Considering the endless inequities facing women today — sexualized beauty standards, discrepancies in medical care costs and victimization via physical abuse and on-the-job harassment — it perplexes me that many of us continue to concentrate high levels of energy and indignation into battling the “mommy wars.” Sometimes it’s younger vs. older, married vs. single or the current debate topic du jour, working mothers vs. stay-at-home mothers … as if there’s really a substantial difference between the duties of the two.
What kicked off the latest skirmish was last week’s discussion on CNN’s news program Anderson Cooper 360 of presumptive Republican presidential nominee candidate Mitt Romney and his party’s widening disconnect with women voters. “What you have is Mitt Romney running around the country saying, ‘Well, you know, my wife tells me that what women really care about are economic issues,” said Democratic strategist and media consultant Hilary Rosen. “‘When I listen to my wife, that’s what I’m hearing.’ Guess what? His wife has actually never worked a day in her life.”
Thanks to the clumsy wording she chose, the facts supporting Rosen’s statement (Ann Romney hasn’t had a job outside the home) became lost in the outrage expressed by his campaign strategists and women across the nation who interpreted those words as attacks against mothers who elected to leave the workforce or bypass it altogether to remain in the home to raise their kids.
Romney’s response — “I made a choice to stay home and raise five boys. Believe me, it was hard work” — and the counter attacks that followed missed the original issue: the economic advantages enjoyed by the Romneys and other ultra-wealthy peers, realties that insulate them from the struggles that working-class and middle-class mothers endure while balancing their profession with being a parent.
Romney is certainly qualified to state that mothering a handful of sons is time-consuming and exhaustive, especially given the medical issues she has also managed. But can she or her husband truthfully empathize with families who sacrifice upward mobility to have a parent at home full-time, or those who would love to be at home raising the kids, but need dual incomes to survive?
A household that has employed housekeepers for years can’t compare to one maintained by a couple working opposite shifts to manage their babies and the bills. A woman who has never had to use sick leave to nurse a feverish toddler or stretch meals for days to afford an asthma inhaler isn’t one that a multi-millionaire presidential candidate should consult on “economic issues.”
Whether or not we work part-time, full-time or forgo it altogether shouldn’t be the issue: The true dilemma is a society that claims to respect moms, yet makes it difficult for us to support our families and ourselves.
Lorrie Irby Jackson is a Briefing columnist. Email her at lorrie.irby@gmail.com.
