This whole Hilary Rosen/Ann Romney thing has once again brought up the whole SAHM/WOHM debate. And aside from the obvious concept that if women could stop fighting each other, we'd be running the whole damn world, I have a few things to say about it.
I agree with Rosen's point, although it was inartfully expressed. Ann Romney has not worked, at a job outside the home where she would earn a paycheck, a day in her adult life. That is true, an unassailable fact. Why do we have to bend over backwards to say, oh no, being a SAHM is work too, hard work? No kidding. Anyone who would dispute the fact that staying at home and taking care of five children is HARD, EXHAUSTING work, is an idiot. Let me tell you, I have two, and by the end of the weekend I'm ready for a breather.
However, Rosen's real point, which has been buried beneath the endless and pointless "who's a better mother/who works harder" debate is that Ann Romney cannot speak to the concerns of women who work outside the home. She cannot relate. I'm sorry, it's the truth - she can't. The mere idea of balancing the needs of your family and the expectations of your job is completely outside of her wheelhouse, to say nothing of having to actually "save" for something that you cannot afford to buy outright. And the fact that Mitt thinks she can, well...in my book it's further evidence that he's out of touch with what our nation really looks like, outside the bubble of wealth and privilege and religious doctrine and private equity. And someone who doesn't viscerally understand ever NOT being able to pay for something on the spot, whether it's medicine, food, education, a fun vacation or even a fabulous pair of shoes, shouldn't be leading the rest of us who do.
Ann Romney is blessed, in the sense that she has been able to make the choice, for herself and her family, to be the kind of mother who does not work outside the home, and take on all that accompanies that, for when your husband comes from wealth and has a net worth somewhere in the vicinity of hundreds of millions of dollars, no one is relying on her for a paycheck and dental insurance and a flexible spending account. I imagine there are many "middle-class" women who would also like to make the same choice. But they can't, because in most parts of the country it is very difficult, if not downright impossible, to be able to do that and still put food on the table, have a roof over your head, and pay for doctor's visits and ballet classes and in-state tuition for all of your brood.
Let's not pretend that Ann's choice is mine, for the main reason that I simply cannot allow myself to think about that choice seriously. I can't allow myself to think about quitting my job, because we would not be able to afford to pay back the grad and law school loans that I took out, we couldn't pay for extras like summer day camp and soccer and dance, nor would we be able to save in even a remotely effective way for things like college tuition and retirement. I simply don't have the luxury of considering that choice.
But let us also not pretend that staying at home with your kids is the same as going to work outside of the home. It is not. These are two entirely different things. Calling yourself the "CEO of your family" on your Facebook info page under "employment"...well, if that's true, then everyone should put that in there. Every SAHM, every WOHM, we're ALL CEOs of our households (although in mine, it's pretty much a shared position with my husband, and that's the way we like it). And we're all still mothers -- we all love our children and care for them and cook and clean (to varying degrees, to be sure) and shop and keep them alive and provide transportation and show up to things...some of us just have to not do it consistently between the hours of 8 am and 6 pm. Let us not pretend that there is not a big difference between working outside the home as opposed to "inside." It's a whole other set of expectations, and an entirely different skill set. If we could actually discuss these issues and recognize the differences without everyone raising their voices, demanding respect for their particular path, maybe we could figure out how to make it so that it would be possible for more women to do what they actually want to do, not what their circumstances dictate -- by making child care more affordable, by providing for adequate social security to support us in our old age, by providing for alternative work schedules and job sharing, and by amending the tax code to accurately reflect what "wealthy" means in high-cost-of-living urban areas.
Let's all just stop dancing around everybody's feelings, trying to make sure everyone's language is sanitized enough so that SAHMs feel "respected" enough for what they do inside the home and take notice of Rosen's actual point. Ann Romney cannot speak for the majority of American women who cannot afford to make the choice to stay home, and for the issues that she could speak about, such as women's health (she's a breast cancer survivor) and birth control (she obviously was born with a uterus), she simply chooses not to. Let us avoid the distraction of "who loves their kids more" and talk about issues that matter, and try to elect someone who will make the country a better for place, for all mothers.
