Hilary Rosen's Comments on Ann Romney

Find her op-ed on cnn.com today. Please tell me the victim card wasn't played in that article.

 

and it's still stupid. She has no remote business commenting on what the Romneys might or might not know regarding Americans. If anyone in the world has no clue about Americans, it's a lesbian news editor.

 

I laughed.

The dumb [itch bay] said she (Romney) had never worked a day in her life. That's stupid as hell. What does that have to do with anything? Seriously, did she think she could say that and not get raked over the coals? Has she interviewed Romney for a job?

It's stupid muckracking dumbass shit. She said it to get a reaction and she's not getting what she thought she would get.

 

So Ann getting some meaningless job to add to Mitt's e normous income would some sort of difference in her level of expertise? Rosen could have easily phrased that differently, but her words were influenced by her disdain of career moms.

 

if being a millionaire means you're out of touch with the avg. American, that means Obama is out of touch.

let me be clear, I'm not impressed with Romney, however the guy has a ton of experience in the private sector which I think is important during these times. I also think it's stupid that the issue is made over a candidates wife. I didn't know she would be running the White House

 

The feminist movement has really hurt this country.

 

Yes, women were so much better when they had no options or voice in this country. 99% of anti-feminist attitudes are butt-hurt men who resent the loss of their complete dominance within our society. God forbid a woman expresses an opinion about something and hits 30 without being married.

That said, it was a pretty dumb statement for Rosen to make. I see Republicans are already trying to make hay about the "War on Women" mantra, but I don't think it will resonate for them to make any kind of long lasting dent in the gap of women voters. For one, the news cycle on this will last, maybe, a day with FoxNews trying to resuscitate it for about a week. Secondly, I think the numerous actual laws passed and proposed will be of more interest to women who are concerned about having a required and unnecessary vaginal examination for a legal medical procedure. Finally, the perception of Republicans as being hostile to women's rights will need more than one comment from someone outside the Obama campaign to change.

 

he knows as much as ann romney yes.

rich people can't for a second know how it feels to be in other people's shoes no matter what their experience?

bullshit. if the romneys were middle class with mom staying home there is zero chance she would have said this. it's all class envy and this theory that obama loves to project that the rich are sitting around doing nothing all day and living like scrooge mcduck.

 

I believe women should have equal rights, but that's not what the feminist party wants.

 

And, out of curiosity, what is your interpretation of the goals of the feminist party (there's a feminist party?) and how have they damaged this country?

 

My phone is not cooperating, but i am eager to respond droski

 

I prefer the term feminazi.

JMO IMO VFL GBO

 

The original feminists wanted equality for women; they did not want extra rights for women, nor to take rights away from men. In the eyes of a growing number of people, modern feminism has taken the banner of equality, and used it as a smokescreen for radical activities.

 

And what are these extra rights or rights taken away from men that I'm not familiar with?

 

My personal favorite feminazi stat was when in college one said with a straight face that 75% of all sexual encounters were rape.

 

This is moving the goal posts and ignoring the setting in which this occurred. What she believes in so far as what rich people can and can not know is irrelevant.

Romney, in response to criticism about him not being in touch with regular Americans, says he uses his wife as a touchstone for knowing what issues average American women care about.

Rosen points out that Ann Romney, a wealthy stay at home mom, doesn't know much more about every day women than her husband would.

Enter shit storm.


The whole point here was simply that Romney claiming to have insight into a group of people he isn't even denying he is separated from by an exceptional socioeconomic situation by speaking to his obviously equally socioeconomically exceptional wife who does not share the same concerns as women who balance work and family life (that is "work" in the employed outside the home sense, not in a "does a damn thing, contributes to society" way. Just to avoid another bullshit tsunami). Romney isn't claiming to be "one of the people" because he knows that wouldn't sell. But holding up his wife as his conduit to them makes no sense. It was merely poor wording that has hurt Rosen, since her phrase was an accidental double entrendre for the rather chauvinist and anachronistic point of view that stay at home moms were doing "nothing."

Obviously, she wasn't saying that given she WAS a stay at home mom. Obviously, the real point is a tit-for-tat, turning of the tables on her and her ilk-- as evidence from your remark here about what you truly think: that her comment was actually about "class warfare."

Well, no shit. So why have you been pretending like it was about women being free to stay home and raise their children, and be valued for it? It's underhanded and intellectually dishonest for all the media, the conservatives, and even the spineless Dems who would rather go with the hysteria than lose popularity and dumb voters by fighting it to act like THAT is what she was saying when she clearly, as you yourself just said, was actually talking about Ann Romney's economic situation.

This is the kind of double-speak phony drama troupe shit that everyone claims they hate about American politics, but keep falling in to. Hilary Rosen included, as she is obviously on the giving rather than taking side most of the time. In fact, it is more or less what got her into this mess.

 

Few points.

1. Background of person making the statement. Let's face it, there are many others who could have said it, even Democrats, and not a word would have been said. Rosen cannot make this statement and get away with it.

2. Tone she said it. A angry/looking-down on approach doesn't help her case.

3. The fact in her apologies she never actually showed an remorse for what was said. Her original rebuttal was (and is to some extent has remained) that the point she was making is being lost. When she finally "apologized", it was the "I'm being forced to apologize and really don't mean it" apology.

At the end of the day, perception is reality. This is how she's painted herself, and this is the lens through which she's going to be viewed. Fair or not, perception is reality.

 

1. What do you mean? What about her background?

2. Haha, tone? Okay. Weak, but okay.

3. Why should she be remorseful, exactly? She didn't say stay at home moms do nothing. Let me repeat: she did not say that. Those words are being funneled down her throat. [uck fay] ya, she doesn't mean it. She didn't say that. She is being misinterpreted and railroaded, as I outlined in my previous post. Why would a former stay at home mom rail against stay at home moms? Why? Explain that, and you may change my mind.

At the end of the day, perception is perception and reality is reality. Yes, she is definitely reaping what she has sown over the years. But if you think what she sows is bullshit, which I think you do, you can see why for consistency's sake I am not going along with the national circle-jerk on this.

 

Background - angry liberal feminazi [itch bay]. That's going to come across different than say, oh, Laura Bush.

Tone - you come across as an angry [itch bay], people will assume the worst.

If she initially comes out and humbly says "I did not mean she did not work. I can see how it could be interpreted that way, but I did not mean that and I sincerely apologize" then she probably gets a pass. Instead she comes out, continues fighting, and only makes herself look worse. And please, her being a stay at home mom is the essential equivalent of me losing my job and being a stay at home dad. No desire to actually do it full time, and only there because I don't have a job. Let's not pretend her time as one was her career choice #1.

 

so if ann romney was still rich and had say worked for 10 years in an office then her opinions matter? yes it's clearly class warfare, but rosen chose to use the "never worked a day in her life" as the talking point. it can both be a class warfare attack AND be an attack on stay at home moms. the two are not mutually exclusive.