• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Ann Romney Never Worked a Day In Her Life.

tessaesque said:
Honestly, I don't care if she works or not. Her not having a job means somebody who actually NEEDS the work has that job instead, yes?

My boyfriend's aunt is the wife of a former marine and current military contractor. He spends 6-8 months a year overseas on assignment. She doesn't work. So what does she do with her time? She maintains the house, she works out, she goes shopping. But you know what else she does? She heads the local chapter for a group that focuses on transitioning returning soliders into the private sector and on aiding the families of soldiers who are currently deployed. She spends probably 40-50 hours a week organizing events and fundraisers, helping with administrative tasks, meeting with those who are being helped by the program, etc.

And when she isn't working with the volunteer group she's here in Texas spending time with her grand children and grown daughter. And I really appreciate that, being somebody who personally never got much time with her grandparents.

And you know....who cares if she didn't volunteer. She and her husband are perfectly okay with their arrangement, and they're the only people that really matter. They aren't using entitlement programs or sapping off the system to survive, so I say let 'em do what they want to do.
Click to expand...

If he wasn't running for president and potentially representing our entire nation and making choices that will effect every single hard working woman in this nation or every stay at home mom who DOES want to go back to work I wouldn't be taking note at all and wondering about just what he would do if faced with legislation, etc.

Yeah - it does bother me that we're trying ot move forward in regard to women in the workplace and society in general but every republican woman possibly to be first-lady in the last years is the exact opposite of that.

The first lady doesn't just look pretty - she's quite busy, involved with many things - and she and the few women in the higher end of politics are all we have as a hedge into the rest of the world. So yeah: that bothers me a lot - I'm abit afraid we'll reverse our progress if she starts representing us in the world.
 
A strategist is a strategist. If a media outlet provides the following introduction, wouldn't you wonder who the person is strategizing for, and whether or not what they're saying represents the views of that party and/or specific candidates?:

"Please welcome to the program Republican Party strategist Jenny Smith. Jenny, let's discuss the recently reported story of Obama's luxury African safari vacation."

or

"Please welcome to the program Democrat Party strategist Jenny Smith. Jenny, let's discuss the recently reported story of Romney's luxury yacht and the remodel that allegedly cost the Romney family $1.3 million dollars."
 
Aunt Spiker said:
If he wasn't running for president and potentially representing our entire nation and making choices that will effect every single hard working woman in this nation or every stay at home mom who DOES want to go back to work I wouldn't be taking note at all and wondering about just what he would do if faced with legislation, etc.

Yeah - it does bother me that we're trying ot move forward in regard to women in the workplace and society in general but every republican woman possibly to be first-lady in the last years is the exact opposite of that.

The first lady doesn't just look pretty - she's quite busy, involved with many things - and she and the few women in the higher end of politics are all we have as a hedge into the rest of the world. So yeah: that bothers me a lot - I'm abit afraid we'll reverse our progress if she starts representing us in the world.
Click to expand...

:shrug:

Here's why I don't get involved in the feminist movement: For some reason, some in the movement seem to think that anything short of what the movement wants is unacceptable for individual women, regardless of what those women want. I want to stay at home with my children when they're young, but some feminists tell me I'm destroying "the movement" by "conforming to historic gender roles".

You know what? Screw that nonsense. The feminist movement should be about ensuring the woman has the choice to live her life as she sees fit. And that includes the choice to "conform to historic gender roles" if that's what she wants. We don't need to challenge every woman who doesn't burn her bra and demand more pay and insist upon being the bread winner in some march for "equality" against men. And we don't need to accuse every man of mysogyny if his wife isn't a bra-burning feminazi, either.
 
Aunt Spiker said:
Not really - all of her kids are grown: why isn't she employed now? Is it considered a sin in their eyes to find employment when you're a woman?

I think it actually brings up some significant questions - our government is suppose to foster equality and freedom and further the belief that women have a right to work and should find employment as it suits their needs in their life. Does Romney believe that women have a right to work or are we going to see hints of male-favoritism as we did during the Great Depression if the government tries to step in to help with employment issues and exludes women in the process if he's in office?

I don't think it's wrong to be a stay at home mom: I am one.

But at some point you stop being a stay at home mom - their youngets child was born in 1981, making him one year younger than me. . . she is no longer a stay at home mom for her children - that is no longer her description in life and does not account for their actual beliefs at present.

What does she do - if anything - with all these years she's had? Where does he fall in his beliefs? If we bring the President's career choices and his wife's career choices into question (yes - I was here last election: I remmeber all of that quite clearly and it wasn't all a negative issue) then why can't we question this and what it reflects on them as people of this country.

I have a serious problem with a grown capable woman who does not find employment - ever. My husband's mother is one and she's lowly in my view: living freely and welloff on the hard work of others and has done nothing to earn anything for herself. It is a questionable existance: it's wealthy laziness.
Click to expand...

My wife started working the same year our youngest started first grade.....and it helped a lot. We put the kids thru college mostly on her income. But as far as working when you don't NEED to, why take a job that someone else NEEDS...?

We both retired early, planned for it....we are still young enough to work, but choose not to, again, why take a job that someone else needs? Our jobs now are spending money to help boost the economy....
 
hazlnut said:
BTW - why is it an insult?

It's more insulting that a multi-millionaire's wife thinks she can relate with the rest of us.

Did she really raise her boys? Or did they have nannies and house cleaners?

Gimme a break Ann. You don't have a clue about hard work...
Click to expand...

No offense, but how do you know what involvement she had? Are you making assumptions and passing judgment against her without legitimate knowledge of the facts? Why? What do you solve or accomplish by doing this?
 
AdamT said:
As far as I can tell, Rosen doesn't work for Obama. I think what you meant to say was, "good for Obama for stating in no uncertain terms that family is off limits."

I mean, we all know that the right would NEVER attack Michelle Obama. :roll:
Click to expand...

Still deflecting to the right eh?
 
hazlnut said:
BTW - why is it an insult?

It's more insulting that a multi-millionaire's wife thinks she can relate with the rest of us.

Did she really raise her boys? Or did they have nannies and house cleaners?

Gimme a break Ann. You don't have a clue about hard work...
Click to expand...



I don't think I mentioned an insult, but I'll take a look at the orginal post, just for you.


Again, did you have that same "multi-millionaire's wife thinks she can relate with the rest of us" thought when John Kerry was running?
 
tessaesque said:
:shrug:

Here's why I don't get involved in the feminist movement: For some reason, some in the movement seem to think that anything short of what the movement wants is unacceptable for individual women, regardless of what those women want. I want to stay at home with my children when they're young, but some feminists tell me I'm destroying "the movement" by "conforming to historic gender roles".

You know what? Screw that nonsense. The feminist movement should be about ensuring the woman has the choice to live her life as she sees fit. And that includes the choice to "conform to historic gender roles" if that's what she wants. We don't need to challenge every woman who doesn't burn her bra and demand more pay and insist upon being the bread winner in some march for "equality" against men. And we don't need to accuse every man of mysogyny if his wife isn't a bra-burning feminazi, either.
Click to expand...

I would love to help you destroy the historic gender roles. If my wife was making enough money to support our household and she asked me to stay home with the kids, I would be all for it. If I can provide for my family and she can stay home with our children, then it is up to her if that is what she wants. Good for Mitt that he was able to provide his family with options.
 
tessaesque said:
:shrug:

Here's why I don't get involved in the feminist movement: For some reason, some in the movement seem to think that anything short of what the movement wants is unacceptable for individual women, regardless of what those women want. I want to stay at home with my children when they're young, but some feminists tell me I'm destroying "the movement" by "conforming to historic gender roles".

You know what? Screw that nonsense. The feminist movement should be about ensuring the woman has the choice to live her life as she sees fit. And that includes the choice to "conform to historic gender roles" if that's what she wants. We don't need to challenge every woman who doesn't burn her bra and demand more pay and insist upon being the bread winner in some march for "equality" against men. And we don't need to accuse every man of mysogyny if his wife isn't a bra-burning feminazi, either.
Click to expand...

No, no women say that about raising your children right. You probably mistaken movies for real life sometimes. It's understandable. Women do it all the time.
 
JohnWOlin said:
No, no women say that about raising your children right. You probably mistaken movies for real life sometimes. It's understandable. Women do it all the time.
Click to expand...

I have absolutely no idea what you just said.
 
Aunt Spiker said:
If he wasn't running for president and potentially representing our entire nation and making choices that will effect every single hard working woman in this nation or every stay at home mom who DOES want to go back to work I wouldn't be taking note at all and wondering about just what he would do if faced with legislation, etc.

Yeah - it does bother me that we're trying ot move forward in regard to women in the workplace and society in general but every republican woman possibly to be first-lady in the last years is the exact opposite of that.

The first lady doesn't just look pretty - she's quite busy, involved with many things - and she and the few women in the higher end of politics are all we have as a hedge into the rest of the world. So yeah: that bothers me a lot - I'm abit afraid we'll reverse our progress if she starts representing us in the world.
Click to expand...

So all women should do what you want them to do rather than be free to make their own choices.....interesting. Or am I misunderstanding you? It sounds to me like you think all women should get a job whether they want to or not. So much for choice.
 
tessaesque said:
:shrug:

Here's why I don't get involved in the feminist movement: For some reason, some in the movement seem to think that anything short of what the movement wants is unacceptable for individual women, regardless of what those women want. I want to stay at home with my children when they're young, but some feminists tell me I'm destroying "the movement" by "conforming to historic gender roles".

You know what? Screw that nonsense. The feminist movement should be about ensuring the woman has the choice to live her life as she sees fit. And that includes the choice to "conform to historic gender roles" if that's what she wants. We don't need to challenge every woman who doesn't burn her bra and demand more pay and insist upon being the bread winner in some march for "equality" against men. And we don't need to accuse every man of mysogyny if his wife isn't a bra-burning feminazi, either.
Click to expand...


Good on ya. Totally agree. I can't imagine what it would be like trying to raise 6 boys. I do know it wouldn't be a walk in the park. :)
 
muciti said:
So all women should do what you want them to do rather than be free to make their own choices.....interesting. Or am I misunderstanding you? It sounds to me like you think all women should get a job whether they want to or not. So much for choice.
Click to expand...

The woman's equality movement was a movement to give them no choices? Also, who votes on the first lady?
 
Aunt Spiker said:
If he wasn't running for president and potentially representing our entire nation and making choices that will effect every single hard working woman in this nation or every stay at home mom who DOES want to go back to work I wouldn't be taking note at all and wondering about just what he would do if faced with legislation, etc.

Yeah - it does bother me that we're trying ot move forward in regard to women in the workplace and society in general but every republican woman possibly to be first-lady in the last years is the exact opposite of that.

The first lady doesn't just look pretty - she's quite busy, involved with many things - and she and the few women in the higher end of politics are all we have as a hedge into the rest of the world. So yeah: that bothers me a lot - I'm abit afraid we'll reverse our progress if she starts representing us in the world.
Click to expand...
Obama never held a private sector job, yet you find him perfectly well equipped to micromanage the entire US economy. Obama was never a doctor yet somehow he is qualified to reconfigure the entire health system. So Ann Romney never held a job. It might be time to drop the gender identity pretense. If she were CEO of a major corporation, she would be being demonized for her wealth and power and bitchiness and how she doesnt represent the typical American woman nor understand her struggles--just like her husband is being portrayed..
 
Last edited:
Billy the Kid said:
Good on ya. Totally agree. I can't imagine what it would be like trying to raise 6 boys. I do know it wouldn't be a walk in the park. :)
Click to expand...

Neither can I, which is why the husband will be getting "fixed" after two. I think that'll be my max. :lamo
 
I was actually trying to focus on what this reflects of *his* views and *his* beliefs and how that might effect his decisions as president . . . not so much reflecting on her choices in life.

I just can't connect to her - women like her (like my mother in law - and my grandmother in law) I wouldn't choose her path (their path) in life: I would have felt like I failed as an individual if I spent my entire life caring for my kids and grandkids and became nothing more than my husband's sidekick and trophy wife. Honestly - until I started college I did feel like that about myself and it damn near drove me to suicide. So maybe I'm putting myself in her shoes and imagining myself wanting to claw my eyes out as I only became tethered to his hip my whole life - a mere dependent child that never grows up - and dies forever reliant on someone else's welfare to carry me through . . . not a feel-good thing to me at all.
 
Last edited:
Aunt Spiker said:
Not really - all of her kids are grown: why isn't she employed now? Is it considered a sin in their eyes to find employment when you're a woman?

I think it actually brings up some significant questions - our government is suppose to foster equality and freedom and further the belief that women have a right to work and should find employment as it suits their needs in their life. Does Romney believe that women have a right to work or are we going to see hints of male-favoritism as we did during the Great Depression if the government tries to step in to help with employment issues and exludes women in the process if he's in office?

I don't think it's wrong to be a stay at home mom: I am one.

But at some point you stop being a stay at home mom - their youngets child was born in 1981, making him one year younger than me. . . she is no longer a stay at home mom for her children - that is no longer her description in life and does not account for their actual beliefs at present.

What does she do - if anything - with all these years she's had? Where does he fall in his beliefs? If we bring the President's career choices and his wife's career choices into question (yes - I was here last election: I remmeber all of that quite clearly and it wasn't all a negative issue) then why can't we question this and what it reflects on them as people of this country.

I have a serious problem with a grown capable woman who does not find employment - ever. My husband's mother is one and she's lowly in my view: living freely and welloff on the hard work of others and has done nothing to earn anything for herself. It is a questionable existance: it's wealthy laziness.
Click to expand...
Could it be that maybe just maybe she and her husband have decided they are actually HAPPY with their life choices and OMIGOSH...dont feel the need to live someone elses lives and standards? Gasp!
 
I have two boys and let me tell you, I can't imagine raising 5 (I originally stated 7 but double checked and it is 5). Between the sports, school activities and friends, I am constantly running them around!

I was a SAHM for nine years and went back part-time now that they are in school. DH works lot's of hours so the amount of stress added to him and the family if I worked full-time would be too much for us. If DH made a ton of money I probably wouldn't work either. There are a ton of things one can do to be a useful and contributing member to society without getting paid.
 
tessaesque said:
Neither can I, which is why the husband will be getting "fixed" after two. I think that'll be my max. :lamo
Click to expand...


I have one and she just about drives us both crazy. Love her with everything in me though. :)
 
Blue_State said:
It just goes hand and hand now with the attack on the rich. Just good marketing.
Click to expand...

Yeah, a much better strategy is to attack hispanics, women, and the poor. The Republicans have that down to a fine art.
 
Anniegetyourgun said:
I have two boys and let me tell you, I can't imagine raising 5 (I originally stated 7 but double checked and it is 5). Between the sports, school activities and friends, I am constantly running them around!

I was a SAHM for nine years and went back part-time now that they are in school. DH works lot's of hours so the amount of stress added to him and the family if I worked full-time would be too much for us. If DH made a ton of money I probably wouldn't work either. There are a ton of things one can do to be a useful and contributing member to society without getting paid.
Click to expand...

That's sad - I see being able to be employed as a matter of self-reliance and independence, something to succeed at, feel good about and strive for - a privilidge to be employed . . . I haven't had a job in 9 years and I can't imagine just being stuck like this for the rest of my life - I'd want to just shoot myself.

Obviously some people don't have issues being reliant on others for everything - and I have serious issues with that.
 
Basically, this seems like another anti-Romney marketing tool from the left. Cheers.
 
muciti said:
Still deflecting to the right eh?
Click to expand...

Still pointing out hypocrisy where I see it, yep.

Not that there's anything to deflect in this case. Just another ODS misfire.
 
Aunt Spiker said:
That's sad - I see being able to be employed as a matter of self-reliance and independence, something to succeed at, feel good about and strive for - a privilidge to be employed . . . I haven't had a job in 9 years and I can't imagine just being stuck like this for the rest of my life - I'd want to just shoot myself.

Obviously some people don't have issues being reliant on others for everything - and I have serious issues with that.
Click to expand...

They did a ton of studies on this, and the conclusions were the same.

People are different. Different things make different people happy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom