This article was brought to my attention by my baby girl, so as much as I liked the article I felt it best to let her talk to you about it.

When the Hilary Rosen clip was played on television, even out of context entirely, I felt like I knew what she meant, saying Ann Romney had never worked a day in her life. I was raised by working parents; my friends are working parents. Ann Romney was no working parent.

No one disputes the idea that 5 boys are a handful together. Raising them in one house would be the stuff of Hollywood movies, filled with hijinks and capers. No one says differently. Where Ann and I appear to disagree, is on the nature of the 'work' involved as a working parent.

The gist, the core of this issue is this: Ann Romney could afford to stay at home and raise 5 children, without a job inside or outside of said home. Ann Romney was able to rely upon her husband's wealth and her own inheritance instead of going out each day and working toward a career. Because she did not have the monetary need of a career, she chose not to have one. More power to her! That's what feminism was supposed to be about, right? The choice to stay at home or join the workforce. 

My mother did not have that choice. My family is decidedly middle class; raising children, my parents required at least 2 paychecks to make the family budget each month.  My parents took shifts watching us, shifting and budgeting their time so that they could give us the attention and guidance we needed to grow into adults. This is the nature of working parenthood in America. To rely upon both adults as parents, homemakers, providers, counselors and examples, is the nature of working parenthood in America. Everyone does their part, or the ship sinks.

To imply that somehow, a wealthy, privileged stay-at-home mom is doing the same 'work', giving the same time, or feeling the same sacrifice as say, the average single parent in this country, is disingenuous, and frankly, insulting.

-K