The Republican “war on women.” I don’t even want to address it further as it may tacitly legitimize the idea created by liberal fantasy and our president’s inability to win on his own merits.
“Man, I’ve sucked as President, but seriously, if you elect the Mormon, we’re screwed.”
They’re probably already printing t-shirts that say that.
But as I’ve argued many times, Republicans don’t have a monopoly on misogynists. In fact, the very core of what it means to be a liberal feminist is, in fact, it’s own war on women.
Hilary Rosen proves my point in her condescending and accusatory remarks on Ann Romney.
In case you missed it, Rosen blasted Mrs. Romney for “never working a day in her life.”
Let me use a quote from that HuffPost piece of self-ingratiating slop to explain why the left’s version of “feminism” is so dangerous.
Now let’s be clear on one thing. I have no judgments about women who work outside the home vs. women who work in the home raising a family. I admire women who can stay home and raise their kids full-time. I even envy them sometimes.
Except that’s not true. It’s obviously not true or she wouldn’t have ‘accused’ Mrs. Romney of never working a day in her life, as if that was some kind of pejorative.
Ann Romney is “only” a house keeper in the eyes of the feminist left, as if that’s some sort of curse.
Apparently no relationship can be equal so long as the man works and woman doesn’t, even if the woman would rather stay home and take care of the children.
It’s become inadequate for that to be the role of a woman in today’s society, like they’re acquiescing to the monarchical and paternalistic structures that somehow oppress them.
Never mind that Mrs. Romney has multiple sclerosis and a bout with breast cancer.
Equity in a relationship, in a household, is based on the relationship, not the income structure. Rosen’s last little quip about “envying” these women is a patronizing, arrogant and hypocritical sentiment considering when her and her former partner had children, Rosen did stay home with them.
Feminists have taken the structure of the household and deemed it unfit for public consumption. Women who want to be mothers, who want to stay home and spend time with their families, running the household, are told they shouldn’t.
It’s somehow been deemed mutually exclusive that a woman can be both independent and a full-time mom.
How can telling someone they should be ashamed for wanting something be considered anything other than suppressing those desires?
Who is fighting the war on women now?
Unfortunately it’s working for the left. Obama holds a massive lead in women voters, based mostly on the singular fact that Mitt Romney is a Republican, since everyone knows Republicans hate women.
Unfortunately this “war on women” rhetoric is working, even if the so-called war is certainly not a Republican issue, but rather one of American culture at its very foundation.
The left purports to be raising women out of some kind oppression, the same kind of condescending attitudes that allowed the American people to accept slavery of Africans and the conquest of the native people of the continent.
By saying someone else’s desired way of life is immoral simply because it doesn’t align with your own, you take a much stronger stance than any pro-life conservative could ever take.
True freedom, true gender equality, is allowing women to choose their path and being allowed to have that path respected, even if you disagree with it. But that’s not how the left works. You’re not free to choose what you want, you’re only “free” to choose what they want.
I’m pretty sure we call that fascism.
As an aside:
Rosen has to get a shot in on Romney, no matter how petty, for his history at Bain Capital, where apparently less than 10% of his senior workforce were women.
She dismisses Romney’s explanation that he couldn’t find more qualified female applicants as simple hogwash, disregarding the fact that only 17% of Chartered Financial Analyst charter holders in the U.S. are woman.
It’s hard to find hard numbers on just how big that staff was, but for the sake of argument, Bain now has 400 employees, but in 1990 it had just 115. So let’s say that in 1999, when Romney left Bain, it had 200 employees. If 10% of those employees were on his executive staff that’s 20 people (20 is probably too large a number, but we’ll use it for the sake of argument).
Ten percent of that is 2 women. If he’d hired just one more woman, he’d be at 15% and essentially would be the industry expectation for qualified female investment professionals. We’re going to bash him over the difference between one staff position based on a fact Rosen doesn’t cite?
(I haven’t been able to corroborate this fact either, although Romney, as she mentions, addressed it in his 1994 Senate run)