Ann Romney is the quintessential political wife. She’s beautiful, polished, graceful and cunningly intelligent. She is also the worst role model for our American daughters since the Octomom. As the campaign season opens full throttle, Ann Romney is On Our Radar.
Last week, Ann and Mitt Romney wanted us to praise them for making multimillion-dollar contributions to their church that they neglected to mention went to fund anti-gay causes. This week, in their speeches at the Republican National Convention, Ann and Mitt tried to sell us the fiction that their’s is the perfect partnership. What they didn’t say is that Ann, by virtue of her sex, is the junior partner, because in the Mormon view, that’s the way God has ordained it.
Did you know that Mormons believe whether or not a woman is allowed in heaven is up to her husband?
A few months ago, Ann Romney set off a skirmish in the War on Women when she reacted indignantly to Democratic pundit Hilary Rosen’s observation that Ann has never worked a day in her life. Ann and the FOX chorus decried Rosen, psychoanalyzed her lesbian lifestyle, and declared motherhood is indeed the hardest “work” there is. At the time, most liberals thought that comment was a function of Ann’s wealth. It seemed so obvious to the Left that if you have never held a paying job, you simply don’t know what the experience is like. It would be like a straight person claiming to be an authority on what it feels like to be gay.
The dust-up engendered a few days of an #AskAnn hashtag on Twitter, where people posed questions intended to highlight their skepticism about Ann being the right person for the role of the liaison between working women and the Romney campaign. They asked some interesting questions, everything from, “Do you know where to find all-night daycare if a job on the better paying night-shift opens up?” to “What do you do when your uninsured sister begs to use your health insurance card because she found a lump in her breast?”
Personally, I thought Ann might have been equating “childcare,” which most working mothers outsource out of necessity, and “motherhood” which is the same for all mothers no matter who changes the diapers, or for that matter, who gave birth to the child. If Ann wants credit for the lice removal and the potty training, I, for one, am willing to offer it. But chaperoning a rowdy kindergartner on a trip to the to zoo, is not at all equal to trying to tape the Republican Convention for CNN while conventioneers are throwing peanuts at you. Work and full-time parenting are both commendable endeavors, and I think it would be wonderful if all women were financially able to choose whichever path makes them happy, but they are simply not the same experience.
Did you know Mormon sons are not taught to do household chores? Cleaning up after sons is considered the job of the mother until they marry, and then their wives are expected to serve as their handmaidens.
Now that we have had time to get to know Ann better, It turns out both of those conclusions may have been wrong. Ann, the stay-at-home mom, was not pretending to understand the problems of working women. She was also not using the word “motherhood” interchangeably with “childcare.” Ann was being faithful to a tenant of the Mormon Church; bearing children is the main purpose of a woman.
In the Mormon view, and the Romney view, full-time motherhood is what God wants all women to do. The more babies the better. Bearing children is the gold standard, and women who work at anything else are on the second tier of female humanity and not assured of a place in heaven. Go back and watch Ann’s convention speech, you’ll find she speaks about women only in terms of their family relationships, “We’re the mothers, we’re the wives, we’re the grandmothers and big sisters. We’re the little sisters and we are the daughters. I love you women!” Never once did she identify women as people in our own right. It is simply unimportant to her that we’re the CEOs, or we’re the Marine pilots, or we’re the hedge fund managers.
Did you know in the Mormon Church a woman seeking to end her marriage is assumed to be an adulteress and must provide the male temple elders a written account of her sexual encounters before being granted a divorce? (Men have no such requirement.)
Ask about the “War on Women” the Republicans have agreed upon a strategy of disbelief in any such organized pogrom, followed by a quick change of subject to “What women really care about is jobs.” They seem convinced women will vote to trade away control over their bodies if they are distracted by the shiny hope of a bigger paycheck. There is some irony in that strategy, since their usual game plan is to use social issues to keep people from voting their pocketbooks. Meanwhile, abortion rights are being eroded all over the country.
I am an equal opportunity religious skeptic. Whatever gets you through the night, I am not only ok with, l will fight for your right to believe it – right up to the point it bleeds into the right of the rest of us to live in reality. It sounds hyperbolic to warn that today’s attempt to deny women contraception access could be tomorrow’s campaign for clitorectomies, and yet, in Texas, the state has given itself the power to penetrate a woman against her will, which is also the legal definition of sodomy. It can happen here.
I do not want my daughter to garner praise for being a brood mare. I don’t want her spending her days waiting on her children or her husband. And incidentally, I don’t want my grandsons to grow up helpless and clueless being waited upon by mommy. Ann Romney is the antithesis of the modern woman. She is everything we don’t want our daughters to be. With the possible exception of Michele Bachmann, I can’t think of a worse female role model in the political sphere.
The Romneys don’t talk about their faith for the same reason they don’t talk about their taxes; we would be appalled if we knew what festered behind the veil. Ann Romney is but a watery consomme to Michelle Obama’s warm chicken noodle soup. (With homegrown vegetables.) Let’s hope we have but two more months to keep Mrs. Romney On Our Radar.
Jean Ann Esselink is straight friend to the gay community. Proud and loud Liberal. Closet writer of political fiction. Black sheep agnostic Democrat from a conservative Catholic family. Living in Northern Oakland County Michigan with Puck the Wonder Beagle.
Follow me on Twitter as @Uncucumbered or friend me on Facebook.
Radar Image courtesy of freedigitalphotos.net
Friends:
We invite you to sign up for our new mailing list, and subscribe to The New Civil Rights Movement via email or RSS.
Also, please like us on Facebook, and follow us on Twitter!
{ 29 comments }
I can't help but speculate that Ann may have had some assistance in the form of nannies, housekeepers, drivers etc., in the raising of her family, which, while it may provide her with some minimal "job creator" experience, hardly puts her in the same situation that most mothers are in. I would love to see some reporting on that.
Funny, I originally wrote the line >>If Ann wants credit for the lice removal and the potty training, I, for one, am willing to offer it>> as <<If Ann wants credit for ordering the maid to do lice removal and letting the nanny know it's time for potty training, I, for one, am willing to offer it.>> but I decided it was too snarky.
This has been commented on by many in the family. There were no nannies involved in the raising of Romney children. The Romney's were not extremely wealthy when their kids were young. They started out in the same basement apartment that many of us have started in. No story there. sorry.
Yes the Romney's were dirt-poor. The poor things had to live off of Mitt's stock. Neither of them worked a day while at BYU and the amount of stock that they lived off of was a mere (conservative estimate of) $60,000 in 1969 dollars (about $377,000 today). Those poor kids. However did they make it out of the hole.
The picture at the top of this article is beautiful, and speaks much more eloquently than Ann Romney's detractors could ever hope to do.
The Culture of Death truly hates life, and families, and children gathered.
Why?
Not sure how you get "Culture of Death", hate of family, life, or gathered children from this article?? It mentions none of these things or even anything remotely close to them. Did you read it, or did you just look at the picture and make up your own article?
I appreciate that.
"Ann Romney is the antithesis of the modern woman. She is everything we don’t want our daughters to be. With the possible exception of Michele Bachmann, I can’t think of a worse female role model in the political sphere."
You mean that part?
Please see comment above and answer the question.
I am honestly curious.
Why does the Culture of Death hate life, famiolies, and children so much, as to say that:
"Ann Romney is the antithesis of the modern woman. She is everything we don’t want our daughters to be. With the possible exception of Michele Bachmann, I can’t think of a worse female role model in the political sphere"?
Posing the question as you did suggests you mean to brand the author with the label "culture of death". But since it tends to be right-leaning people who support the death penalty and armed incursions into other nations, it would seem that they are the ones who support a "culture of death" … so please clarify what you think you mean by that cute but useless term.
Once again, I do not see how you are getting "culture of death, hate of life, families, and children" from that statement regarding Ann Romney, nor anything else contained in this article. Regardless of your political point of view or spiritual beliefs, I am calling you out on a simple matter of logic, basic reading comprehension and cognitive ability. You are not making any sense and are inventing ideas that aren't even mentioned in this article.
You make some very bizarre leaps in your mental gymnastics that frankly I do not think anyone else understands except for you. While most people go from point A to point B you are taking a detour and ending up at the square root of yellow. I do not say the following to shame you, nor am I name-calling, but the only times I have seen this type of scattered, illogical thought pattern has been in my patients who suffer from some form of paranoid schizophrenia. Again, I am not saying this to be mean spirited, but if comprehension and rational analysis is consistently difficult for you, I hope you will consider discussing this with your doctor, as it could be a result of anything from mental illness to a brain tumor. There are numerous tests you can take, and help is readily available. Good luck and God bless!
Doc, thank you. I have often been diagnosed variously in these sorts of chats and am always impressed by such an ability- to diagnose telepathically.
OK then.
Let's try A to B.
There exists a picture at the top of this article.
It is beautiful. I found myself thinking how blessed that family was, to be gathered together, all those youngsters, such fruitfulness and such abundant life.
Then I read the article and confronted someone who thought this was dangerous, horrible, ugly……….well.
You have obviously read it for yourself.
So my question is:
Why?
Why does this family, these children, this grandmother, this grandfather, evoke such distaste, such disdain?
Can you please answer me this time?
Folks, bsradar like to stir the pot here. He or she has, in my opinion, few actual valid contributions to make, but, rather, prefers to hang out and call people names and waste your time. Feel free to engage if you have nothing better to do. For a review of their comments: Google this:
bsradar site :http://thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/
Or visit their blog: http://magisterialfundies.blogspot.com
Thanks for the plug, David.
Didn't you just LOVE Ann's rhetorical question did she and Mittens have an "ideal marriage," followed by her statement that no, but they had a "real marriage." What other kind is there, Ann? Statistically, all of those grandchildren, you know one or two will be gay or lesbian. If they have the misfortune to go to Brigham Young University in Salt Lake City, run by the Mormon church, they will be bullied into submission, behavior therapy employed to rid them of their affliction, on pain of being tortured — yes, tortured: see the Prop 8 movie if you don't believe me. The LDS hierarchy was responsible for a whale's share of the money that went into funding the initiative, but the hypocritical church made sure that front groups like N.O.M. took all the heat since it didn't look very compassionate of them to deny to some rights they enjoy themselves. Ann then explained as to how Mittens visited her in church each time she had a baby. We all know what happens to some gay and lesbian people when they try to visit their partner in a hospital, don't we?
My children go to BYU and they love it. I can guarantee you that there is no 'bullying into submission ' involved. Where do people get this stuff??!!
You are right on about the Mormons funding anti-gay initiatives, I think you would appreciate last week's column, about how Mitt and Ann want adulation for the millions they gave to the Mormon Church, which the Church used to fund Prop 8 and gay reparative therapy. http://tinyurl.com/9pu84tx or just click on the first blue words in the first paragraph of this piece above, where it says << went to fund anti-gay causes >> I'd like to hear what you think of it. We are definitely on the same page.
The Romney's have never once spoken about the money they give to charity. Not sure why you would comment that they want adulation for it. Their generosity does, however, stand in STARK contrast with the 'generosity' of our current President and Vice President.
You are mistaken about the Romney's never speaking about their contributions to the Mormon Church. I can think of many occasions, most notably when Ann said she cried for joy at the sight of the checks and Mitt replying, he cried too but for another reason. If you want more examples I will be glad to provide you with links.
Those of us committed to the defense of marriage in this nation can certainly appreciate your anecdote above, uncucumbered.
From both sides
I had to laugh at your comments on the Mormon church, most of it couldn't be farther from the truth. My four sons will be surprised to learn that they are not required to help with household chores. Lets wait to tell them until after they have finished cleaning the bathrooms, shall we?
I have to hand it to you, this article is wrong on so many levels that it is truly a feat of impressiveness.
Yep, this is a criticism.
" Ann was being faithful to a tenant of the Mormon Church…"
Tenants rent. Tenets tell you what to do. Please make a note of it.
ten·et
[ten-it; Brit. also tee-nit] Show IPA
noun
any opinion, principle, doctrine, dogma, etc., especially one held as true by members of a profession, group, or movement.
This is the kind of yellow journalism that I have come to expect of the Republican party, and you do Barack Obama a disservice writing this kind of crap. This kind of shoddy journalism is more likely to win votes for the Republicans as people recoil at the outrageous hatred spewed here. I see so much of this from the tea party, I'm always saddened to see this type of stuff coming from what should be the progressive side. I'm wondering if anyone knows what good journalism is anymore. I'm LDS, a liberal Democrat, (as are the Mormon Dems led by Harry Reid who are gathering in caucus at the Democratic Convention right now), and I am also a mom of a LGBT person. LDS beliefs are grossly misrepresented in this article as are the LDS people, who typically perform extraordinary acts of unselfish service and more than a few are friends, parents, brothers, sisters of LGBT people, like anyone else. There are many good POLITICAL reasons to oppose Mitt Romney. You didn't offer any of them. No I don't want to "follow" you on any media, you are a lousy writer and a shallow thinker.
First, "diagnosis" is not being done telepathically. Telepathy implies that communication is being done directly from one mind to another without written or spoken words. Also at no point did I diagnose you. I said pretty clearly that you should discuss the matter with your doctor, and said so because you are having apparent manifestations, which is typical of paranoid schizophrenics and a few other psychological or physical illnesses. You are either making things up on purpose, which is indicative of a sociopath, or you are having severe cognitive disorders, such as hallucinations. (Hallucinations in that you are apparently seeing words on this page that no one else is seeing). If either of those are the case, they are not your fault and can be medically treated. Again, I am suggesting you talk to your doctor.
As for your hallucination—can you show us where the author is discussing the above photo at all? Aside from talking about Ann Romney as a poor role model and a mention of Mitt in a couple places, no one else who is in the photo is even discussed. Also, I didn't see any mention of the Romney's family structure being "dangerous", "horrible" or "ugly". The only place those words even exist on this page are in your post, and in mine, here, where I just quoted you. Those are your words and they are not even remotely close to what the author has written. I am sorry, but the author does in no, way shape or form "evoke distaste or disdain" for "the family, these children, the grandmother, the grandfather". The author says she does not believe that women should be subservient to men, she says that she wants her daughter to be more than just a housewife. She does not want her daughter's primary value to be bearing children. Wanting one's children to be "more than" is hardly evoking disdain towards the Romney family. And these particular "more than"s are pretty common desires in modern, western society for our female children.
I think I have been pretty clear in answering your question: This family, these children, this grandmother, this grandfather do NOT evoke distaste or disdain, your assumption that they do is the problem, and the reason I questioned you in the first place. The author does not say anything even remotely close to this implication.There is is no support or evidence for your conclusion anywhere in her article.
Again, I am not arguing politics or party affiliation. I have not condoned or denied the authors point of view about Mrs. Romney as a role model. My rebuttal towards you is due to your impaired cognitive ability, lack of basic reading comprehension skills and my concern for you therein.
OK then, Doc.
Since you raised the topics of reading comprehension and cognitive abilities, I will go ahead and present you with an exercise involving both.
Here is an excerpt from the above related article, which, by the way, involves a remarkable, quite beautiful photograph, presumably chosen by the author of the piece, at its head:
"Ann Romney is the antithesis of the modern woman. She is everything we don’t want our daughters to be. With the possible exception of Michele Bachmann, I can’t think of a worse female role model in the political sphere."
Now I have asked a number of times, and I will ask once more, to honor the spirit of reading comprehension and cognitive abilities:
Why? Why is this woman, seen above surrounded by her beautiful grandchildren, someone whom the author cannot imagine a "worse female role model"?
Why is this woman "the antithesis of the modern woman…….everything we don’t want our daughters to be"?
This, in closing, situates our discussion back on its original foundation, concerning my observations about a strange, anti-marriage, anti-childbearing, pro-abortion Culture of Death.
Read, and exercise those cognitive abilities, and let me know, please, at last.
First off I have answered your main question a few times now: You are jumping to conclusions that a rational person cannot jump to based on the author's words presented in this article. For example, If an article is talking about puppies, you can not just come in and start drawing conclusions about parakeets when parakeets are never mentioned.
For your new question: "Why? Why is this woman, seen above surrounded by her beautiful grandchildren, someone whom the author cannot imagine a "worse female role model"? "
According to the author it is because Mrs. Romney has not worked a paying job a day in her life. Her job is one of housewife and mother. She is completely dependent on her husband and is subservient to him. Though being a wife and mother is work, it is not practical for most modern women, whose families are dependent on two incomes. Most modern women do not have the luxury of being a stay at home mom, and they are taught they should have career aspirations as well as familial ones. They must work a paying job as well as raise this children. Women are no longer looked upon as being subservient to their husbands in most modern, western homes. Young women are now taught that they are equal to men. For a young girl to look up to Ann Romney as a role model would mean the girl is being taught to be dependent and submissive to her husband. She is also being taught that she should not have a career of her own. For these reasons, the author argues, Mrs. Romney is an extremely poor role model for young, modern women. Again, according to the author, Ann Romney is the antithesis of the modern woman because she has not ever had to work a paying job, she is subservient to her partner, and she is dependent on him for her food, shelter, clothing and everything else that requires money. Modern women in western society have their own careers, AND raise their children. They are equal to their partner in the family structure, and not subservient. According to the author Ann Romney is, by definition, the antithesis of these things.
And yes, again we are back where we started. You are inventing this idea that the author is anti-marriage, anti-child bearing, and pro-abortion, when that information is not mentioned anywhere in this article. I don't see how, by any stretch of the imagination, you are finding any of the author's words, or the ideas presented, to be "anti-marriage, anti-childbearing, pro-abortion". Yet again you are fabricating imaginary text that is not in the article. Nowhere did this article say that people should not get married, nor did it say anywhere that people should start getting divorced. Nowhere did the author tell women not to have children, nor did she say to get rid of the children they have. She even discusses her wishes for her own daughter, which would imply the exact opposite of "anti-child bearing", and nowhere in this article did the author suggest that anyone should have an abortion. There was no mention of abortion at all. Yet, for some reason you are apparently seeing these words when no one else sees them.
"Mrs. Romney has not worked a paying job a day in her life."
>> Yes, she was busy raising the children who in turn have begotten the incredibly beautiful, hopeful, and happy children we see gathered in the photo.
But my question was *why*, Scoot.
*Why" should the fact that Mrs. Romney stayed at home and raised her children somehow evidence that she is "the worst role model imaginable", "the antithesis of the modern woman", "everything we do not want our daughters to be"?
Are you saying that the traditional family is then worst thing imaginable, that mothers raising children full time is somehow "the antithesis of the modern woman", that motherhood is "everything we do not want our daughters to be"?
That sounds like an incredibly disoriented view of marriage, children, and family, Scoot.
It sounds like a strange, anti-mother, anti-childrearing, anti-family Culture of Death.
"Though being a wife and mother is work, it is not practical for most modern women, whose families are dependent on two incomes"
>> Then it seems to me that a Culture of Life would be busy getting the decent, high-paying jobs that we once had, where one income was enough to support the family.
Instead, you seem to want children to be left unmothered, so that everyone can go out and help bail out the usurious bankers.
I think you have it exactly backwards here.
" Most modern women do not have the luxury of being a stay at home mom, and they are taught they should have career aspirations as well as familial ones"
>> No, that is not what the authors states. The author states that our stay at home Mom is "the antithesis of the modern woman", the worst role model imaginable", "everything we do not want our daughters to be".
So I askl again- do you suffer from reading difficulties?
Or is it that you are challenged in the area of cognitive skills?
Your words above do not comport with the content of the article, and hence do you mean to say you do not agree with the quoted excerpts, or that you do agree with them, and do not believe the contrary positions you state above?
"You are inventing this idea that the author is anti-marriage, anti-child bearing, and pro-abortion, when that information is not mentioned anywhere in this article."
>>Since the author states that a mother who stays home to raise her kids is "the worst role model imaginable", that "I do not want my daughter to garner praise for being a brood mare", and that she supports "abortion rights" that "are being eroded all over the country", I'd say we have pretty well established where the reading comprehension and cognitive abilities difficulties reside in this discussion.
But thanks for the exchange.
"Yes, she was busy raising the children who in turn have begotten the incredibly beautiful, hopeful, and happy children we see gathered in the photo."
>>And most modern women in western society not only do this, but they also have there own careers and lives outside the home.
*Why" should the fact that Mrs. Romney stayed at home and raised her children somehow evidence that she is "the worst role model imaginable", "the antithesis of the modern woman", "everything we do not want our daughters to be"?
>>Again, most modern women are not subservient to, nor dependent on their husbands, and to be so is not what most modern parents want for their daughters.
Are you saying that the traditional family is then worst thing imaginable, that mothers raising children full time is somehow "the antithesis of the modern woman", that motherhood is "everything we do not want our daughters to be"?
>>I never said anything close to a "traditional family being the worst thing imaginable. As you are so prone to do, you are again creating words that do not exist. And, as I clearly answered in my last post, yes, according to the author, Ann Romney is the antithesis of the modern woman. I also said nothing close to your statement "motherhood is 'everything we do not want our daughters to be'. As I have fully explained to you now twice, modern women are expected to be MORE THAN just mothers. They are expected to be mothers AND have careers, and lives outside of the home. How you draw an "anti-motherhood" conclusion from that is beyond me. But I have come to expect hallucination from you, so I am not surprised by your comment.
"Then it seems to me that a Culture of Life would be busy getting the decent, high-paying jobs that we once had, where one income was enough to support the family.
Instead, you seem to want children to be left unmothered, so that everyone can go out and help bail out the usurious bankers."
>>Not really sure what a "Culture of Life" is, since we are all alive. If you can find a way to get people decent-high paying jobs that would allow for single family incomes- please share that information with all of us! However, back in the world of reality, most modern families need the income from both parents. And surprise you again start making up comments that were never said or eluded to…How exactly are children being "left unmothered" if both parents have their own careers? Does the mother just go off to work and never return to see her children again? Is a mother only a mother if she is a stay-at-home mom who is subservient to her husband? I think the majority of the minor population in the US would be surprised to learn that they are "unmothered".
"No, that is not what the authors states. The author states that our stay at home Mom is "the antithesis of the modern woman", the worst role model imaginable", "everything we do not want our daughters to be"
So I askl again- do you suffer from reading difficulties?
Or is it that you are challenged in the area of cognitive skills?"
The author most certainly does say this about modern women. She says,
"Never once did she (Ann Romney) identify women as people in our own right. It is simply unimportant to her that we’re the CEOs, or we’re the Marine pilots, or we’re the hedge fund managers." In saying this, the author is defining the modern woman as someone who both raises her children and has a career.
And for the last time, whether I agree with the author or not- that is not the point. My only point throughout this entire conversation has been that you are inventing words and concepts that the author does not discuss in any way.
First, she does not say that a mother who stays home to raise her kids is "the worst role model imaginable". That is you who is making the implication that any old mother who stays home with her kids is a poor role model.. The author is pretty specific in saying that Ann Romney is "the worst role model imaginable". Are you saying you want your daughter to be a "brood mare"— a female whose only value is having babies? It is not anti-child bearing to say this. The author wants her children to have children, but she wants them to be more than just a subservient, breeding machine.
When the author says, "abortion rights are being eroded all over the country", she is making a factual statement. Nowhere does she say that women should go out and have an abortion. Again, this is something you are adding that does not exist in the article.
"I'd say we have pretty well established where the reading comprehension and cognitive abilities difficulties reside in this discussion."
We certainly have.
And you are quite welcome.
Comments on this entry are closed.