Thumpalumpacus wrote:Well, that must be enriching.

Thumpalumpacus wrote:Well, that must be enriching.
Now that's interesting.Ian wrote:I saw the story a bit differently. Sure, Rosen made herself look bad with a rather impolite comment, but who outside of diehard political junkies had even heard of Hilary Rosen before? That's why she was a good candidate to throw out a comment like that. Have a good look at this thread - the story's old compared to the typical news cycle, and people are still here debating what she meant, the merits of stay-at-home moms, etc. No doubt many other conversations like this have happened and are still happening around the country. That little comment sure had some legs. And the long-term effects? Ann Romney, who Mitt no doubt had counted on as using as a humanizing element towards voters and helping with the gender gap, is suddenly something of a controversial figure just as the general campaigning gets started. Most people didn't know much about her before (and still don't, really) but her public persona, fair or unfair, is now becoming defined - thanks largely to a quick comment made by Hillary Rosen.Coito ergo sum wrote:I know what she meant. But, I can't help but revel in the schadenfreude of someone essentially hoisted on their own petard.
I think it's entirely possible that Rosen's comments were well planned. Think of her like a suicide bomber; sure, she trashed her own reputation (for now, and only with some people), but it seems she also cause some serious damage to her target. The full effects of the damage may not be seen for months and will never really be quantifiable, but I'd say it's there.
To be fair, Ann Romney was getting paid for it. She got more money for being Mitt's wife and the mother of his kids than I'll probably ever earn.Coito ergo sum wrote:LOL -- who wants to bet whether kiki would say the same thing has a Republican made the unfortunate comment.kiki5711 wrote:It's not real work. And nobody told them to have 5 kids. It's borring as hell to do the same thing over every day, being in the house, cleaning and shit, listening to the kids whine, be their taxi. Talking kid talk and mommy talk. Give me a brake, it's brain jello life style.
I actually HAD to get a job to save my sanity.
Of course it's not real work. But, we've been told for a generation or more now that it IS real work. There are even feminist movements out there pushing for stay-at-home moms to receive wages for taking care of the kids they chose to have and the house they choose to live in.
Give me a fucking break with your sanctimony. You know as well as I do that the liberal and left line on this since the 70s has been that women staying at home ARE working and deserve even to get paid for it.
You think the Right's War on Women is a manufactured story? That ain't nothing compared to the so-called mommy wars.Also, there is a cultural war between working women and stay at home moms. Look at some of the women posting comments here just scorning stay at home moms -- brain dead work -- boring -- awful -- limiting -- no world experience -- women here are posting that they couldn't imagine being a homemaker and they are expressing a fairly common view among career women that stay at home moms are to be looked down upon. So, the still fairly large amount of women that stay at home for years to take care of kids tend to get peeved about that.
That isn't fair. That's not "getting paid" anymore than you sharing money with your spouse means you are "getting paid" or "paying him." Moreover, the kind of "getting paid" the the left has been carping about is a check from the State. Getting money from one's spouse is not the same or similar to earning money from someone else in an exchange of labor for pay.hadespussercats wrote:To be fair, Ann Romney was getting paid for it. She got more money for being Mitt's wife and the mother of his kids than I'll probably ever earn.Coito ergo sum wrote:LOL -- who wants to bet whether kiki would say the same thing has a Republican made the unfortunate comment.kiki5711 wrote:It's not real work. And nobody told them to have 5 kids. It's borring as hell to do the same thing over every day, being in the house, cleaning and shit, listening to the kids whine, be their taxi. Talking kid talk and mommy talk. Give me a brake, it's brain jello life style.
I actually HAD to get a job to save my sanity.
Of course it's not real work. But, we've been told for a generation or more now that it IS real work. There are even feminist movements out there pushing for stay-at-home moms to receive wages for taking care of the kids they chose to have and the house they choose to live in.
Give me a fucking break with your sanctimony. You know as well as I do that the liberal and left line on this since the 70s has been that women staying at home ARE working and deserve even to get paid for it.
Pretty much, yes. Do I acknowledge that there are extreme Christian conservatives who hold seriously sexist views and would like to see them implemented? Sure.hadespussercats wrote:You think the Right's War on Women is a manufactured story? That ain't nothing compared to the so-called mommy wars.Also, there is a cultural war between working women and stay at home moms. Look at some of the women posting comments here just scorning stay at home moms -- brain dead work -- boring -- awful -- limiting -- no world experience -- women here are posting that they couldn't imagine being a homemaker and they are expressing a fairly common view among career women that stay at home moms are to be looked down upon. So, the still fairly large amount of women that stay at home for years to take care of kids tend to get peeved about that.
To be fair, Ann Romney was getting paid for it. She got more money for being Mitt's wife and the mother of his kids than I'll probably ever earn
Coito ergo sum wrote:By that logic, anyone married to someone of means is "getting paid."
It's not being "paid." It's being married. My wife works. We're married. By your logic, she's "paying" me for what I do around the house.kiki5711 wrote:Coito ergo sum wrote:By that logic, anyone married to someone of means is "getting paid."
kind of obvious, you've never raised any kids or was a stay at home dad.
Coito ergo sum wrote:It's not being "paid." It's being married. My wife works. We're married. By your logic, she's "paying" me for what I do around the house.kiki5711 wrote:Coito ergo sum wrote:By that logic, anyone married to someone of means is "getting paid."
kind of obvious, you've never raised any kids or was a stay at home dad.
No, I work. However, working doesn't mean you don't take care of the house and kids too. My wife, in your view, is apparently paying me to do that.kiki5711 wrote:Coito ergo sum wrote:It's not being "paid." It's being married. My wife works. We're married. By your logic, she's "paying" me for what I do around the house.kiki5711 wrote:Coito ergo sum wrote:By that logic, anyone married to someone of means is "getting paid."
kind of obvious, you've never raised any kids or was a stay at home dad.
Ahhhh now I see why you're on line 24/7. Do you actually do any housework? Are there any kids to take care of?
The far right is interested in government payments directly to women to compensate for the work they do in the home and raising children? Proof?Svartalf wrote:Actualy, here, the left has been trying to push for large families by pushing up the "family allowance" (given strictly according to how many children still going to school are living with you)...
But the notion of institutin a "maternal wage" to encourage women to leave the workforce and stay home, that comes from the far right...
http://newsblaze.com/story/200812020633 ... story.htmlBut when Venezuela recently began making payments for women's housework under a landmark law
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 47 guests