Ann Romney’s speech at the Republican National Convention on Tuesday night got Laura Wood, the so-called Thinking Housewife, pining for a world in which the dirty world of politics was limited to dudes.
When women were denied the vote, they could reside on a higher plane, far from the oily ministrations of politicians. Now, at every convention, we must hear about the first date of the presidential candidate and his wife. We must see them kiss and be told by both how wonderful women are. The governor of South Carolina, Nikki Haley, and Luce Vela, the wife of the governor of Puerto Rico, also appeared last night and I couldn’t help but feel, given their outfits and grooming, that I was watching a political version of the Miss America contest.
My only question is why Ms. Housewife was watching the convention at all. If politics is so “oily” and gross and inherently unladylike, shouldn’t a good old-fashioned gal like her be studiously avoiding its corrupting influence? Weren’t there any doilies in the house that needed dusting?
Bingo. I agree with whoever mentioned it upthread, I’m also not a fan of the “you’re just jealous” arguments, but in this case it seems apt. Wood wishes SHE could be on that stage where Ann is.
Gah, now some jerk at the RNC has said: ““I just don’t like him. Can’t stand to look at him. I don’t like his wife — she’s far from the First Lady. It’s about time we get a First Lady in there who acts like a First Lady and looks like a First Lady.”
Dog whistle much?!?!?!? But I do love the first comment in this thread: “Sorry all old white people, but this is the best looking family in the White House since the Kennedys.”
http://wonkette.com/482693/nice-old-woman-at-romney-event-wants-a-first-lady-who-looks-like-a-first-lady
THATS WHAT THE GOD WANTS
there’s this weird thing a lot of these conservative anti-feminist mom-speakers have (well, a lot of conservatives in general, see any pro-natalist movement in history I guess) where they idolize the “sacrifice” that motherhood is and conceive of their role as this heroic thing where they totally efface themselves in the name of God/glory/nature/whatever. and yeah, I don’t want to dismiss how difficult being a mother is or that oftentimes it requires making hard choices about your life and giving certain things up. but for fuck’s sake the point of being a mother is not to offer yourself up as a noble sacrifice. you shouldn’t aspire to be a mother because it’s some herculean quest to turn yourself into an empty vessel.
i think this is why you see so much hypocritical nonsense with these women (i.e. engaging in politics etc. despite it being “unfeminine”), because they are clearly fighting themselves in order to stay in their role. the fighting their own will is the point for them. it’s a struggle and they get pats on the head for it. well, mostly internal pats i guess. it seems to me like it is a form of cognitive dissonance; if they didn’t tell themselves that this was heroic and they had to discipline themselves all the time for some big important reason, they would just be miserable and then where would they be?
what’s super gross is that they want to enforce oppression on all women because their life path wouldn’t be “special” if they had real opportunities to choose whether to have children and how and when and how many, and whether to get married and to whom. it reminds me once of this time in college where a student gave a paper about organ donation and the ethics of compensating living donors for their donations. somebody objected to the idea solely because it would make donation “less special” and would remove from the idea of it being a “gift of life”. barf. (this person was an adult professor who had actually voluntarily donated a kidney to an acquaintance, so good for her, I guess, but it really makes me wonder what sort of bizarro savior complex she must have)
How does it never occur to THH that maybe it’s JUST HER who lacks the temperament for public life, rather than ALL WOMEN?
I agree that this woman’s misogyny has everything to do with jealousy. I’m reminded of a roomate I had in college. She was obsessed with her looks, assumed all women were jealous of her, and constantly made nasty comments about women in general. You know who else is a woman misogynist? Dr. Laura.
@kladle, yes! I get so wound up by and mystified about the way they describe motherhood as glorious and terrible at the same time. this post of hers freaks me the fuck out:
http://www.thinkinghousewife.com/wp/2012/08/when-having-a-child-elicits-sniping-comments/
I mean in some ways choosing to parent is pretty selfish. I’m ok with people being selfish but don’t act like it’s some great sacrifice you’re making for society, it’s not like we’re in desperate need of more people right now.
omg I can’t stop! I’m sorry, but the contradictions! She thinks women are too pure and lofty for political office, but she also thinks women are too adulterous, libidinous and thoughtless to be trusted to their own consciences:
http://www.thinkinghousewife.com/wp/2009/10/the-unfaithful-wife/
“I don’t entirely dodge the charge of being harder on women. For one, female infidelity is an affront to male honor; male betrayal is not the same experience for a woman”
I wonder if even she really believes her own rationalizations.
“I don’t entirely dodge the charge of being harder on women. For one, female infidelity is an affront to male honor; male betrayal is not the same experience for a woman”
…
I do not even.
If you’re supposed to be totally subservient to your man, how can it possibly be fine for him to be splitting his attention?
@ rubyhypatia sounds like Samantha Brick! A woman who was in the news a lot on Britain for writing pretentious columns on how great it was to be a trophy wife and that all women hated her because she’s beautiful.
Funnier enough, the “betraying a man is worse than betraying a woman”argument comes up a lot in evolutionary psychologist arguments, because the woman can cuckold the man into raising a child that is not his. Also, women want *love* and *security* so cheating on them sexually is somehow less. (Personally vas a woman I disagree. I don’t date but if I did if someone cheated they would be gone. No excuses. But I have heard the argument made that women care less about a sexual indiscretion than a rromantic one. ) strange bedfellows I guess.
I hate to say this, but in that post, I can see where Wood was coming from. It is rude for strangers to ask a woman with a lot of kids “Do you know what causes that?” or “Oh no, you’re pregnant. What are you going to do?” Those comments imply that the woman doesn’t deserve to have children on account of being poor. This is also something that people tend to always direct at mothers, and never at fathers.
It is obnoxious, though, how she tries to say that motherhood is the best choice for all women. Once again, she doesn’t want to vote, fine, but she doesn’t need to argue that no women should vote. If she loves having children, that’s great for her, but she shouldn’t tell other women they have to be moms like her.
No! Because she is Super Special! Kind of like all those conservatives on the Meese Commission, selflessly investigating all that porn just so they could, you know, warn everyone else about its pernicious evils.
You’re right. It’s wrong to be judgmental from either side of the aisle about parenting. And she’s right to come down on people for that…
I realize what I’m actually responding to is the implied anti-birth-control, children-are-always-a-good-thing stance. As a recovering catholic, that stuff still gets my hackles up.
@biopic mommy – yeah there is a lot of shaming of poorer women who decide to have children. In the UK there is a lot of discourse around feckless families I.e. poor people on welfare, with very much an undertone of “well those working class people shouldn’t have children”. The Shanene Thorpe furore there was a couple of months ago is a good example. (Basically what happened was that a working mother agreed to be interviewed by the BBC and a very middle class woman basically shamed her because she had to partially rely on benefits.)
I am actually interested in being persuaded otherwise about this, but at present it does actually strike me as selfish and wrong to decide to have children that one can’t take care of. And I don’t mean just monetarily. I don’t think I have the emotional or wherewithal to parent, and I think the right thing for me to do is opt out.
Accidents of course are a whole other thing, but if someone’s choosing to parent when they’re not in a position to, I am judgmental of that. The thing is, I would never say something to someone in the street because I could never know what their situation actually was, or whether they had chosen their situation.
I would agree that you should’t have a lhad of children you can’t care for, but I’m just wary of those sort of arguments because they often ending up being class ism.
And because as you mentioned life is not as simple. If you have kids and can care for them, but then lose your job, etc. That’s not you being irresponsible. (I’m not saying you a’re saying that, just that some people seem to.)
Sometimes it seems that the people least prepared to have children are the most likely to have them. When you aren’t very good at keeping track of anything (finances, your boyfriend, the Pill) it’s easy to wind up accidentally pregnant. And then you have one very clueless person who now has another tiny clueless person depending on them.
Man I wish pregnancy were opt-in rather than opt-out; there should be a minimal amount of having-your-shit-together required, even if all you have to do is remember to click your heels 3 times and say “I want a baby” before screwing.
Annnd notice how Daddys part is completely overlooked…
Not to mention the classism. A great many of us don’t have finances to look after. We pay rent and buy food.
Just how long is someone supposed to wait for a lottery win before having children?
Exactly. I don’t think parenthood should be a privilege only for the rich and middle classes. Money doesn’t make someone a good parent. To be a good parent, someone needs to be patient, understanding, and willing to learn. None of those qualities have anything to do with money.
I also agree it’s classist to use poor parents as scapegoats for social problems, when they don’t usually have the political power to have caused problems in the first place. It’s the ultra rich that are the real financial drains on the rest of society.
Sorry to derail like that, but I don’t like the idea of people criticizing women like the thinking housewife simply for having children. There are plenty of good reasons to criticize her, like for her misogyny, homophobia, and closed mindedness.
Aaaand, note that my idea of opt-in didn’t require any kind of financial ability whatsoever. I’d be happy with people having babies only having babies that they knew about beforehand. No accidental pregnancies. :p
Bagelsan, why mention a woman who can’t keep track of her boyfriend (like that’s part of the job?) Her finances (because really, most people live paychechk to paycheck there are no “finances” to track at minimum wage) or the Pill (which came across as the old “its a womans responsibility thing).
I see your comments on feministe every once in a while. I was a little surprised about the wording (well,not the money part. It seems a lot of people on feministe are middle class).
Um, because I know plenty of people who are having boyfriend troubles — they would hate to get pregnant by them at the moment — and plenty of people who are having financial troubles — and would likewise hate to get pregnant under those circumstances. (And “finances” doesn’t mean your fucking stock portfolio, yanno. :p) Those people are very careful to use the contraception they have available.
People who don’t do that, end up pregnant and regret it. So I’m not being dog-whistly, I’m just literally thinking of the people I know.