan that Mitt talks about from his father and bought a $42,000 home in Belmont, and you know? The mortgage payment was less than rent. Mitt saw that the Boston market was behind Chicago, LA and New York. We stayed there seven years and sold it for $90,000, so we not only stayed for free, we made money. As I said, Mitt’s very bright.

“Another son came along 18 months later, although we waited four years to have the third, because Mitt was still in school and we had no income except the stock we were chipping away at. We were living on the edge, not entertaining. No, I did not work. Mitt thought it was important for me to stay home with the children, and I was delighted.

“Right after Mitt graduated in 1975, we had our third boy and it was about the time Mitt’s first paycheck came along. So, we were married a long time before we had any income, about five years as struggling students. …

“Now, every once in a while, we say if things get rough, we can go back to a $62-a-month apartment and be happy. All we need is each other and a little corner and we’ll be fine.”

http://www.samefacts.com/2012/01/income-distribution/mitt-romney-and-ann-the-students-struggling-so-much-that-they-had-to-sell-stock/

Starryblue702's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 years 3 months ago
Joined: 04/06/11
Posts: 5454

"Potter75" wrote:

Were Rosens comments offensive and "off limits", or true and on target?

They were most certainly offensive. I totally agree that being a SAHM is much more difficult than any job that I could work. Raising children and keeping a home is a huge job and responsibility. I don't think that having a job makes one understand the economy any more than someone who doesn't have a job. If you keep yourself up to date on what's going on in the world through newspapers, news channels, and other forms of media you're just as knowledgable as the next person. I think it was a stupid thing to say.

"Potter75" wrote:

Does a non working (or never having worked) woman have a place in the discussion of todays economy? Further, do you believe that Obama (and others) swift condemnation of the remarks were because they really believe that the comments were wrong, or because they are working to show that they support SAHM's amongst the independent crew (which is what I am, incidentally, an indep SAHM).

I think that every citizen of this country has a right to voice their opinion on the economy, whether they be male or female, working or not. I believe the comments from the Obama campaign were both: 1. that they did in fact believe that it was a stupid comment to make and 2. that they are working to show that they support SAHM. They would look foolish themselves if they didn't issue a statment condemning it. I do think that they handled things correctly, though.

"Khaki" wrote:

I think if Romney is putting his wife out there in the campaign as a source of his economic information, then people have a right to critique that source. I don't personally agree that SAHMs or people who haven't held positions with a paycheck automatically have no contribution to economic discussions, but it doesn't bother me that some don't value the input. SAHP are still a large economic spenders, often controlling or having large influence on the family budget...that definitely warrants some consideration. But at the same time, I can see where Rosen is coming from in regard to not thinking Ann would be a good representative of working women and those struggling financially. It's fine for Rosen to hold that opinion and that comment to be made, IMO. I am fine with family being off limits, as long as the candidates keep references to their participation in future presidential decisions out of their campaign spiel.

To the bolden, the same can be said about Mrs. Obama though... not that she never worked but that she has no idea of what it feels like to struggle. The Obamas came into the White House with plenty of money. I think that there are millions of families out there struggling right now, whether they have one income or two. All that matters is that we start to figure out how to fix it and stop pointing fingers at the "wives" of the campaign, which doesn't help or solve ANYTHING.

ETA: I saw that Alyssa said the same thing pretty much, but I'll still keep it here lol...

"wlillie" wrote:

I personally got just as aggravated when President Obama said that they were feeling the pain of the economy and less than a week later his wife rented a hotel in Spain for their friends to have a vacation.

Exactly. Those vacations are paid for by you and I, not out of their own pockets.

"AlyssaEimers" wrote:

I can't believe I am defending a man I can't stand and won't vote for, but I think it is normal for a man to say he will look to his wife on issues relating to woman. Obama might not have his wife on the pay roll, but I am sure he looks to her for her insight in similar issues.

I totally agree with this.

KimPossible's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 hour 26 min ago
Joined: 05/24/06
Posts: 3471

Why do people keep making comparisons to Michelle Obama?? The question isn't "Can first ladies come from more financially comfortable backgrounds and lives" the question is "Can someone make a good guide on womens economic concerns if they have never held a professional career" Which has nothing to do wtih Obama because she was never referred to as anyone's guide on this issue.

And i'm so sick of hearing "SAHM is much more difficult" such baloney. It most certainly is not blanketly harder. Its going to depend a ton on personal preferences and personality. But there is nothing about the responsibilities of staying at home that would make it so anyone could present a closed case on it being 'harder'.

Can we just quit with the "Who has the harder job" stuff?

Offline
Last seen: 2 years 10 months ago
Joined: 05/31/06
Posts: 4780

I'm a SAHM and my job is totally sweet. I have babysitters, a great gym, tons of SAH friends with kids my age, a supportive husband, and am financially stable. I actually cringe when people say that it is the hardest job on earth. It isn't. I guess if you have like 8 kids live in the boonies have no friends and are depressed and have no money it might be really sucky.......but give me a break. If you really think that it is the hardest job on earth you aren't doing it right and you should probably go back to work. After all, why would anyone CHOOSE to do the worlds worst job? Makes no sense.

mom3girls's picture
Offline
Last seen: 10 months 2 weeks ago
Joined: 01/09/07
Posts: 1537

I dont think being a SAHM mom is the hardest job, in fact I wish I could do it because I loved it when I was able to do it. I think a lot of woman say it is the hardest job because for them it truly is. I have a good friend that is an attorney, she was home for a few months while dealing with an illness and she was SOOOO happy to go back to work. She will tell you that being a SAHM is so much harder then the 60 hours a week she puts in at the law firm.

mom3girls's picture
Offline
Last seen: 10 months 2 weeks ago
Joined: 01/09/07
Posts: 1537

I think that people are talking about Michelle Obama because she actively campaigned for her husband too.

AlyssaEimers's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 week 5 days ago
Joined: 08/22/06
Posts: 6803

I do not think being a SAHM is the hardest job in the world. I am very thankful for the opportunity to stay home and take care of my children. I think the comments come from SAHM's not wanting people to think they do nothing but lounge around in bed 24/7 watching soap operas. No one wants to be looked down on for their life choices. That is the same for WOHM's and SAHM's.

Offline
Last seen: 3 years 10 months ago
Joined: 12/10/05
Posts: 1681

Being a mom is the most important job in the world. Not the hardest. And it doesn't matter if you work or stay home, it is still the most important.

Offline
Last seen: 3 years 10 months ago
Joined: 12/10/05
Posts: 1681

I think the comments made were fair. Not necessarily true, but a fair point to raise. And I don't think you can make family/issues off limits to others while bringing them up yourself.

A SAHM can know plenty about the economy, but I would question someone who had never worked being any sort of advisor on the topic of "women and the economy".

Offline
Last seen: 3 years 10 months ago
Joined: 12/10/05
Posts: 1681

"Potter75" wrote:

I'm a SAHM and my job is totally sweet. I have babysitters, a great gym, tons of SAH friends with kids my age, a supportive husband, and am financially stable. I actually cringe when people say that it is the hardest job on earth. It isn't. I guess if you have like 8 kids live in the boonies have no friends and are depressed and have no money it might be really sucky.......but give me a break. If you really think that it is the hardest job on earth you aren't doing it right and you should probably go back to work. After all, why would anyone CHOOSE to do the worlds worst job? Makes no sense.

But, Melissa, a stay-at-home mom is a doctor, nurse, gourmet chef, waitress, housekeeper, nanny, financial guru, and counsellor.... It is really hard to do all those jobs simultaneously 24/7 and so my imaginary wage would be $436/hr.

How can you not think it is the hardest job ever???? Have you not done the math??? Wink

boilermaker's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 years 1 month ago
Joined: 08/21/02
Posts: 1984

"GloriaInTX" wrote:

Even though they were probably better off than most, it sounds like they at least lived within their means and didn't start off wealthy. So I'm not so sure she never had to live off a budget.

http://www.samefacts.com/2012/01/income-distribution/mitt-romney-and-ann-the-students-struggling-so-much-that-they-had-to-sell-stock/

Um-- anyone who can go to school and not work and not take out student loans and survive off of "selling stock"-- is living a charmed & wealthy life IMO. You at least have to admit that that is a different experience from students who work their cans off all summer long and hold down a job while attending school......

Offline
Last seen: 3 years 10 months ago
Joined: 12/10/05
Posts: 1681

"boilermaker" wrote:

Um-- anyone who can go to school and not work and not take out student loans and survive off of "selling stock"-- is living a charmed & wealthy life IMO. You at least have to admit that that is a different experience from students who work their cans off all summer long and hold down a job while attending school......

Yes, it sounds like they lived within their (limited) means and I certainly admire that.

But, it hardly compares to those of us who worked evenings, weekends, holidays, summers for 4 years to pay our own way without acquiring any debt. It just isn't the same.

Some stock options to sell off would have come in handy.

Offline
Last seen: 4 years 2 weeks ago
Joined: 06/04/07
Posts: 1368

"kris_w" wrote:

Yes, it sounds like they lived within their (limited) means and I certainly admire that.

But, it hardly compares to those of us who worked evenings, weekends, holidays, summers for 4 years to pay our own way without acquiring any debt. It just isn't the same.

Some stock options to sell off would have come in handy.

Not to mention being automatically eligible for a "home loan" with no income because the mortgage is cheaper than rent...

Offline
Last seen: 21 min 48 sec ago
Joined: 04/12/03
Posts: 1762

It seems a bit hypocritical to me...if we were talking about a woman who had never worked a day in her life because she popped out babies to stay on AFDC, Section 8, WIC, Medi-Cal, and everything else she could, people would question her views on the "economy."

For the most part, families should be off limits. But anyone a politician drags into their campaign for whatever reason is going to be vetted.

Offline
Last seen: 2 years 10 months ago
Joined: 05/31/06
Posts: 4780

"ethanwinfield" wrote:

It seems a bit hypocritical to me...if we were talking about a woman who had never worked a day in her life because she popped out babies to stay on AFDC, Section 8, WIC, Medi-Cal, and everything else she could, people would question her views on the "economy."

Well, yes, but being a politicians wife, campaigning for him, fundraising for him, being very involved in his campaign and his political life *are* a little different than living on welfare, don't you think? I do think that one might qualify you a little more than the other. Okay, a lot more. I mean, to reiterate what I said earlier that no one commented on, he did NOT say he was looking to her for economic policy making.....he said she was telling him what women were worried about, and it was the economy. There is a huge difference there.

GloriaInTX's picture
Offline
Last seen: 13 min 50 sec ago
Joined: 07/29/08
Posts: 4227

"boilermaker" wrote:

Um-- anyone who can go to school and not work and not take out student loans and survive off of "selling stock"-- is living a charmed & wealthy life IMO. You at least have to admit that that is a different experience from students who work their cans off all summer long and hold down a job while attending school......

True. But I went to college with plenty of kids that didn't work because their parents were paying for their education that partied all the time. So I still admire them for not wasting what they had and not living off their parents.

Alissa_Sal's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 4 months ago
Joined: 06/29/06
Posts: 6427

"GloriaInTX" wrote:

True. But I went to college with plenty of kids that didn't work because their parents were paying for their education that partied all the time. So I still admire them for not wasting what they had and not living off their parents.

Okay, but again, the question isn't whether Ann Romney should be allowed to be First Lady or whatever, it's about whether she is going to be that great of a "guide" to Mitt Romney in regards to women and the economy (since he specifically called her out as his "guide.") I don't know. I get what Melissa is saying too, having been on the campaign trail and talking to a lot of women, she may well understand the financial issues facing the average American woman today, even if she hasn't personally lived them. I certainly think it's possible to be knowledgeable about an issue, or have ideas about how you might try to alleviate a problem, even if you haven't personally been there.

KimPossible's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 hour 26 min ago
Joined: 05/24/06
Posts: 3471

Right. No one ever said they didn't do anything admirable.

ETA And i definitely agree that she will have a source of valuable input. I just think its just a legit to say she is lacking a source of valuable input.

elleon17's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 4 months ago
Joined: 01/26/09
Posts: 1981

A little side note, but I get very annoyed with the statement "being a SAHM is the hardest job in the world".

Can we just change this to being a MOM is the HARDEST job in the world?

I work out of the house, but I still wake up early take care of all breakfasts, lunches, get everyone going to where they need to be. Work a full day at the office. Leave, pick up DS, cook dinner, do 95% of the cleaning, laundry, shopping, etc, then go to bed late to start it all over again.

I would do anything to stay at home, but not because I think it is easier or harder, but because I would like to be there more during the week. Spend those moments together, be able to go to the park more than once or twice a month, have those moments.

I think both are important, one is not harder than the other.....being a mom is the most important job I will ever have.

Starryblue702's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 years 3 months ago
Joined: 04/06/11
Posts: 5454

"Potter75" wrote:

I'm a SAHM and my job is totally sweet. I have babysitters, a great gym, tons of SAH friends with kids my age, a supportive husband, and am financially stable. I actually cringe when people say that it is the hardest job on earth. It isn't. I guess if you have like 8 kids live in the boonies have no friends and are depressed and have no money it might be really sucky.......but give me a break. If you really think that it is the hardest job on earth you aren't doing it right and you should probably go back to work. After all, why would anyone CHOOSE to do the worlds worst job? Makes no sense.

IMHO, being a mom is a much harder job than my job that pays me. If I could afford to be a SAHM I would, but for now we need two incomes to pay our bills. Each person's perception of this is going to be different, as everyone's situations are not the same. Obviously if you have plenty of money, babysitters, and things like that, things are going to be easier, as you can afford to go out (as in you're not stuck in the house with the kids 24/7)... not everyone is so fortunate. I work in timeshare and honestly, it's a much easier job doing this than it is being a mom to four kids under 10 years old and cooking, cleaning, laundry, and everything else that being a SAHM comes with. We don't have a lot of extra money, either, so DH and I maybe get out once a month if we're lucky. On my days off, I'm just home with my kids. So as I said before... to each their own.

"Alissa_Sal" wrote:

Okay, but again, the question isn't whether Ann Romney should be allowed to be First Lady or whatever, it's about whether she is going to be that great of a "guide" to Mitt Romney in regards to women and the economy (since he specifically called her out as his "guide.") I don't know. I get what Melissa is saying too, having been on the campaign trail and talking to a lot of women, she may well understand the financial issues facing the average American woman today, even if she hasn't personally lived them. I certainly think it's possible to be knowledgeable about an issue, or have ideas about how you might try to alleviate a problem, even if you haven't personally been there.

To the bolden, this is an excellent statement. If you think about it, this can be a hypothetical for any situation. We can have an opinion on abortion even if we haven't had one. You can support gay marriage even though you're not gay... there's a million other examples to give. I think that Mrs. Obama and Mrs. Romney are equally intelligent women who can "guide" their husbands down any path lol... working or not!

mommytoMR.FACE's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 2 months ago
Joined: 04/10/09
Posts: 781

My job is harder than being a mom. At least I can gauge my kid's personality and pretty much know what he may need or want next. It's a lot easier knowing someone than meeting strangers everyday and trying to make them happy.

Offline
Last seen: 2 years 10 months ago
Joined: 05/31/06
Posts: 4780

"Starryblue702" wrote:

IMHO, being a mom is a much harder job than my job that pays me. If I could afford to be a SAHM I would, but for now we need two incomes to pay our bills. Each person's perception of this is going to be different, as everyone's situations are not the same. Obviously if you have plenty of money, babysitters, and things like that, things are going to be easier, as you can afford to go out (as in you're not stuck in the house with the kids 24/7)... not everyone is so fortunate. I work in timeshare and honestly, it's a much easier job doing this than it is being a mom to four kids under 10 years old and cooking, cleaning, laundry, and everything else that being a SAHM comes with. We don't have a lot of extra money, either, so DH and I maybe get out once a month if we're lucky. On my days off, I'm just home with my kids. So as I said before... to each their own.

Bolden is not a word. I think you mean bolded. Yes, as I specifically stated not everyone is so fortunate. And as I stated, if you stay at home and have no money and it sucks and you think that it is the hardest worst job in the world, you luckily have an option: GET A JOB.

Starryblue702's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 years 3 months ago
Joined: 04/06/11
Posts: 5454

"Potter75" wrote:

Bolden is not a word. I think you mean bolded. Yes, as I specifically stated not everyone is so fortunate. And as I stated, if you stay at home and have no money and it sucks and you think that it is the hardest worst job in the world, you luckily have an option: GET A JOB.

It was a typo, but thanks for pointing my mistake out. I never said it was the hardest job in the world, I said for me it was harder. There are some women that choose to give their children 100% of their time even if that means they don't have any extra money, and that's just as commendable as working.

Offline
Last seen: 2 years 10 months ago
Joined: 05/31/06
Posts: 4780

"Starryblue702" wrote:

It was a typo, but thanks for pointing my mistake out. I never said it was the hardest job in the world, I said for me it was harder. There are some women that choose to give their children 100% of their time even if that means they don't have any extra money, and that's just as commendable as working.

Cool, you have had the same *typo* in several threads now so I thought maybe you were just confused. I have no idea what your last sentence means, other than to say that people who give their children 100% of their time are generally the ones who end up drowning them in bathtubs or driving their cars into lakes. Husbands and mothers all deserve their own time.........I actually don't commend someone who says that they devote 100% of their time to their children, as they are probably totally miserable. I don't see what money has to do with that. There are plenty of ways to share babysitting time with friends for free and maintain some semblance of individuality and integrity outside of just "mommy". To do otherwise is simply grooming codependent and unhealthy children.

Starryblue702's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 years 3 months ago
Joined: 04/06/11
Posts: 5454

"Potter75" wrote:

Cool, you have had the same *typo* in several threads now so I thought maybe you were just confused. I have no idea what your last sentence means, other than to say that people who give their children 100% of their time are generally the ones who end up drowning them in bathtubs or driving their cars into lakes. Husbands and mothers all deserve their own time.........I actually don't commend someone who says that they devote 100% of their time to their children, as they are probably totally miserable. I don't see what money has to do with that. There are plenty of ways to share babysitting time with friends for free and maintain some semblance of individuality and integrity outside of just "mommy". To do otherwise is simply grooming codependent and unhealthy children.

Again, thanks for pointing that out. It's funny, I thought we were here to debate not be the spelling police. I've seen typos on here before, but I certainly won't waste my time pointing them out because it doesn't matter... people make mistakes. I fully agree that parents need their own time, but I mean that by being a SAHM, you choose to give your children 100% of your time instead of working forty hours a week.

mommytoMR.FACE's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 2 months ago
Joined: 04/10/09
Posts: 781

"Starryblue702" wrote:

Again, thanks for pointing that out. It's funny, I thought we were here to debate not be the spelling police. I've seen typos on here before, but I certainly won't waste my time pointing them out because it doesn't matter... people make mistakes. I fully agree that parents need their own time, but I mean that by being a SAHM, you choose to give your children 100% of your time instead of working forty hours a week.

SAHM's give their children 100% of their time? So they never eat, sleep, go out with friends, have sex with their significant other, etc?

Starryblue702's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 years 3 months ago
Joined: 04/06/11
Posts: 5454

"mommytoMR.FACE" wrote:

SAHM's give their children 100% of their time? So they never eat, sleep, go out with friends, have sex with their significant other, etc?

Wow. I believe that I answered this already, that I meant they choose to devote their lives to their families instead of having a job outside of the home. We can try to figure out percentages of how often couples do all of these other things, but it doesn't matter because I'm sure my point was understood.

mommytoMR.FACE's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 2 months ago
Joined: 04/10/09
Posts: 781

"Starryblue702" wrote:

Wow. I believe that I answered this already, that I meant they choose to devote their lives to their families instead of having a job outside of the home. We can try to figure out percentages of how often couples do all of these other things, but it doesn't matter because I'm sure my point was understood.

Wow what? I didn't see where you answered it already because I didn't go back and read the responses again before I quoted you. Sorry.

Starryblue702's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 years 3 months ago
Joined: 04/06/11
Posts: 5454

"mommytoMR.FACE" wrote:

Wow what? I didn't see where you answered it already because I didn't go back and read the responses again before I quoted you. Sorry.

My bad then. Wink I too sometimes answer just the last post without going back... sometimes I just don't have the time lol...

FLSunshineMom's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 5 months ago
Joined: 06/07/06
Posts: 3859

"Potter75" wrote:

I will also say that her telling the president that in talking to women, the issue that they are most worried about is the economy.......well, that is a far cry from saying that he is looking to her for economic advice! I mean, having ever formally worked or not, she is out there campaigning for her husband, and as such probably attends a TON of women's events, so she probably IS more in touch than him with what actual women voters are concerned about because they TELL her.......this does not take a job outside the home to validate.

I agree. I don't think a woman's economic status--poor, middle income, rich, whatever--necessarily determines how much economic knowledge she has.

"AlyssaEimers" wrote:

I do not think being a SAHM is the hardest job in the world. I am very thankful for the opportunity to stay home and take care of my children. I think the comments come from SAHM's not wanting people to think they do nothing but lounge around in bed 24/7 watching soap operas. No one wants to be looked down on for their life choices. That is the same for WOHM's and SAHM's.

I agree that the bolded is probably true for at least some SAHMs. Not all, of course, but some. And I think it's so sad that they feel they have to defend their decision to stay home with their children. Likewise, WOHMs should not have to defend their decision to work outside the home.

I also don't think it's a good idea to compare working mothers to SAHMs (or working dads to SAHDs, for that matter). We all make our own individual choices for our families based on our own needs/preferences. SAHPs, WOHPs, WAHPs, SEPs... some have a harder job than others, period.

Alissa_Sal's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 4 months ago
Joined: 06/29/06
Posts: 6427

"Potter75" wrote:

Bolden is not a word. I think you mean bolded.

I just saw this. This is not nice. Please don't pick at each other about your grammar and what not; it doesn't contribute to a civil debate. It's one thing to ask for clarification if you truly don't understand what they mean, picking just to pick isn't kind. Thanks!