This is just kind of a random rant about what Hilary Rosen said earlier this week about the Romneys not understanding economic issues because Ann stayed at home. Er, had the "opportunity" to enjoy the "luxury" of staying at home, which supposedly Michelle Obama didn't have.
First of all, Rosen's statement is so outrageous that it almost sounds like a publicity stunt. The Democrats can't distance themselves from her statement fast enough.
Here's what she said, in case you haven't been in the loop:
(referring to Mitt Romney's comment about talking to his wife for her insights on women's issues.) "Guess what? His wife has actually never worked a day in her life. 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."
First of all, anyone over 18 with two X chromosomes probably knows a little something about women's issues. There are about as many women's issues as there are women - women are single, married, divorced, widowed, mothers, childless, with careers, staying at home, comfortable, struggling. Every woman's economic situation is different, and everyone's views on those economic situations are different.
The fact that a woman has chosen not to work and has decided to stay home and raise children doesn't mean she "has never really dealt with ... economic issues" that a "majority of women ... are facing." Oh, I think women who sacrifice a career for the sake of raising children are VERY VERY VERY familiar with economic issues.
I graduated from high school in the top 10% of my class, and graduated from college in the top 15%. All of my test scores were through the roof, and I started out majoring in Computer Science (which, to put it lightly, I rocked at) and then switched to Finance because I needed to get out of the computer labs in the basement and see the sun every once in a while. I worked my butt off through college both in class and as a Computer Science teaching assistant so I could hopefully get scholarship money and my husband and I could graduate without debt (going to a school as cheap as BYU helped a lot.)
When I graduated from high school, I thought I would graduate from college and work for a few years before I would meet someone I could consider marrying. Then we would spend a few blissful child-free years together while building up more savings as we worked and practiced frugally living on only one (my husband's) income. Oh, the financial security we would have!
But then suddenly I was 18 1/2, a freshman in college, and I met the man of my dreams (who is still perfect for me 6 years later). I got married a month after I turned 19. 9 months before I graduated from college, we decided to start trying to have children. Somehow, I got pregnant that instant. It felt like the right decision at the time, but I don't think right then I quite realized the financial implications it would have for my family. We would always - ALWAYS - be dependent on my husband's income, and from then on, I would be viewed and defined as Mom. Just Mom. (And if you think your boss is a bad communicator, try a colicky 6-month-old for a week. You will begin to love your boss.)
It's hard not to think about all of the things I'm missing out on. First of all, the extra income. A bigger house, nicer vacations, another car, extracirricular activities. Mark has to single-handedly save up for retirement and college and whatnot. Then tax season rolls around and I get even more frustrated. You get tax breaks for sending your children to daycare, but not for staying home with them and sacrificing the chance to earn extra income. I can see why, but at the same time it feels like a slap in the face. They get rewarded for working and having the opportunity to hand their kids off to someone else for 8-10 hours a day, and I get to ........ run errands and clean up after my kids all day long? Sounds great for someone who loved school and having mentally exhausting work. I love Facebook and playgroup because it gives me some real adult interaction so my brain doesn't atrophy.
Staying at home means learning to budget. Maybe you only have one car. Maybe all of your husband's lunches come in brown bags. You don't go out very often. You cook most of your dinners from scratch. You worked your butt off in school so you could be sure one of you would have a job that could support the family, and you learned how to live on that one income so you wouldn't have to pay for/miss the luxuries you'd have to sacrifice if you went from a double-income to as single-income family. You are terrified of what might happen if your spouse died, because you've sacrificed years of your life to raise your kids when you COULD HAVE been developing a career. You are forever stunted in your earning potential. Hilary is telling me I don't understand economic woe?
And this on the heels of the Obamas saying they couldn't afford the "luxury" of a parent staying home with their two (not five, like the Romneys) children. Oh, boo-hoo, with your combined income of just less than half a million dollars and the lesser of you earning a measly $162k. No, I'm pretty sure you wanted a nice place and a comfortable life and to be able to provide a lot (financially) for your children. That is admirable, and if my spouse and I had waited another 10 years to have kids and were earning that much money, I wouldn't want to quit my job, either. But if I were the Obamas, I wouldn't pretend I didn't have a choice - I had a choice, and I chose to work so I could provide better things for my children, and it was the right thing for our family. And Rosen is saying the Romneys don't understand the economic issues American women are facing? Uhhh ... and the Obamas do?
Conversely, I chose to completely sacrifice a career to have kids young. I don't live in a big house and we're doing the best we can to live within our means and save for the future. I love my kid (just read my facebook posts) and I'm looking forward to welcoming our second one some time in the next month. I'm lucky to afford the luxury of staying at home - even though there are a LOT of things we're sacrificing to do it. I've made my choice, and I've decided it's more important to me to be with my kids and watch them grow and teach and train and guide them myself than it is to have the $60k career I could've had so I can have a nicer house and do less mindless work and provide more for my children financially.
Working moms don't love their children any less. They either really can't afford to not work because their husbands can't provide enough for the family (especially in this economy), or they got used to a lifestyle that can't be supported on a single income, or they choose to work because they want to provide even more, physically, for their children. And that's fine!
The point is: All women (or most women) understand economic issues whether they're working or not working. We see the sacrifices that have to be made when making a choice between career and children. Rosen wasn't condemning women for choosing to stay at home - she was condemning stay-at-home mothers for not understanding economic issues, which to me, is JUST as insulting.
