Ann Romney drafted into new 'mommy wars' skirmish

Do we really have to refight the mommy wars? Ann Romney was a stay-at-home-mom with five boys, how does that not fit into the concept of 'work'?

Steven Senne/AP
Mitt Romney and Ann Romney at a campaign rally in Illinois March 20, 2012. She's been drafted into the 'mommy wars' for being a stay-at-home mom and not "working."

So, a day after we post about the end of the “mommy wars,” Ann Romney – wife of Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney – and Democratic strategist Hilary Rosen prove us wrong.

 During an interview on CNN yesterday, Ms. Rosen suggested to host Anderson Cooper that Ms. Romney should stay out of a growing campaign debate about the struggles of working women.

“Guess what, his wife has actually never worked in a day in her life,” Rosen said.

Sigh.

Really, Hilary? Do we have to play that way? 

Politics aside, I think a number of the sleep-deprived, oatmeal-covered moms taking care of their kids might disagree about that whole “work” concept. (Oh wait, that’s me this morning.) 

“I made a choice to stay home and raise five boys,” Romney responded quickly on Twitter – her debut on the social media site. “Believe me, it was hard work."

Five kids at home.  I shudder.

Rosen has clarified her point. All she was saying, Rosen explained, was that Mitt Romney probably shouldn’t be using his wife as his guide to women’s economic problems. 

“I’ve nothing against @AnnRomney,” she wrote on Twitter. “I just don’t want Mitt using her as an expert on women struggling $ to support their family. She isn’t.” And this: “When I said @AC360Ann Romney never worked I meant she never had to care for her kids AND earn a paycheck like MOST American women! #Truth”

Well, the political point might be a valid one to debate. (Not going there on this site.) But it would be kinda nice if we could stop throwing dirt and value judgments around on other moms – even in a presidential campaign.

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.