The general election season may have provided its first exaggerated controversy when Democratic strategist Hillary Rosen criticized Ann Romney, wife of probable Republican candidate Mitt, for being out-of-touch by saying Ann "has never worked a day in her life." Mrs. Romney, a stay-at-home mother of five, retorted that "My career choice was to be a mother ... we need to respect choices that women make." Many have attacked Rosen, saying she suggested that being a mother is not work, and fellow Democrats have distanced themselves from her remarks.
This is a typical instance of election season point-scoring. On one side, we have the self-serving hypocrisy in these conservative attacks which argue how important mothers are, but conveniently continue to ignore the harsh realities facing poorer or single mothers. On the other, Democrats are backing down from a battle they lack the will to fight: Raising children is definitely work, and women ought to be compensated as such.
First, it helps to acknowledge that Ann Romney is very out of touch. There is no doubt that raising five children is a challenge. That said, she is a multi-millionaire. Cooks, nannies and maids are all possibilities for her, and her 2010 IRS forms show that more than $20,000 was spent on four women's services. Knowing the Romneys' past hiring undocumented workers, it is not too absurd to imagine she may have accidentally had additional tax-free help in tidying up her three houses.
I am sure Ann Romney is a perfectly lovely mother who puts in plenty of time with her children. That does not mean she knows the daily trials of middle-class, working-class or single mothers. Millions of single mothers worry about balancing home life and work, paying for bills, saving for college and avoiding a misfortune which would leave them unable to feed their children. Ann Romney does not have these worries, and odds are, she never will. She may know hard work, but she has thus far refused to acknowledge the difficulties faced by mothers who are less privileged than she.
This "controversy" aside, the Romney campaign does not seem so concerned with respecting all of the choices women make, especially adoptive lesbians such as Rosen and her wife. Searching Mitt's campaign website, the only place in his platform where I found some mention of women was where Mitt boldly declared marriage as being between one man and one woman. In contrast, Barack Obama's website has an entire section devoted to women's health disparities and mentions efforts to end gender-based pay discrimination in a section titled "equal rights." Democrats may have stepped away from Rosen's remarks, but they are still more receptive to the struggles of women in this country than their Republican rivals.
Furthermore, Mitt Romney does not seem to care much about poor women or their children on a personal level, either. Romney has recently said that mothers with children as young as two ought to be in the workforce if they want benefits such as federal spending on day care. Are mothers not contributing to society enough by raising their children? If raising children is just as valid work as any other job, why are mothers told to go and find another job before they can receive benefits?
While not everyone can be Ann Romney, there is the just solution of offering greater benefits to stay-at-home parents, be they mothers or fathers, single or not. If raising children is so important, then why would we keep ridiculous policies which force eager parents to reluctantly leave the home? Research shows that increased parental involvement benefits a child's education, self-esteem and behavior. When both parents must work outside the home for financial reasons, it is easy to see this involvement becomes more difficult. Why not build on what we know and encourage this involvement which produces so many positive effects? With such compensation, divorces between spouses when both have received benefits or pay will be more equitable. Living conditions for working class families will be more secure and children will have their basic needs for education and health care met.
The ultimate end of a program which supports families would be a federal living wage for the parent, mother or father, who stays at home to raise children. Such a proposition is highly controversial, and though even Democrats are unlikely to embrace it any time soon, it is worth discussing. If parents wish to continue their careers, then perhaps they should still be offered assistance with well-funded day care programs like those found in Sweden and Denmark. This way, we can ensure that any man or woman's choice to work or stay in the home - rich or poor - is fully supported. Such extensive social support is a far-off goal, but its realization would help make the United States a freer, more educated country. Until a time when such a liberating policy is within our reach, those who believe in the dignity of women must continue to support the choice women make to leave or enter the workforce, all the while advocating greater support for less advantaged mothers.
In this century, a woman's place is where she wants to be. Conservatives better get used to it. The rest of us better fight to make it possible.
Sam Carrigan's column appears Wednesdays in The Cavalier Daily. He can be reached at s.carrigan@cavalierdaily.com.
Read More
EDITORIAL: Celebrating and reflecting on The Cavalier Daily’s independence
By Editorial Board | 4 days agoOur independence grants us the ability to ask the hard questions and to say what University representatives cannot.
ARRAS: U.Va. must revise the Sexual Assault Prevention Training module
By Aoife Arras | 6 days agoIn addition to its failures in interactivity, the module lacks details specific to the University and discusses key concepts in universal terms.
EDITORIAL: Pedestrian safety is an institutional imperative
By Editorial Board | April 15, 2024Amid a national crisis of pedestrian safety, Charlottesville and the University are also struggling to properly maintain pedestrian safety.
