The row began when Hilary Rosen, a strategist who has worked for a number of high-profile Democrats, criticised Mr Romney for using his wife, a stay-at-home mother of five sons, as a surrogate to connect with female voters.
"You have Mitt Romney running around the country saying, well, my wife tells me what women really care about is economic issues," She said on CNN.
"Guess what? His wife has actually never worked a day in her life."
Mrs Romney's popularity as a mother and a cancer survivor far outstrips her husband's and within minutes Republicans took to Twitter to hit back at Ms Rosen, criticising her for marginalising women who decided not to go into the workplace. » | Raf Sanchez, Washington | Thursday, April 12, 2012
My comment:
Hilary Rosen clearly hasn’t got her priorities straight. She also knows nothing about the work of a stay-at-home mum. Ann Romney chose to stay at home because she could afford to do so. That she did so is to be applauded. She had the courage to go against the tide of feminism. Would that more women could afford to stay at home, would that more women had the commitment to their children to choose a hard alternative to going out into the workplace and earning lots of money. Ann Romney placed the welfare of her children over her own ambition and achievement. How unselfish is that?
Judging by the crisis in child-rearing both that side of the Pond and this, it’s a great pity that more women who have husbands who can afford to allow them to be full-time mothers don’t choose that option. It would free up jobs in the workplace for unemployed fathers and allow mothers to give their children the informal education at home that children today so need. As the Australians would say: Good on ya, Ann! – © Mark
This comment also appears here
