The Ann Romney flap and women's roles

The flap over the Hilary Rosen comment about stay-at-home mom Ann Romney only exposes a deeper issue about self-sacrifice – for both men and women.

Credit: West Virginia Veterans' Legacy Project, Glenville State College/AP Photo
Women who worked at a World War II defense plant talk at a forum in Glenville, W.Va., on April 4. The forum featured several 'Rosie the Riveters.' An ongoing project seeks to identify women who served on the home front during World War II and help them share their experiences.

Presidential campaigns often put a mirror up to Americans and expose their unresolved social issues. Take, for example, the comment on CNN by Democratic activist Hilary Rosen about stay-at-home mom Ann Romney.

Her slip-of-the-tongue criticism of Ms. Romney’s economic judgment has unleashed not just a political storm but pent-up public anxieties over women’s roles – especially whether a full-time nurturer of children has less worth than a woman in the workplace.

The debate is a recurring one. Recall the storm over Hillary Rodham Clinton’s campaign comment in 1992 that “I could have stayed home and baked cookies and had teas, but what I decided to do was fulfill my profession.”

For almost every woman, that choice can still be difficult – despite decades of progress for women. And government may help or hinder their choices by, say, providing better access to day care or restricting birth-control choices.

Taken at a deeper level, this issue is not just about women or gender roles. Rather, everyone must find the right balance between sacrificing for others and pursuing goals that are not so selfless.  

Oddly enough, self-abnegation is quite common and may even be increasing.

Surveys of American college graduates find those who believe their community is more important than their job has doubled since 1982. And a 2011 global survey by a British charity group found that nearly half of all people had helped a stranger in the previous month – a much higher percentage than for those who gave money or volunteered. (The numbers for men and women were pretty close.)

Giving of one’s self is considered so sacrosanct that President Obama, in proposing the “Buffett rule” of a 30 percent tax on millionaires, made one exception: a deduction for charitable donations.

Genetic scientists keep trying to find an “altruism gene” that can explain unselfish behavior. They might do better by reading the 2010 book “American Grace” by scholars Robert Putnam and David Campbell.

In a survey, they found religious Americans are better neighbors and volunteer at much higher rates for both religious and secular causes than do secular Americans. The reason is not so much theology as the bonds of friendship and common values that compel the faithful to do good deeds, the survey found. In finding God’s love, they love one another.

Some feminist scholars contend that girls are raised in a culture that imposes an “ideology” of self-sacrifice upon them. Expose the imposition of being a caretaker and women will be free, they say. But that still does not resolve the choice of whether or how much one gives in life.

So the debate must go on, and in public during political campaigns. The “women” issues in politics, however, aren’t always just about women.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.