In his speech to the Republican convention last night, Mitt Romney used some version of the word "mom" 14 times.
That was one more time than he said the word "Obama" or "future" and ten more times than the word "economy."
Even more striking than how often we came up was the reverence he had for us. "I knew that her job as a mom was harder than mine," he said of his wife, Ann. "And I knew without question, that her job as a mom was a lot more important than mine."
The speech dripped with such reverence for women who have children that one of the most popular tweets last night was this one from @dweinberger.
"So tonight I'm proud to announce I'm running to be your Mom."
— David Weinberger (@dweinberger) August 31, 2012#Romney
Coming as it did the night after Paul Ryan's own ode to motherhood ("to this day, my mom is my role model") which, in turn, came the day after Ann Romney's ("It's the moms who always have to work a little harder, to make everything right), mothers can feel pretty smug in their own importance this quadrennial cycle.
Hold on, you say, haven't mothers always been a group wooed by politicians? Why else have they spent all those decades kissing babies?
Yes. But this year feels different. A word count alone hints at what's changed. John McCain used the word "mother" twice in his acceptance speech four years ago and didn't use "mom" once. George W. Bush thanked his own mother, briefly, in 2004, then only used the word once or twice again. Sarah Palin's official acceptance speech included only three "moms," though she famously added a fourth with her off-the-prompter comment about hockey moms and lipstick. Obama, at his last convention, didn't say "mom" at all.
But this is a good thing, right? A reflection of politicians' long overdue realization that mothers deserve consideration and attention?
It would be good if it were true. As has long been the case, both parties this year know that they cannot win without women. And their embrace of mom-without-the-apple-pie is just the latest example of campaigns reducing us to shorthand rather than addressing all of our dimensions. The elder George Bush did it in 1988, choosing the handsome Dan Quayle to appeal to the ladies (after Walter Mondale arguably chose Geraldine Ferraro for a version of the same reason four years earlier). John McCain did it with Palin last time around, assuming we would vote for one of our own.
But those choices, patronizing to women as they might have been, were decidedly less direct than the ones we saw in Tampa this past week. In earlier years, candidates assured us that they liked women, or were attractive to women, or were women. Now they are turning the lens and telling women that we ourselves are wonderful -- mostly because we are moms.
In part what rankles is their overuse of the shorthand, nickname version -- mom, not mother. When I hear it, I sense tones of "honey" or "dear." Add to that the fact that the March of the Moms through political rhetoric nowadays eliminates men -- including many of the men giving these speeches -- from the equation. Parents = mothers. It is interesting that candidates have chosen this tack now, because it is several years behind the Zeitgeist, at a time when men are steadily becoming more invested in their identities as dad.
But mostly what makes me want to snap back at my TV during these odes to motherhood is the corollary calculation that women = mothers. By reducing the votes of all women to those of a subset, by assuming the concerns we share (or don't) are exclusively about children, candidates diminish and dismiss us. They assume that just by praising us as parents we won't notice that they haven't mentioned what they plan to DO for us, as parents, or as women.
We have noticed. And we vote.
Follow Lisa Belkin on Twitter: www.twitter.com/lisabelkin
Matt Zencey: Sarah Palin and the Eastwood/Obama 'Empty Chair'
 |
 |
|
| Obama | Romney | |
|---|---|---|
| Electoral Votes (270 to win) |
332 | 206 |
| Obama | Romney | |
|---|---|---|
| Total | 65,899,660 | 60,932,152 |
| Percent | 51.1% | 47.2% |
| Democrats* | Republicans | |
|---|---|---|
| Current Senate | 53 | 47 |
| Seats gained or lost | +2 | -2 |
| New Total | 55 | 45 |
| Democrats | Republicans | |
|---|---|---|
| Seats won | 201 | 234 |
I Did everything a “mom” does: daily cleaned dirty linen and adult diapers; changed catheters; prepared meals; distributed medicine, worked full time, sacrificed my own needs and desires for the good of another – but that doesn’t register with these folks because the people I cared for didn’t pop out of my own womb.
I have done what many will HAVE to do, should the Ryan plan be enacted. Young people need to realize that my life will inevitably be theirs and no longer an anomaly. I will not vote GOP because their platform, which worships at the altar of the Most High Zygote, yet only serves to increase the suffering of those dealing with long term, chronic illness for those who are already born. They offer nothing to help caregivers (other than promise to take my Medicare away from me because I am under 55).
Thank you for making sense rnmcd.
To me the highest honor is to hear Christ call one a faithful servant to him and his Father.
My personal opinion is hogwash on your statement. Fulfilling the biological abilities of one's sex is nothing but physical reality achieved.
HELLO? whats WRONG with being a MOM? WOMEN pay thousands to have artificial insemination, third party pregnancies, sometimes wait YEARS to have an adoption approved. WHat happened to the JOY of having children?
We talk about ORGANIC, Green,Zen, Natural, Grass roots Eco but - lets face it- having a child is one of the most beautiful natural experienced that expand your fulfillment life deeper and wider than ever.
BTW before you jump all over this I was a businesswoman for decades- FIRST; wouldnt trade being a MOM for anything. You all act like its some kind of deviant unnatural state of being...so just step up to the plate and buck up! Thats life..LOL.
Nothing.
But not all of us that are women are also moms. I'm not and I never will be, unless I adopt or get involved with someone who has kids. I've never wanted to have children or be a mother. I have other ways to channel my "maternal" instincts quite comfortably.
So, it would be nice if the politicians who want the power to regulate important legal aspects of my womenhood would acknowledge that fact.
Acknowledging that *I* exist doesn't in any way diminish the fact that you exist or that you are acknowledged by the GOP as existing. Why get so snarky when all child-free or childless women ask for the same?
Spread my wings? Im landing back home after a run all the way to the moon... there is nothing there more important than your children your family. Why the push to disconnect that survival? You can multitask ..
And that when they get back to work on Monday, they will continue the thankless task of ensuring that these "women" will not be choosing whether or not to have their babies, will be forced to watch an ultrasound with their eyes forced open a la Clockwork Orange, or listen to a priest tell them how evil they would be to get an abortion, and then they work on gutting health care for women and defunding breast cancer research, then there's the arduous task of slashing funding support for day care centers, schools, and ensuring that lunch program supplies go to a limited number of food contractors. Which are in no particular order McDonalds, Wendy's, Burger King, Taco Bell.
Then there's Tuesday....