By Heather O.
I try not to get too political on this blog, because it generally doesn’t end very well. Politics tends to make everybody get a little nutty, and I’m crazy enough as it is. But in light of the comments by Ms. Rosen recently about how Ann Romney never worked a day in her life and therefore doesn’t understand economics, well, I just can’t keep my mouth shut.
I get what Rosen is trying to say, I do. Ann Romney comes from privilege and is married to a bazillionaire. It’s not unfair to imply that the Romneys might not understand the financial struggles that the average American faces, particularly in these tough economic times. Bottom line, Ann Romney is rich, and being rich is easier than being poor.
But the line that “she’s never worked a day in her life” and implying that such a lifestyle means that she doesn’t understand how economics works, well, that gets under my skin.
I have worked more than a day in my life. When my husband started law school, we were solely dependent on my income to live. It was stressful, particularly on those weeks when my promised 40 hours of work ended up being closer to 30, or, one terrifying week, only 24. I looked at my time card with that scant 24 hours written in, and I thought, “I hope we can pay rent this month.” And when I got pregnant, we had to make the very difficult decision about what we would do in terms of income–pay for day care while I went back full time, or have me stay at home and bite the bullet with student loans? In the end, we hobbled together a compromise. I went back full time for a short while, then cut back to per diem work, and we took out student loans to make up the difference.
Throughout our marriage, my husband and I have constantly been re-evaluating our financial position. I went back to work briefly a few years ago when money was tighter than we were comfortable with, and then again, we had to make the decision to return to one income when my husband changed jobs. Every year we revisit the idea of me working, as we evaluate where we are financially, and what our financial goals are.
I don’t think we are unique.
Most families I know where the mom stays home, the mom is involved with financial decision making. I know many mothers who are solely in charge of the household budget, making daily decisions about allocating funds. I have one friend who sheepishly admitted that she took $1.99 from her grocery budget to buy more tokens for an game she was playing on her iphone. Another friend laughed and replied, “Way to sacrifice the eggs!” We all laughed, but it struck me that we were laughing because we all know the intricacies that go into forming a household budget, and WE ALL KNOW HOW MUCH EGGS COST. Economics at its basic level, if you ask me.
I don’t know if Ann Romney ever had these kinds of conversations with her husband, but dismissing her skills as an economist just because she’s a stay at home mom is unfair and ignorant. Ann Romney might not understand the necessity of accounting for $1.99 in the grocery budget, but I have no doubt she understands the cost of clothing for her children, missions for 5 boys, and college tuition. It would surprise me greatly if she and her husband didn’t counsel together about how they were going to pay for these things, even if the questions were different than the ones my husband and I ask each other.
And while being rich is easier than being poor, being rich can get complicated. How does Mitt Romney manage his millions? What funds does he invest in? How does he balance cash flow, liquidity, and retirement benefits? How does he make sure that his money works for him? The man is richer than God, so clearly he has figured these things out. If he figured these things out without consulting his wife, I’d be shocked.
I know there are mothers are there on the front lines who are hanging on by their fingernails, wondering how they are going to do it. And Ms. Rosen is right that Ann Romney has never been one of them. But that doesn’t mean Ann Romney doesn’t understand economics, or the challenges or raising children, or that staying at home has made her stupid.
Just because stay at home moms don’t make the money doesn’t mean we don’t understand how it works.
And an attack on motherhood from a woman doesn’t help anybody.
That’s all I wanted to say. We will return to our regularly scheduled program with posts about my garden shortly.
Perfect! Thank you for articulating my feelings on this subject so well. I also think that Mrs. Romney’s church service has probably helped her develop a sympathy and compassion for those who are struggling, as it is likely she has served in a leadership role or two and had to counsel with those whose problems are different than her own.
Comment #1 by Another SAHMApril 13th, 2012 at 9:03 amI think you hit the nail on the head there. We as women don’t need to be feeding the working mom vs. stay at home mom debate. I don’t know any mom in the 20 to 40 year old range that hasn’t at one time had to work outside the home and raise children at the same time. I think we all get it. If Ms. Rosen doesn’t like Mitt Romney as candidate then fine. But attacking his wife is just mud slinging.
Comment #2 by mormonhermitmomApril 13th, 2012 at 9:28 amI agree with #1, I understand that Ann Romney served as a Relief Society president. When you do that, you work with a lot of women and even single-dad families, helping them economically. Helping them learn to budget, plan menus and cook the food that is provided. You spend a lot of time listening to their fears and trials. You are often called in during the most vulnerable time of their life. So while she may not have experienced them first-hand, she has an intimate knowledge of the challenges that women face.
Comment #3 by NaismithApril 13th, 2012 at 9:38 amSupposedly the “American Dream” is that through hard work, and financial discipline people can “make it” and their children’s lives will be easier than their own (okay and luck, nobody ever says luck and luck is part of it but anyway). People still come to America believing this is possible. But what I don’t get is why is being a child of someone for whom the dream worked out always seem to be a political liability? Why when these children who benefitted from a privileged up bringing grow up does their social service “not count” because they didn’t “live it.” I really, really don’t understand that backlash.
Comment #4 by CailinMarieApril 13th, 2012 at 9:59 amOh, bravo. I like it when you discuss politics (remembering a rather notable discussion about illegal immigration a year or two back).
Comment #5 by ResearcherApril 13th, 2012 at 10:36 am“When you do that, you work with a lot of women and even single-dad families, helping them economically.”
Hrrrmmmm. Not so much in the town where the Romneys live.
But I think Heather’s general point is accurate, and I suspect most Democrats would agree with it and would like to tie Hillary Rosen to a chair and make her recite talking points for a few days…
Comment #6 by KristineApril 13th, 2012 at 11:02 amI don’t want to wade into a discussion with you because you are WAY smarter than I am, and I will loose. However, I will agree that we who belong to this grand club called motherhood need to stop bashing, comparing, and otherwise name calling one another, whatever our circumstances. Motherhood is the toughest thing any of use will ever encounter — and even if you have money — it doesn’t guarantee an easier road to raising your children (just makes it easier to provide for them). I”m sure they are other things I could say…but I won’t…because you’d smack me down!
Comment #7 by Melissa McApril 13th, 2012 at 11:14 amI have two problems with Hilary Rosin. 1) the idea that being a SAHM is a de facto position of luxury–you articulate very well how often it is not. It is a choice over which things are more important than money. I think what the whole debate tries to negate is the idea of choice. To end this war, women need to acknowledge their choices (from becoming a mother onward), own them and respect all women to do the same for themselves. We have no responsibility or stewardship (most of the time) over each others’ choices, so we have no right to be critical. I don’t have the right to be critical of the choices Hilary Rosin makes in her motherhood and womanhood, she should try really hard to stay out of Ann Romney’s and every other mother/woman’s choices. 2) the idea that working for pay outside the home makes you better able to synthesize and articulate information. Michelle Obama is just as much an unusual woman in this country. She is highly educated and has made her career in a professional/corporate field. Merely because she has done so does not mean she is better able to know what “all women” want, to understand the “plight of middle America.”
No politician is middle America. Middle Americans cannot afford to run for national office. So to say that the Romneys can’t understand “us” because they are rich but others can, is just an attempt to draw a line at which understanding comes and goes. What is that dollar figure?
Ann Romney may not have nickel and dimed the cost of eggs, but her MS has definitely given her an in depth picture of dealing with doctors and health care, dealing with physical pain while tending to others’ needs. I also don’t think it’s safe to say that Ann Romney never dealt with welfare needs when she served as a RS president. There is no way for us to know. No town, no ward, no branch is free from trials. Even the wealthiest of areas have people who struggle and need help, either because they lose jobs, lose spouses, suffer health and family trials or some other way in which rugs are pulled out from under them.
Comment #8 by angie fApril 13th, 2012 at 12:51 pmMelissa, where did you get the idea that I’m way smarter than you? Whatevs.
I don’t think Hilary Rosen was attacking SAHMs per se, I think she was attacking the idea that Ann Romney is a political expert on economics capable of advising her husband. Her sound byte reminded me of when Bill Clinton said that Hillary was an expert on healthcare and turned health care reform over to Hillary. And that worked out so well….
And Ann Romney may not be an economic expert. I don’t know the woman, so I don’t know if she is or not. But Rosen’s unfortunate wording made it sound like Ann Romney was incapable BECAUSE she is a SAHM, and that’s the part that I’m not quite okay with.
Comment #9 by Heather O.April 13th, 2012 at 1:21 pm“When you do that, you work with a lot of women and even single-dad families, helping them economically.”
“Hrrrmmmm. Not so much in the town where the Romneys live.”
I am not sure when she served in that capacity and what the specifics were. But living outside of Utah as they did for much of their marriage. the wards tend to encompass a larger area than in the west, and thus ends up being somewhat diverse. In Atlanta, one ward included historic large mansions (Elder Mason’s family lived there when he was director of the CDC) as well as Emory family student housing. And in my town, the fanciest housing development is in the same ward as government subsidized housing where quite a few LDS student families live. Not to mention that there are LDS maids and nannies living in those large houses. But I really don’t know here specifics and may have gotten that wrong, I admit.
Comment #10 by NaismithApril 13th, 2012 at 2:19 pmI know the area the Romneys lived (still live?)in. Nice people, you bet. Diverse? Kristine is right—not so much. And I know first hand that the welfare needs in one ward were pretty much nonexistent, so much so that people were encouraged to visit/home teach their non-member neighbors (not even lying about that). Not that that means much in terms of who Ann Romney is, it’s just an interesting demographic fact about how the ward boundaries were split.
Comment #11 by Heather O.April 13th, 2012 at 2:40 pmI see your point. But the Romney can’t simultaneously turn to Ann for economic insight from women, while saying Obama isn’t qualified to speak about the economy because he hasn’t worked in the private sector. That’s a double standard.
Additionally, I’m sure she has sympathy, but when she talked about having to sell stock options as poor newlyweds, because they were struggling, too, I get the sense she is trying really hard to connect, but it’s not quite working.
She does seem like a very kind person, and Rosen’s choice of words was rather unfortunate.
Comment #12 by RSApril 13th, 2012 at 2:47 pmI’m not here to defend Rosen — but I don’t think her MO was to bash SAHMs either. But in the context of her comment (and I did go back to view it) my take was that Ann Romney has never had to work (or be employed) for her living, which seems to be true. If Mitt is going to claim that Ann is his bridge to the lives of women (and he has on more than one occasion defered to her to speak), Hilary Rosen (who is a working mother) is entitled to examine Ann’s qualifications. Keeping a home (or homes as the case may be!
) and raising children is very hard work, but it’s not the same as putting on a uniform and asking “would you like fries with that?” (or some other inane task demanded by your boss) in order to assure that your children have health insurance.
Comment #13 by Melissa McApril 13th, 2012 at 2:49 pmI understand that Ms. Rosen’s combined income with her husband was $500,000. So she’s not a millionaire, just a half-millionaire. That still makes them way richer than most people, so I don’t think she has any room to criticize anyone. She doesn’t seem to have *needed* to work to make ends meet, rather she did what a lot of women have done which is to work so that they can live a very comfortable life. That doesn’t mean she gets economics better than a SAHM. Ann could easily fire back that her children were better cared for than Hilary’s because they weren’t raised by a day care, but she actually has tact (and is wise enough to realize that a working mom doesn’t mean a bad mom.)
And I understand when you say that rich people have easier lives than poor people as far as having the basic necessities of life, but I’d much rather be barely making it than be a bajillionaire. More money often equals more problems and the Romneys are very fortunate that their kids all have their heads on straight and didn’t succumb to problems many very privileged kids have in life.
Comment #14 by StarababaApril 13th, 2012 at 3:51 pmAs someone pretty far left on most issues, I was pretty annoyed with Rosen’s comments. So tired of women bashing each other’s life decisions. Many women don’t really fit into a SAHM v Working Mom dichotomy anyways…. but rather we are in and out of the workforce as economics, children and other life events dictate. So the whole debate is rather stupid to me.
I think that Rosen has some legitimate concerns about their ability to connect with the average American, which she expressed eloquently post-interview. But that involved a lot of backpedaling from the statements she originally made on-air.
I was hoping that one of you would write a post on this, so thanks Heather. And thank you for keeping politics out of it as much as possible.
Comment #15 by JenApril 13th, 2012 at 4:10 pmThis is exactly what was bugging me about the whole thing. Aside from the tiresome “working mom vs. SAHM” debate, the implication that a woman who can or chooses to stay home is out of touch with the economy is ridiculous. I don’t know of a single SAHM who is isn’t involved in some way with the economics of the family income. And I also think its obnoxious to assume that someone who is wealthy can’t possibly understand that the economy is a major concern for everyone else, even if they themselves have never struggled financially. Does Ann Romney have eyes and ears? Yes, so she was basically stating the obvious that women care about the economy. The fact that Ms. Rosen chose to pick on that statement makes her seem more interested in tearing down Mitt Romney by making his wife look silly than actually discussing his capabilities as a candidate.
Comment #16 by JessicaApril 13th, 2012 at 4:32 pmMelissa, I actually agree with you about Hilary Rosen not necessarily bashing on SAHMs. And I agree with you that bringing up 5 boys is a lot of work, but doing it with a fat bank account isn’t nearly as tough as trying to do it while slinging fries and going to school at night. I just think Rosen’s unfortunate choice of words implied that SAHMs don’t know anything about economics, which irked me. And just because Ann Romney doesn’t know how it feels to don a uniform and mop up spilled ketchup doesn’t mean she can’t contribute to the discussion about motherhood and women’s issues in this country in meaningful ways. And she certainly knows more about women than Mitt does
.
Comment #17 by Heather O.April 13th, 2012 at 6:18 pmYou bring up an interesting question (I don’t know if anyone’s already mentioned it, I haven’t read the comments) — I wonder if Ann did account for eggs even if she didn’t have to and that’s at least a little part of the reason they have/had so much? I’m actually really curious. I admit, we do make enough to not have to worry about the eggs, but I do anyway! You look at other super-rich people, well those who make enough that they should be super-rich, but they waste it all and end up impoverished. Makes me so mad — all that waste. Why pay them so much when it just goes down the toilet. Bottom line: how many of the wealthy do still pinch pennies even though they don’t have to?
Comment #18 by EmilyApril 14th, 2012 at 1:15 pmOf course really poor people wouldn’t have a fence to build nor an anchor to find, but it does sound like the Romneys tried to impress some values on their kids.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/11/us/politics/two-mitt-romneys-wealthy-man-thrifty-habits.html?pagewanted=all
Comment #19 by NaismithApril 14th, 2012 at 1:35 pmI have said elsewhere that I think Ann Romney is also out there trying to talk to women along the campaign trail as well. It seems ludicrous to me to imply that ANY woman in politics could somehow perfectly relate to the life of the poor or even middle class (as angie f noted).
Heather, I think you made some great points. Thanks.
Comment #20 by MichelleApril 14th, 2012 at 10:04 pmI appreciate the post and comments. Being a SAHM I feel passionate about this issue also and echo many of the sentiments here. One thing I can’t quite do though is bash the rich. Our society has some dissonance when it comes to wealth. We say “Money doesn’t buy happiness,” then proclaim that anyone with money can’t connect with or understand the trials of the working class. Politics is somewhat a different ballgame as we’re looking closely at who will make policy in our behalf, but if we really believe that wealth doesn’t protect a person from the trials of life, why can’t a wealthy person (especially one who has worked, raised a family, dealt with illness, and served others) compassionately stand up for those who have less?
Comment #21 by jendoopApril 15th, 2012 at 5:03 amIn General Conference there were many references to self-reliance, about how building our personal “wealth” allows us to better serve others. That is exactly what Obama and Romney have done and now the masses scream that they shouldn’t because they don’t know reality. The issue of wealth is just another way of distracting us from the important issues, just like Rosen’s comments. Her comments are important on the cultural/social stage, but not in the election as neither candidate validated her opinion. (And I can imagine that the Obama’s won’t touch her with a ten foot pole now.)
So… Mitt Romney was actually my bishop, so I can say a little bit about the ward he and Ann had stewardships in. It included a lot of starving students, not just rich people. Many of the students were at MIT. There were some very, very rough neighborhoods in that ward.
I know Ann did her own grocery shopping. In fact, my mom still has a recipe card with a carrot soup that Ann had shared with her. She bought the eggs, and carrots, and celery, etc. and cooked them all herself for her family.
I played with their son Ben as a kid and I remember being at their home. They were very kind to my family (one of those starving PhD families with a SAHM caring for 3 kids.) My memory of her is that of a very down-to-earth person who didn’t seem any different than my mom, but again, I was young. But my parents remember them very fondly as great people with great compassion in helping out those who were struggling in the ward.
I’m so tired of the working mom vs SAHM battle. The thing I find amazing is that it is women who really seem to perpetuate it - maybe men are smart enough not to wade in. And I’m glad that everyone, democrats and republicans alike have come out to say that raising children is hard work - with or without money.
Comment #22 by EmilyApril 15th, 2012 at 9:14 pm[…] I’ve been thinking about generous interpretations as I’ve read the recent war of words between Hillary Rosen and Ann Romney. There are better discussions and analysis of the issues surrounding the war between women here, and here. That’s not really what I want to go into right now. […]
Pingback #23 by Women and the Hermeneutic of Generosity : SegullahApril 16th, 2012 at 9:19 amYes! You said this perfectly!
Comment #24 by JessicaApril 17th, 2012 at 10:57 am