No doubt, Hillary Rosen put her foot in her mouth. Whether or not she meant what she said about Ann Romney never having “worked a day in her life,” she quickly recognized the implications against herself and her party’s platform and apologized for her remarks. She then declared peace in the “phony war on women,” after she was all but ostracized by the party’s elite.
That could’ve been the end of it. Sure, Republicans would have continued to use that moment to point out a hypocrisy in the Democrat party; women–especially stay-at-home moms–probably would have kept this comment in the back of their minds, perhaps even swaying a few Obama supporters toward the Republican nominee. But it would have been so easy to declare this obvious gaffe the opinion of one person who spoke either mistakenly or out of turn.
But since Rosen’s apology to Ann Romney, many prominent liberals have insisted on defending her and thereby perpetuated the conversation, and have reignited on their own side “the phony war.” Joy Behar went out of her way on The View–and notably clashed with her co-hosts–to defend Rosen’s remarks and actually applied the same douceur de vivre to all political femes covert by saying “she’s the wife of a politician; very few of them actually work for a living.” (Presumably, she doesn’t believe this to be true in the case of Michelle Obama?)
The Washington Post ran columns Thursday and Friday supporting the claim. Ruth Marcus, a Harvard Law graduate and friend to Hilary Rosen, said Rosen erred only in “formulation” and “phraseology.” What Rosen should’ve said, writes Marcus, is that Mrs. Romney has never worked “outside the home,” a motion that TIME Magazine’s Judith Warner doubles. However, it remains true, says Marcus,
“that Ann Romney’s experience is far from typical, that she has not grappled with the economic and family issues that face many women today… She’s never had to worry about the price of a gallon of gas as she filled up the Cadillacs. She is at the tail end of a generation that did not agonize over the choice of whether to stay at home with the kids[,] and from an economic platform that gave her the luxury of making that choice.”
In other words, Ann Romney is not just a stay-at-home mom; she is an old and rich stay-at-home mom (who probably does nothing more than eat bon-bons and watch soap operas all day). Therefore she cannot pretend to know what Modern Woman is facing in this cruel world.
This is simply a subdivision in the divide-and-conquer strategy, and it has absolutely no philosophical merit. Surely one doesn’t need to experience water-boarding to argue against it. Surely, Angelina Jolie needn’t live in famine to advocate feeding the Somalis. Surely Michelle Obama needn’t be recovering from morbid obesity to encourage healthy eating. Marcus–and many Rosen defenders–confuse or conflate sympathy and empathy.
Not to be outdone, Dr. Linda Hirshman–a retired professor of philosophy, and author of Get to Work: A Manifesto for Women of the World and Hard Bargains: The Politics of Sex–ran her defense of Ms. Rosen in the Washington Post the following day in an article titled “Hilary Rosen was right: Ann Romney has never worked a day in her life:”
“Although Ann Romney may be a fine spokesperson on some issues, the dirty little secret of angling for female votes is that while all women’s work, inside or outside the home, has the same worth…all women do not have the same interests. Women who work in the home do not have the same interest in the recovery of the formal job market as women who have to work for pay. Indeed, wage-earning women probably have more in common with their paycheck-dependent male co-workers on the subject of economic recovery than with household laborers such as Ann Romney.”
Dr. Hirshman contends that Mrs. Romney should restrict herself to speaking on matters common to all women (reproductive issues and breast cancer awareness) rather than on issues in which she has no personal experience. (This argument makes me wonder how Dr. Hirshman may write about Ann Romney’s situation at all, since Dr. Hirshman has never been a presidential candidate’s wife. It also appears that Dr. Hirshman believes Mitt Romney has more in common with “wage-earning” women than does his wife.)
Not only does Dr. Hirshman confuse empathy and sympathy, but she concludes–falsely–that women who stay at home do not work for pay. True, they may not get paid by someone outside the family, and they may not get paid in US currency–one fungible representation of worth–but they are paid in other ways. They may receive food, clothing, shelter, transportation, entertainment, security, and some other tangible or intangible property of value. (This is also true for stay-at-home dads, lest someone believe this assertion sexist.) Women–and men–who work outside the family merely trade their services in exchange for a medium that can provide these properties. Women–and men–who work inside the family similarly trade their services in exchange for these properties. The distinction without a difference between the two categories is only the inter-medium of currency.
Finally (the most amusing), Michael Moore remarked through Twitter on Friday, “Stop attacking [Hilary Rosen] for clumsily speaking the TRUTH: The Romneys don’t have a CLUE what working OR stay-home moms go thru.” (I am sure Mr. Moore is an expert on working AND stay-home moms.)
This could have all gone away. But liberals–either because they can’t admit they might be wrong on this issue, or they really believe a woman’s virtue is determined more by the method of her reward than the character of her motives–insist on defending someone who has herself admitted her mistakes.
This is in stark contrast to the Rush Limbaugh controversy, which arguably went away rather quickly after Rush’s apology. Sure, there were fringe conservatives who repeated with glee the ad hominem and much more offensive attacks on Sandra Fluke, but no prominent conservative defended his remarks as accurate. No, Sarah Palin didn’t either. She simply defended his right to exercise free speech.
I gladly will do likewise for these liberal advocates. Please continue to exercise your free speech by defending Hilary Rosen; because at the end of the day, it’s an argument that makes you look ridiculous, and you are allowing the narrative to continue until election day.
