The Real War on Women

Ann Romney doesn’t need an apology from Hilary Rosen for claiming the mom of five children has “never worked a day in her life.” Mothers at home are secure in the knowledge that no task is more vital to the health and well-being of this nation than the one they perform each day. But to understand this bit of wisdom, you have to actually do the work of motherhood — not just have children.

Ten years ago I wrote a book entitled The Work of Motherhood. My goal was to support and honor at-home mothers and to demonstrate the value of this thankless yet rewarding job to society as a whole. To my dismay, my then-editors retitled the manuscript 7 Myths of Working Mothers — and before it hit the shelves, Glamour dubbed it a “don’t” in its do’s-and-don’ts section. Next thing I knew, I was thrust into the mommy wars. It was my first foray into the reality of media bias.

Of course, getting involved in a war was not my intention. But I learned the hard way that if you speak out on this issue, war is inevitable.

Yet speak out we must. For the inconvenient truth is that if there were more women like Mrs. Romney in this country, we could solve many of our nation’s problems. The chronic absence of mothers from the home is at the core of countless social ills.

We routinely ask ourselves these types of questions: Why are kids not doing well in school? Why are they overweight? Why are they getting into so much trouble? Why are they sleep deprived? Why are they on Ritalin? Why are they so disrespectful? Why are they spoiled? We simply refuse to connect the dots between the problems that exist among today’s children and the mass exodus of mothers from the home.

Just what did we think mothers were for?

Life is about sacrifice. Adults can’t always do things in a way that suits them. This does not mean, as feminists have claimed for years, that if a mother curtails her career goals to accommodate the needs of her family she invariably loses her identity. What it means is that she gets it. She understands she’s one piece, albeit a large piece, of a very large pie.

Feminists think they are the pie.

For decades they’ve been carrying on a long-running campaign to tear down the traditional family, and they get away with it because they hold so much power. Why do they hold so much power? Because unlike most women, feminists have chosen not to focus on — or in many cases even have — husbands and children.

Instead, they choose to perform a different kind of work — the kind that offers a paycheck, a pat on the back, and in the meantime, fundamentally transforms America.

And they do it, they say, because they have no choice. As Ms. Rosen tweeted to Mrs. Romney: “Most American young women HAVE to BOTH earn a living AND raise children? You know that don’t u?”

I’m afraid it’s Rosen who doesn’t get it. The two-income family is not, in fact, a fait accompli. Yes, there are some mothers who either “MUST” work or feel they must work. But let’s understand why they do.

Any woman part of the 41 percent of single mothers in America clearly needs an income. I believe Ms. Rosen falls in to that camp. But if we concede the single-mom phenomenon is a negative one — and we do: the majority of Americans believe children need married parents; and according to the Public Agenda, 70 percent of parents with children under age five agree that “having a parent at home is best” — then the proper response is to honor women like Mrs. Romney, not tear them down.

Moreover, the degree to which a married mother “must” work depends on various factors. Feminists make it sound as if women are victims of the economy — as if it happened to them. It’s actually the other way around: Women created an environment that demanded it. “All the income growth in the U.S. since 1970 has come from women working outside the home,” writes Bridget Brennan in Why She Buys.

In other words, when American women joined the workforce in spades, their incomes created “a new norm.” “The economic necessity argument hits home with a nice solid thunk. Yet ultimately it makes no sense: as a nation we used to be a lot poorer, and women used to stay home,” writes David Gelernter.

Moreover, if it were true that “most women HAVE to BOTH earn a living AND raise children,” why aren’t most women doing so? Once we remove single mothers from the equation, most mothers are not employed full-time. Most mothers with children at home are either unemployed like Mrs. Romney or they work part-time, around the needs of their children.

Put another way: Most women make clear and purposeful choices — regarding sex, whom to marry (that’s a biggie), work, geography, etc. — that allow them to be the primary caregiver in their children’s lives. Others learn the hard way that it costs to have both parents work. The money from a second income — unless it’s a six-figure salary — is usually eaten up by commuting costs, child care, eating out, work attire, dry cleaning, convenience foods, and, of course, taxes. By the time you add it all up, there isn’t much left.

So why don’t we ever talk about this stuff? Because the mainstream media is in charge. “The elite journalists in network television don’t report the really big story — arguably one of the biggest stories of our time — that this absence of mothers from American homes is without historical precedent, and that millions upon millions of American children have been left to fend for themselves with dire consequences,” writes Bernard Goldberg in his bestselling book Bias.

The media elite believe most Americans think the same way they do about motherhood, as Ms. Rosen’s tweet demonstrates. Those in the media see their views as “sensible, reasonable, rational views.” According to them, a good and just society would simply accept working mothers — or a nation full of single mothers, for that matter.

When people hear something repeated over and over again, eventually they cave. That’s what feminists bank on.

There’s no GOP war on women. The only war on women is the one that was waged more than 40 years ago. Motherhood escapes feminists. That’s why they’ve spent the better part of half a century trying to rewrite laws that make it easier for women to fly the coop.

But choosing whether or not to raise one’s children is not like choosing whether to have vanilla or chocolate. It’s a serious choice with lasting ramifications. In the past, parents weren’t burdened with such a choice — not because we were richer and thus able to have a choice (in fact we’re richer now and insist we don’t have a choice!), but because we were wiser. I think we’d all benefit from having fewer choices and more obligations.

So to all the at-home mothers and future at-home mothers, I say thank you. Thank you for doing the most important job in the world. Thank you for your blood, sweat, and tears.

Most importantly, thank you for sticking with it in a culture that just doesn’t get it.

Submit >
Reader Comments
Oct 16, 2013, 11:48 pm

Cris, I couldn't agree with you more! Tell it like it is!

Mar 24, 2013, 9:10 am

7:56 amYou call it Discrimination I call it freedom of acoissation or non-association.I brings to mind how about 10 years ago the lobbing group for motorcyclists ABATE was trying to make it illegal for restaurants to ban bikers in their colors from coming into their establishments. They wanted it done on civil rights grounds.I wrote to them and my representatives to say a black person can't decide not to be black, but a biker has to go out of their way to look like a 1%er.Needless to say, the bill never made it to committee and has never been sponsored again.Still, If I don't want blacks in my place I should have the right to do so as much as blacks should be allowed to not allow whites in their establishments.

Mar 24, 2013, 8:54 am

..have to agree with Gavels/Cappy's reasoning but cciohe of wording in the signage could have been more diplomatically phrased.We sit outside to get away from the brats.Yes.. your little darling is a brat. Outside voices, whining and mauling is brat behavior . They can still play, admire the toys without the tantrums and the whining. Our children behave maybe its more about parents not teaching from the vradle that manners as a daily way of life?Whether it be a restaurant, officers Club, Pizza Inn or a **** rated restaurant, seats were meant to be sat in, not climbed on. Basically we went into church-mose' although that was recreation compared my grandmothers or the Officers Club. and that didn't mean that we didn't have fun..It just meant that we weren't hooligans

Mar 24, 2013, 8:52 am

I can't say I blame a restaurant for that pstioion. The lack of parental oversight and control of their children in public is appalling. If I acted up in public the way I see with many kids, I would have had a very sore behind to sit on. When my neice was a child she was horrible in a restuarant and I told my sister make her sit down or we are leaving or I would give her a spanking myself. When my nephew was in Cappy's he was made to personally appologize for his foul mouth to the adjoining table to the mother of two elementary school age girls who certainly didn't go out to hear his foul mouth. There is a time and place and parents need to teach and train their children.I don't hate kids but when people bring their infants and toddlers to movies and the scream, cry and fuss then it perfectly acceptable to go to management and ask that they be removed. Unfortunately the ablity to procreate and parent or use common sense do not go hand in hand.

Mar 24, 2013, 7:50 am

We stopped going to Cappy's as much when they clesod the outdoors to children. We used to go outside (especially if it was empty) so that the kids could play without disturbing other diners. We also made sure they didn't touch the fountains, plants, etc. (they had signs about that too!) With their plywood floors, wooden benches, glass tables, and open layout, it doesn't take much for it to get loud in there. At a certain point, I just get tired of all of their rules (cash only, you must sign in even when it's empty, no kids outside, no calling ahead if you're going to eat in, etc. etc. etc.) As for Scooter's comment that people wouldn't let their kids behave that way at The Refinery we take our four-year-old to The Refinery regularly because Greg and Michelle truly love children and welcome them with open arms. And I think I know Michelle well enough to say that if she had a problem with someone or their children she would just ask them to leave no passive-aggressive sign needed. Cappy's pizza is good but their attitude sucks.

truthis here
Mar 15, 2013, 7:27 pm

As a professing follower of the religion of man hate and perpetual victim hood, not only are you a poor excuse of a mother, you are a poor excuse of a human being. I'm surprised that you didn't sacrifice the children upon your alter of 'choice'. 55 million dead children later, believe it or not, is another reason that men are disgusted by your gender.
What 'woman' would kill an innocent child ? Simple, the western 'liberated' type.
Believe this or don't. We men DO have these conversations, it does matter to us. Which is why, you do not.

truthis here
Mar 15, 2013, 6:57 pm

Boo hoo hoo, we women are perpetual victims, forever being oppressed by the evil patriarchy that rewards us with special rights and privileges ( at the expense of men). Go back to your coven with the rest of the feminists. They are all you will ever have, since no man wants such a narcissistic, self entitled,weak willed woman. Enjoy your circle jerk and keep nodding your head in agreement to whatever propaganda is spewed forth by your fellow feminist.
What a pathetic religion you have and what a pathetic person you are.
Me, I could care less. You wanted 'equality', you got it. On MY terms as I refuse to give you the best of both worlds. Which means this;
Since you're not Ladies, I refuse to treat you as such, ( absolutely no chivalry as you are not entitled to the privileges reserved for such)
I do nothing for you as you are nothing. ( You're not men and refuse to be women,the bicycle has no need of a fish.).
Although I will not instigate a physical altercation with you, if you are senseless enough to start one with me, you too will learn what it is to be the weakest man, ( If you do not believe me I can probably provide you with 4 feminists contact info, one being my sister 13 years my senior, so that you can ask them how it worked out).
Are you 'appalled' by that ? Don't be 'princess'. I am NOBODY'S punching bag.
It matters not to me what you have between your legs, if you start it, I WILL end it.
You see 'princess', my idea of equality is actual equality, not your twisted version where you get all the benefits and rewards and none of the responsibilities or consequences.

Feb 14, 2013, 4:18 am

My mother also worked every day of her life. I believe my two siblings and I have turned out fine. We all have our graduate degrees and value family in the highest regard. I am definitely not a feminist and many times believe the radical feminist agenda is a little over-the-top. However, I am grateful for the work feminists have done in the past and present to make life better for me as a woman. Working mom or stay-at-home mom, the truth is we are all "superwomen." Honestly I work a part-time job so I can have a break from my kids :) When I come home I feel refreshed and I believe that my mom break (working) is good for both my kids and I. In the end it does not come down to whether we work full-time, part-time or stay home, what really matters is... are we good loving mothers or not?

Feb 13, 2013, 9:39 pm

"Given choices, every woman wants to stay home?" That is so not true. My mom is a working professional her entire life, by choice. She's 78 now, and still working happily. She sacrificed many opportunities for me, but never gave up her own dream. I grew up in schools, lead a successful career and life. My girls are in schools since 2 yrs-old, and they are now happy students like I was. Both my husband and I want to set an example to my girls so that they don't give up their ambition simply become of some traditional women duty.
I agree childcare full time is real hard work. I tried for 2 months, it was depressing and totally not for me. I highly respect those dedicated moms, but don't blame the working mothers for the troubled kids in this nation, -women have sacrificed enough for family without much appreciation. Kids, especially boys, will do a lot better if the fathers spend more time at home talking to their children, help with their homework, volunteer at school, even do some cooking and wash dishes:)

Feb 13, 2013, 9:25 pm

"Given choices, every woman wants to stay home?" That is so not true. My mom is a working professional her entire life, by choice. She's 78 now, and still working happily. She sacrificed many opportunities for me, but never gave up her own dream. I grew up in schools, lead a successful career and life. My girls are in schools since 2 yrs-old, and they are now happy students like I was. Both my husband and I want to set an example to my girls so that they don't give up their ambition simply become of some traditional women duty.
I agree childcare full time is real hard work. I tried for 2 months, it was depressing and totally not for me. I highly respect the dedicated moms, but don't blame the working mothers for the troubled kids in this nation, women have sacrificed enough without much appreciation. Kids, especially boys, will do a lot better if the fathers spend more time at home, talking to their children, help with their homework, even do the cooking and wash the dishes:)

Feb 09, 2013, 12:07 pm

I would also like to see a response on this topic. I have read a few articles and their comments and no one mentioned the benefits of having a successful female role model to aspire to. Yes, motherhood in itself can be inspirational and a success, whether or not that mother is a working mother. But what of the little girl who sees her and her daughters futures as a perpetual loop of being born and breeding. That all she can hope to achieve is a certain level of personal success before she is required to commit her entire self to the needs of her family. I think its unhealthy to place so much responsibility on the mother. A family is a unit. Two people decide to have and raise children, not one. What of the boy who grows up wanting a great career, and a dedicated wife to raise his children while he attains that goal.
The boy believes he can relinquishment the responsibility of upbringing his own children. If it were his wife that pursued these things, she is seen as selfish and failing in her motherly duties. Yet am i to believe this boys dreams are not that of an insufficient, selfish father and husband, but rather a suitable, 'marriageable' breadwinner? In comparison the contrast is cruel.

The patriarchal family this kind of thinking promotes is unhealthy for both female and male children to be brought up in. The gender roles you value so highly are just a result of years of believing this is what families need. I suppose the lack of females in higher positions in the workforce, still earning less than men in similar positions, shows that it is habit, rather than need which presses us to be traditional. Now that females can aspire to being mothers as well as more, they need the successful role models to show them it can be done, ie working mothers. If this shouldn't be the case, then i see a sad world ahead of us. If all the great breakthroughs in our history and that of our future, science, art, spiritual, philosophical, were exclusive to one gender, then we would lose so many brilliant minds. To say that women can only have the joy of being a mother or being successful in her endeavors is not only robbing the mother, but the children and society. If your telling me its healthy for a girl to grow up believing her sole purpose is to create and raise men (however wonderful it can be) so that they can then go out and change the world, then i am not inspired. I feel motherhood (and fatherhood, as it is left out so often yet should be just as critical) also carries the responsibility to inspire. Through chasing her dreams and/or teaching her children to do the same. Being a good parent (i stress, PARENT, not mother singularly) is so very important, but a part of that is respecting and loving yourself. Because how can children grow up loving themselves if they see a parent who cannot.

I understand parenthood is a commitment and some things have to be sacrificed, but we need perspective on what those things should be and stop focusing on who should be sacrificing. The answer is, of course, both parents, all parents, any parents. Because growing up healthy and happy and a good person has nothing to do with sticking to a preconceived notion of gender roles. Its balance, support(support for the father and mother and children), structure, love. All things that can be provided by single, married, divorced and same gendered people.

I think you need to give men more credit on their ability to nurture and love in a shared capacity or in a stay-at-home dad one. Then maybe more of them will give themselves that credit and evolve to be better fathers.

You seem to be a successful woman, and i hope your children are proud. I hope your success inspires them to seek out their own life goals.
I hope that the wonderful feeling of accomplishment you get from writing your books, or from any of your accomplishments, resonates with them. And i hope you understand that when you speak about women's responsibilities as mothers, you take that same sense of accomplishment women feel or aim to feel, and you stamp it out. You try to make them feel ashamed. And you tell men that its okay to put all the responsibility of rearing decent children onto your wife. Since she was born for it. I say this to offer a reason for the hate mail. I say this so you can, in turn, accept responsibility for yourself. You influence people, and someone in that position should constantly be looking at your views and challenging them. Because you are responsible for what you tell people, and i fear down the road your encouragements may turn out to be poison rather than gifts to those who seek happiness.

Feb 05, 2013, 11:26 pm

Awesome article! Thank you for standing up for what you believe in. I can't wait to read your books.

Jan 28, 2013, 12:24 am

As a side note, I should add that my two sisters and I have a vehemently self-described feminist for a mother, who worked insatiably to provide an excellent example of someone who values their work and their career as a product of commitment to excellence. And may I say, we are lucky to have had her. She is my hero in every possible way. May I also add that all three of us, contrary to your arguments, have turned out fine? The eldest daughter is in medical school, the middle is working for a computer company and engaged, and I myself will hopefully be headed to medical school in the coming years. Cheers.

Jan 28, 2013, 12:20 am

Suzanne, I feel that the majority of your arguments are extremely one sided as they continually focus on the mother's 'obligation' to stay at home. Penelope brought up a fair point when she asks if the father could stay at home. You claim to agree with her, yet your posts disproportionately demand the work of stay at home mothers. If you truly agreed, your topics would center more around the idea of a balanced family, in which the roles of both parents in whichever vocation they choose- breadwinner or caregiver- leads to well-adjusted children and a happy family unity. I agree that strong parental figures are an integral part of a child's development and well-being. In this respect, please, do us all a favor, and petition for children's rights, not a lack of female rights.

Dec 31, 2012, 4:21 pm

Thank you for this article. I don't know how to summarise what I'd love to be able to say because there is simply too much. Having had a rabidly self-focused mother and an equally unavailable father, both who bought so heavily into the feminist agenda, my sister and I know exactly what the effects are. They are atrocious! I wish I had words to describe the damage that was done emotionally and physically. Neither parent would be seen by our N.A. society as anything other than exemplary. There was never any severe physical/sexual abuse of the kind that society would recognise as bad parenting and yet, my sister and i agree, we never had a family, never had parents, never felt loved -- ever. Indeed, professionally my dad has every award our society is capable of giving -- I won't list them, and my stepmother has been almost as successful. My sister and i have suffered suicide attempts, serious mental illness, ongoing physical problems and well, the list is long. My stepmother 'gave' me a subscription to Ms when I was 13 and renewed it every year until I left. I hated it so much. It was also clear how deeply she and my father resented the demands of parenting although it was rarely overt. But i know that most people would see nothing wrong with their lifestyle choices -- that's what they are called. We had enough to eat after all, and were sheltered and our educations provided for. My sister and I agree we would have died/killed for one of those moms that bakes cookies, worries about her kids and is just plain there -- the kind of moms feminists argue they in theory support but secretly (or not so secretly) despise. I wish I could state this all more strongly -- but as you say. Few are listening to the damage that is being done. Because we were not violent, aggressive or in any other way 'obviously' damaged we were considered fine. Nothing could be further from the truth. Anyway thanks for speaking to an issue that is in my mind as serious as slave-owning was in the ante-bellum south of the 19th century. I wish you were the President!

Dec 19, 2012, 11:44 pm

"Point is really: not all women feel called to be mothers, but that doesn’t mean they have to give up their calling to be good mothers."

Why would anyone choose to become something they don't feel called to be? I don't understand. If a woman does not feel called to be a mother, why does she have to be a mother? If she doesn't feel called, then she shouldn't do it.

The feminist movement fought to remove women from this 'breeding animal' stereotype. The point Suzanne makes is that if a woman *feels called* to be a mother, then Feminism should not belittle or discourage that. The Feminist movement has pointed out that, sometimes, motherhood is a burden and a waste of a woman's life. For some women, yes, it is. Because not all women are the same. Just like some guys make fantastic fathers. And, others know they are not father material so they get vasectomies. Or, they should. And, we thank them for honestly appraising themselves and doing that.

I put it to you, that a women who doesn't feel called to motherhood, should not become a mother.

Dec 17, 2012, 10:36 pm

Evoeryne would benefit from reading this post

Dec 07, 2012, 4:47 pm

Dear Suzanne,

A massive thank you for speaking such great, practical wisdom into a geneation gone nuts. I just read your two articles on foxnews and loved what you are saying about men being sick of rude & tough women, and on women needing to be feminine. As a guy, I couldn't agree with you more. All the guys I've ever talked to about women never liked the manly kinda women. It's just not pleasant or natural for a guy to wanna be close to a woman who acts like a man. But a woman who acts like a lady and is feminine is highly attractive. Thank you for encouraging women to be & act like women. Ultimately this should be the easiest thing for them to do since it's just acting naturally. Blessings on your family & work!

Dec 06, 2012, 9:11 pm

I meant to put that first line from above in quotes:

"For the inconvenient truth is that if there were more women like Mrs. Romney in this country, we could solve many of our nation’s problems."

The real inconvenient truth is that there are not more women like Mrs. Romney because incredibly wealthy husbands are few and far between. I would love to not have to face the prospect of working when I have children, but my husband is a firefighter and, unfortunately, not duly compensated for putting his life on the line.

Dec 06, 2012, 9:08 pm

For the inconvenient truth is that if there were more women like Mrs. Romney in this country, we could solve many of our nation’s problems.

"Put another way: Most women make clear and purposeful choices — regarding sex, whom to marry (that’s a biggie), work, geography, etc. — that allow them to be the primary caregiver in their children’s lives."

I just wanted to comment than many women are widows and/or have found themselves in situations of divorce not of their choosing. We can make good choices about whomever we marry, but people do change. You can make all the purposeful choices in the world and still find yourself in a difficult situation.

"Motherhood escapes feminists."

A feminist is a person who believes men and women deserve equal rights. I don't understand why the word "feminist" is so often used to disparage women as being radical, cold, and narcissistic. How can any woman not consider herself a feminist? We are raising both men and women as mothers, and I would like to think all mothers are setting examples for their daughters that they can find their purpose in life and that it may not be solely motherhood.

"Most importantly, thank you for sticking with it in a culture that just doesn’t get it."

I will admit that we are in a sticky spot at the moment because the pendulum may have swung a bit far to one side with women now practically needing to work in order to sustain a family. However, the solution is not to put down mothers who have chosen to also pursue careers, thereby undoing the decades of work that feminists before us have done to allow women the opportunity to contribute to the world with our talents outside of the realm of motherhood. The solution is to thank them for their tireless effort as well and see them as inspiration to find more and better options that may allow women to choose both what type of career and home life they would like.

Women wanted options and fought for equality. They got those options, and now women on both ends of the spectrum are pointing their fingers at one another blaming the other side for the choices they've made. That's right, choices. We have them. We should be grateful.

Nov 30, 2012, 10:54 am

I really apprceitae free, succinct, reliable data like this.

Nov 27, 2012, 5:25 am

What I want to know is why people always argue an either or dichotomy that invariably claims that one is clearly better than the other when we all know this is only possible in a perfect world under controlled settings. I would firstly like to ask why Ms.Venker seems to believe that children had it so much better when they had stay at home moms. To me this is not a matter of common sense. Has anyone bothered to ask different generations how they felt about thair home lives and how it may have effected them. Please direct me to this study.
Point is really: not all women feel called to be mothers, but that doesn't mean they have to give up their calling to be good mothers.
I would argue, vehemently, that regardless of whether a parent stays at home to raise a child/children that ultimately it comes down to the quality of parenting. I believe that a stay at home mom can do just as good a job as a parent then one who say hires a caregiver with whom she works with daily to ensure her child's well-being while providing FOCUSED attention when she can. I would also argue that this focused attention in no way needs to be given throughout an entire day depending on a child"s age. Is not the job of a parent to ensure that their child learns to be self sufficient? Therefore being there all day every day is by no means necessary or exceptionally beneficial.
Same goes for being a single mother. Why is this necessarily bad? In a low income situation, yes this is difficult and can be detrimental. However, if a woman has a wonderful career inwhich she earns a good living while contributing to science or politics or some other thing that she has a genuine calling for and can afford to hire a caregiver, why is this necessarily going to lead to a bad life for the child?
If all you are aiming to accomplish is to argue for the validation of being a mother and homemaker, then I have no argument. But if you are saying that women who choose to have children while pursuing a demanding career can't be good mothers then I would say you're wrong. It's simply a fact that there are children who live in families with stay at home moms who are doing terribly and have aweful relationships with their parents, and there are also children who live with single moms who are very well taken care of and are flourishing. Your arguments simply don't hold up to reality. Whatever fallout exists from the feminist movement, a reversal won't fix things. What we are in the process of is a social evolution, and that invariably leads to difficulties, but to completely reject the benefits of that movement is to miss the point entirely.

Jen F
Nov 26, 2012, 5:23 am

I don't often go out of my way to give feedback on news articles ... the word 'news' being used loosely.

I disagree with so many points in this article. It's quite offensive

If men haven't had a revolution maybe they should ... it is evolutionary to improve and grow. Increasing EQ would be the first place to start.

Who says men are to blame for relationship problems?

Why is it compulsory for the woman to stay home to rear children. My male friend took 6 months long service leave when his wife returned to work, to care for their baby. He said it was a wonderful joyous experience.

There still is a war on women with lower rates of pay, glass ceilings, sexual harassment rife and mysoginistic articles like this getting airtime.

Feminism Hurts Women
Aug 25, 2012, 10:34 pm

There is a great war on traditional women. We are told time and time over again how useless we are. Very good article exposing the lies.

Aug 21, 2012, 1:14 pm

Usually Presidents would take counsel from learned authorities with significant research experience and access to statistics on a subject - perhaps a professor of Economics or researcher for some charity. When he instead only quotes his stay at home wife whose qualification stretch to an undergraduate degree in French language and literature and a thwarted desire to study art history as a Masters, I think it is fair to think this reflects worse on his judgement in choosing credible authorities than it does on his wife who is as free as the next person to give an opinion.

Aug 07, 2012, 7:18 am

=) I'm glad you agree, and I'm glad I agree with you. <3

Aug 05, 2012, 10:25 pm

He can.

Aug 05, 2012, 9:59 pm

Why can't the father stay at home?

Jun 14, 2012, 7:04 pm

So the richer a woman is, the less qualified she is to speak on women's issues? Sounds specious.

Jun 14, 2012, 12:27 am

Rosen's comments were not about motherhood per se, they were about Mitt claiming Ann as a major source of his information on how economic issues affect women in America.

Rosen is not attacking stay-at-home moms. She's attacking the legitimacy of the wife of a billionaire as a source of information on women's issues.

Where is Suzanne Next?


Source: The Austin Institute

Source: Julie Borowski

See what people are saying. . .

“Thank you, Suzanne, for having the courage and conviction to be ‘politically incorrect’ in speaking the truth about women, dating and family. You speak for millions of women who don’t have the same courage to stand by what seems like common sense in creating and maintaining a productive society and future generations’ success and prosperity.”
— Michelle

“It is so completely wonderful to hear voices like yours, expressing a truth so many of us know but will never see represented in the mainstream media. Thank you so much for your work, Suzanne.”
— Andrea

“I like what Suzanne Venker has to say. I think women need to really listen to what she’s saying, really listen, and don’t jump to conclusions. She’s not sending us back in time, but forward with a fresh look at who we really are as women.”
— Pamela

“I almost ruined my relationship with my husband when we were dating because of my anti-man attitude. I have now completely converted. Know that you are making a difference!”
— Heather