Wow.
So many readers of my last blog post thought I was endorsing Rick Santorum, his policy prescriptions and all the anti-gay and anti-women statements he has made when I wrote that I'd miss him in the presidential contest.
Not at all.
As I wrote, I don't agree with his policy prescriptions, but I wish that we had people in both presidential campaigns who are forcing our country to confront the hard issues of how we raise our children and support our families at a time of growing single-parent households and growing childhood poverty.
Case in point: The inane media debate over who works harder -- stay-at-home mothers or mothers who work outside the home -- and the fact that less than a week later, it seems to be over.
Remember how this started: Mitt Romney deferred a question from the audience about women struggling in this economy, saying that his wife, Ann, has been hearing more from women than he has, creating the impression that as the Republican's likely presidential nominee, he didn't have an independent thought on the matter.
Hilary Rosen then stepped in and threw gasoline on the long-smoldering debate about the value of stay-at-home moms versus "working" mothers, by suggesting Ann Romney was hardly an expert on the issue. President Obama's response? All mothers should be respected and presidential spouses should be off limits (even when they are out there campaigning).
So, does this mean Romney and Obama are now debating what we should do to enable more women to stay at home? Are they debating how to better support women who must, or choose to, enter the workforce? Are they debating what we should do to provide greater economic security for women who still face a pay gap in our country?
No, no, and no.
They are trying to get away from these issues as fast as possible while their surrogates are out there talking about who values mothers more.
To be sure, President Obama has released a report on his accomplishments in supporting working women. And there are parts of it that do help women in their dual role as breadwinners and caregivers. The most significant are improved economic security through greater access to health insurance and increases in federal child care funding for more children and families.
But the report ignores a fundamental problem that our country is facing -- how we support low and middle income single mothers and married mothers who must work to provide income for their families while providing care for their children. Consider these three facts:
So have President Obama and Mitt Romney offered up solutions to these problems?
Candidate Obama in 2008 suggested that he'd fight for paid sick days and paid family leave, but his list of accomplishments on workplace flexibility merely note that his administration wrote a report on the issue and hosted conversations around the country. More than conversations and reports, we need legislation and an insistence that we try to get in line with the rest of the developed world in offering paid family leave.
Also, we need to ensure that stay-at-home mothers receive credit toward Social Security so that they are not destitute in their senior years for staying out of the workforce to care for their family.
Mitt Romney? Well, he has said little other than he thinks low-income women should "learn the dignity of work" and that he'd support providing them with more child care support to do so.
The time has come to address these significant problems. Here's one approach: Kristen Rowe-Finkbeiner, co-founder of Moms-Rising, a group that fights for policies that help mothers and families, provides a great "to do" list for our Presidential candidates.
I have a few ideas for the presidential candidates, as well, summarized in a report released last week by the Center for American Progress endorsing a policy package that provides real support for both working mothers and stay-at-home mothers. With an accompanying report authored by my colleagues Heather Boushey and Sarah Jane Glynn, we recommend updating Social Security to include paid family leave to allow women to be out of the workforce for short periods of time to deal with the most pressing family issues, including the birth of a child, a seriously ill family member or a worker's own serious illness. And I recommend coupling this proposal with Social Security caregiving credits that would allow women to earn credits toward retirement security even while staying at home to care for their families. These policies truly value women's work, both in the home and in the labor force.
It's time to stop talking about who cares more about mothers and start putting policies in place that value women's work, no matter where it's carried out. That's going to help children derive the benefits of time and attention from their parents, far more than cynical debates that serve little purpose other than to score political points.
Follow Ann O'Leary on Twitter: www.twitter.com/@Ann_Oleary
Romney campaign attaches Hilary Rosen remarks to all Democrats
Drop those spatulas; end the Mommy Wars
Ding, Ding: Round Three of Mommy Wars
Ruth Marcus: Let's explore candidates' views for substance, not political points
Avoiding the Buffett Rule, Mitt Romney on Lilly Ledbetter and more [AM Briefing]
Secret Service Sex Scandal, Hilary Rosen-gate, and Five Obama Mistakes That ...
If you want anything at all to pass Congress that supports women, then there must be a Democratic majority in both houses, and a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate. Anything short of that, and any 'pro-woman' legislation that you might conceive of is dead on arrival.
Better get to work, huh?
jerryforcongress2012.com/
Yes, there will always be someone out there who just wants to suck the life force out of the tax payer, and won't want to do their part to improve their own life, but these are not the majority of the poor mothers or fathers out there. Not the majority at all.
Republicans have for many, many years tried to tie all poverty stricken people to their blind, ignorant stereotypes. It's time for that to stop.
Claiming that 'it doesn't mattter' is a sure loss.
As far as Mrs Romney being a work-at-home mother, I am curious if she was in fact the sole participant in raising the children and running the household, or if she had staff to assist (butlers, nannies, cooks, etc). Also, having the amount of money available to her, as well as the benefits that go with it, would certainly make her much more able to handle child rearing issues much more easily then someone who is a single parent who is trying to work several jobs in order to keep food on the table and the kids treated medically (vision & dental included).
Instead of backpeddling when attacked by the right wing wind machine about what was said by Ms Rosen, the liberal/progressive left should of used that opening to find out exactly how much parenting Mrs Romney actually did do. (Really, I *am* curious as to this).
There was an article on Mitt in the February, 2012 Vanity Fair by Michael Kranish and Scott Helman. In passing it describes the experiences of a young, female former Romney family nanny. Mitt tried to intimidate her into giving up her new baby for adoption.
You expected different?
This is a fair weather issue: Right now folks are happy to have a job at ANY pay rate.
Ann Romney thought she had received an early Birthday Gift (as if anyone knew it was her birthday and expected to offer her gifts).
There was never a sincere concern for the plight of mothers, stay at home, working or otherwise.
The Romneys are working very hard to be perceived as decent, caring, compassionate and reasonable people.
The only problem being that when you ARE decent, caring, compassionate and reasonable it shows - YOU DON'T HAVE TO WORK AT IT.
President Obama is two times more likable than Mitt Romney.
Voters are not fools. We know sincerity when we see it, and we know phony when we see it, too.
Else, how can so many Republicans ever get elected?
I understand that low and middle income single moms with children face unique problems. There is no need to argue the wisdom in helping these women, which would improve their lives and at the same time help their children.
Why not make this support non-gendered base? It does not make sense to exclude men from your proposals just because they are men. In fact the policy should be aimed at getting men to participate more in raising and caring for their children.
Hopefully you are not suggesting another layer of entitlement programs that rarely accomplish their goals but cost a small fortune.
If you found that out, you should be telling your female co-workers as that is illegal. If they have the same experience, qualifications and job position and they are not being paid equally, that's been illegal for decades and they have ever right to sue for the difference, plus interest over the years.
You spew equally many "facts" without backup. Do a google search for "young women paid more than men" it was an article in Time maybe 2 years ago that linked to the study. For the women being more risk averse and choosing flexibility over pay, once again google it, it isn't hard. These are things that are readily knowable and known for that matter by anyone who has a clue what they are talking about when it comes to pay issues. Check out basically any general cognitive psych book too.