gender roles, family, & work: we still forget about the men.

this past week there was a whole big to do in the media between hillary rosen and ann romney. honestly, what i think was a perfectly acceptable comment from hillary rosen somehow was interpreted that being a stay at home mom is not real work.

[the comment was that ann romney doesn't know the value of a hard day's work and therefore cannot be a spokesperson for women's views on the economic situation ... and let's be honest, whether you're a dem, rep, whatever, you and i know that ann, as nice as she may be, doesn't live where we live ... no matter what choices we've made ... her choice to stay at home and raise children is not the same choice many of my friends have made, who have families of 4 - 6 people on $50K or less a year, and clip coupons and swap clothes with other families to make ends meet every month.]

for the love of all that is good and holy and decent. are we really going there?? again?? 

and so the media circus went for round 8 million to rile up the natives on whether staying at home constitutes work (**ahem**, if you're ann romney, it probably still doesn't--but i won't go there) and what is the laziest lifestyle, and who can be more self-rigteous and emotionally indignant about their life choices.

and all week i heard this clamor ... but not once did anyone talk about the men who choose to stay home. and after all, THAT is what this whole discussion began with ... right?? with scott walker in WI declaring that equal pay is not needed, that men need to work more than women do?? and somehow, the media allowed us to get side-tracked and forget about all the amazing husbands who put their career aside or on hold, because they too see the value of being involved with their kids, and want to also give their wives the chance to be successful in the workplace.

how the hell did we not notice this?? we all talk about everyone's choices being legitimate, but when the national conversation arises, we completely ignore the fact that the real issue here being debated is that it's freaking hard to raise a family on one income, and people like scott walker who still think this is 1952 are screwing over the amazing renaissance men who have stepped up to the plate to be managers of their homes and primary care-givers to their children.

once again, we allow the 24 hr "news" cycle to hand us a pitchfork, so that we can get whipped into an emotional frenzy and have the same. exact. argument. once again, instead of recognizing that there is a larger context, and maybe it's not worth getting all bent out of shape about.

honestly, i wish that the conversation over the repeal of equal pay in WI had half the media attention, and half the emotional fervor that the revisiting of SAHM vs WM did this week.


---------------------------
UPDATE: wondering where the heck this is coming from, or why i have this little icon i haven't used in almost two months?? read the introductory post here, or click on this nifty little button that i created for us to use, so that you can get to the original post, where all the following posts will be cataloged.