HILARY ROSEN, a Democratic Party strategist, said yesterday that Mitt Romney can’t possibly have women’s economic interests at heart because his wife has “never worked a day in her life.” The Huffington Post reports:

“Guess what?” Rosen said. “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.”

Rosen continued, “There’s something much more fundamental about Mitt Romney. He seems so old-fashioned when it comes to women, and I think that comes across, and I think that that’s going to hurt him over the long term. He just doesn’t really see us as equal.”

 Ann Romney later retorted: “I made a choice to stay home and raise five boys. Believe me, it was hard work.”

However, Rosen has a point. Given that Romney himself believes that the most important thing for women is having their own jobs, how can he tolerate his wife “not working?” He is either holding his wife back or deceiving the public about what he thinks women need.

That’s why Romney is vulnerable to feminist attack. Feminists always say they want women only to be free to choose what to do with their lives, but they are quick to take any opportunity to attack a homemaker if it serves their advantages. They are in a perpetual war against women. They value power and money, not the interests of normal, psychologically sound women. Furthermore, in comments such as this, they are actively hostile to the interests of children.

But Romney, because he believes the economy is all, cannot offer a meaningful response.

By the way, Rosen’s claim that a housewife never deals with economic issues is the typical Marxist lie that a woman at home is a “parasite” who never faces reality. In fact, women at home are all too familiar with economics. Besides, the majority of women in this country, whether they “work” or not, depend on men for support, relying at least in part on the income of spouses or friends or on government welfare funded heavily by taxes on male earnings. If depending on men means one is unfamiliar with economics then most women know little about money.

— Comments —

Fitzgerald writes:

Obama attempts to assert they couldn’t afford the “luxury” of Michelle staying home and raising their kids. This fatuous lie I’m sure will be ignored by the psychophant media idiots like Rosen and others.

Also, Rosen’s remark has received criticism from both Democrats and Republicans.

Laura writes:

Notice how no one will say that Ann Romney did the right thing. At best, they will say she made an acceptable, but morally neutral choice.

Obama’s point that Michelle “had to work” is a lie, but no more so than the same blatant falsehood uttered by many other couples.

Laura adds:

If Rosen has a husband who works, she should be criticized for neglecting her own two children [UPDATE: Rosen’s a lesbian] and for taking a job that might go to a man who could support his family or to an unmarried woman without children or husband. She obviously doesn’t understand the minimal about economics and that is, that jobs are not in limitless supply.

Robert writes:

I thought it was strange that Obama said that he did not have the luxury of having his wife stay at home with his children. I think it is true that it is a lie but it is interesting to consider why he said it. Maggie Gallagher said on NRO that the average income of families where the wife doesn’t work is $47,000. And there are a lot of mothers whose husbands make a comfortable living who work. Obviously there are many women who do not base their decision to work or stay at home on financial grounds.

The feminist argument has always been that women should work outside the home. They argue that they should do this for their own sake in order to fulfill themselves as human beings and also for the sake of contributing to the greater good of society. Why didn’t Obama just say that his wife was a well educated woman who wanted to work in order to bring more diversity or whatever to the University of Chicago hospitals and that she was also a great mother? Reverting to a purely economic argument is a cop out. It seems to me that this is common now among Democrats. They used to be very forceful about celebrating women’s work outside the home and now they always present it as though it were simply an economic necessity. I think it’s because they know that there are now a lot of women who are working and pursuing careers because they feel pressure to do so or simply because it was presented as the right thing to do. I have known several women with successful careers who have suddenly in their 30’s made it their goal to be stay at home mothers. I think liberals understand that there are not really any Betty Friedan style “desperate housewives” anymore but that there are quite a lot of working mothers and single women who would like to be stay at home mothers.

The use of the financial argument is a way to evade having the type of conversation in which the arguments you make on your blog are aired. I know the Romneys won’t force the argument but I think there is certainly an opportunity for a conservative politician to make the claim that being a full time mother is something society should encourage and that this is what many women want. The massive blowback at Hilary Rosen and the panicked reponse of Axelrod and Co. would seem to indicate they are afraid of something.

Laura writes:

Excellent points. They are sitting on a powder keg. Liberal policies have forced many women into the full-time workforce against their will and their better judgment.

Obama and Michelle have said for a long time that she “had to” work. She used the poor working mother routine during the campaign. At the same time, she has talked about work as a personal preference and said that when the presidency is over, it will be her turn to work again. She tries to appeal to all. It’s blatantly dishonest.

Please follow and like us: