Thank you, Jennifer. Maybe C.D. will repost your article on Mother's Day. Not only is woman's work never done, it's seldom financially compensated. Because I stayed home with my children when they were very young (doing freelance teaching & writing) my Social Security check (should that fund still exist) will be a pittance. Now, as inroads are being made to cut Medicare--at the same time as the EPA is placed on the chopping block, and more and more dangerous pollutants (not to mention radiation from Fukushima) are entering our bodies to compromise our health, the YOY ethos rings loud and clear.

Our nation's priorities could not BE worse. In spite of glaringly obvious evidence that wealth is only reaching the top tier of society, the purchased candidates cry out for yet MORE tax cuts to the rich.

More than a decade ago Grover Norquist became the right's favorite talking pony for shamelessly demanding that government become small enough to shrink in a bath tub. To hell with all those widows, children, and handicapped folks who cannot work in conventional fields of labor! To hell with the EPA, welfare,(and now public schools) or any agency seeking to level the playing field for all Americans.

Who knew about ALEC until recently? Meanwhile, for years its war chest was invested in elaborate ways to infuse the media with memes favorable to big business. Clever P.R campaigns continually equated these messages with Individual Freedom.

When Naomi Klein's masterful book, "The Shock Doctrine" came out, alert minds began to see that the same "recipes" used to knee-cap workers (and the Left) in other nations, while insuring that elites would open their lands to corporate plunder, would HIT home. Now it has!

Whenever the elites divide the pie to allow fewer and fewer crumbs to trickle down, anger rises. And Agents of Destruction have learned how to seize upon that anger. Instead of directing it at the targets responsible for the carnage and pain, they skillfully orient it towards the engineered scapegoats du jour.

So, with media deregulated and now in the hands of the corporate chieftains who've learned from Bernays in the ways and means to manufacture consent, all sorts of targets are being held up to receive the public's growing angst.

The "usual suspects" include:

"Illegal" aliens, public school teachers, unions, gays, environmentalists, The Left, feminists, Muslims, "terrorists," the poor... etc.

With the lines of discourse as polluted (by corporate interests) as the nation's waterways, and with elections corrupted by big money, apart from OWS and well-attended, organized protests, the only force strong enough to shift the current pro-war (at great cost to all sentient life) is the GREAT MOTHER.

Paroxysms of environmental overkill, global warming, karmic blowback from war... all converge as a force intended to invoke a new paradigm. Yet those in power diligently fight Nature's Sign Language and refuse to direct their efforts towards a course correction (in their acts, priorities, and belief systems) that would preserve--rather than destroy--life on a global scale.

The Earth Mother also needs to be more greatly appreciated, as all of her amazing gifts, from clean running waters to mineral ore, have been for too long taken for granted.

Pacha Mama needs all the LOVE we can direct her way. As do many Mothers, all of whom work in their own ways.

"As part of the 1%, Ann Romney got to choose to stay home with her children. For the rest of us, this is just not an option."

Guess that makes me part of the 1%. Dang.

It's worth noting, that not only could Anne Romney afford more than anyone to choose to stay home, but she undoubtedly had paid domestic help so that she wasn't really doing the work. It is very likely still true that she has never worked a day in her life. I should note that while my screen name doesn't make it clear, I am a woman who raised a son and also worked outside the home.

Thank you to Jennifer Browdy de Hernandez for an excellent essay on a neglected topic. As a sixties feminist, socialized to value careers and public roles for women, I regret to say it took me till late middle age to re-examine my attitude concerning what mothers contribute to society. Browdy de Hernandez nails it: Without that nurturing, society simply cannot survive. Of course, while we're considering how to compensate women properly for this taken-for-granted and "free" (to the rest of us) contribution, we also ought to consider how to make it possible and more socially normalized for men to share in the responsibilities of caregiving.

All this really is worth grappling with because women are the default caregivers in our society, even with all the gains we have made in the workplace. Let a child get the sniffles, or an elderly parent fall and break a hip, and who steps up: the mother, the daughter, the daughter-in-law. These responsibilities can recur throughout our adult lives, and they explain much about why women tend to have more interruptions in their work careers than men, why they cluster in lower-paying occupations, and ultimately why they enter old age with fewer assets and are more likely to become poor than their male peers.

Recognizing and valuing the essential work of care, talking about policies that can make a difference--it's a conversation that's long overdue, and thanks to Ms. Browdy de Hernandez for keeping the ball in play.

Hilary Rosen was only repeating what you can bet was common conversation and opinion in the White House and among our elite.

I think condemning someone because they are wealthy or had domestic help as a lay-about that never worked a day in her life is about on a par with Hilary Rosen's statement. Is taking your kid to dance lessons, ball games, seeing they get their homework any less work than cooking? Being wealthy doesn't mean you are lazy or don't turn a finger, it just means you can choose not to. I personally don't believe Ann Romney is one who is lazy. But I don't know her either.

But anyone that condemns a woman for not holding a job, for not choosing the path they did in a career, that declare housework or raising children to be easy or not work is the biggest fool you will meet. Anyone that would condemn women for not "working" is less intelligent than a toad.

I am borrowing this from a poster above because it is so well said and so true:
" The truth is that American motherhood has never been more demanding, or more complicated."

The Hillary Rosen's of the world and their ilk are a dime a dozen and worth just about that.

Again borrowing from above because it says it so much better than I could:
"It may sound corny, but it’s true: without the hard work of mothers to bear and care for children, our great nation would simply cease to be.
We need to cut the political chicanery and not only give Motherhood the respect it deserves, but put our money where our mouths are, too"

The hypocrisy of women like Ms Rosen never ceases to amaze me and believe me there are many women who hold these views...one would think that women would be less judgmental about the choices that other women make (whether it's working inside the home full-time or working outside the home..note, in both instances I've used the word "work" because whether it's inside or outside the home, women work!). In my community a woman who works inside the home full-time is ridiculed, and called "lazy" which is why there aren't many such women because no one wants the stigma of being called "lazy"...and who does the name-calling? other women. In my limited experience in these matters, men are more accommodating of such choices and are less judgmental (why? because men know deep down just how involved working inside the home is! it's a thankless job, no pay, no benefits, no recognition, the only perk as I see it is being called "lazy"). I am not married, I do not have children and I totally respect all working mothers out there, I honestly do not know how they do it! (again, I wish to emphasise: working mothers ply their trade inside and/or outside the home). If I am ever blessed with children and had the means to make the same choices as Ann Romney did, I would do the same and work inside the home. But I suppose one does not necessarily have to have "means" to make this kind of choice but let's face it, if you don't fall within this income bracket, a lot of sacrifices have to be made to make that happen especially in this economic climate.

Blessings to all mothers, fathers, and children out there. Women, let's be supportive of one another and the choices that we make.

when I last lived in the UK, all mothers (or single fathers or the designated-at-home-parent of a dependent child) received 16 years social security (pension) credits per child, arranged so that for instance, my 2 children 5 years apart, would have meant I did not need to make payments into the system for 21 years (16 plus the age difference - from birth of first until last child turns 16). This seems only fair, as adults required 29 years of contributions to receive the national pension at the time.

First of all, Ms. Rosen is getting flack she flatly does not deserve. Her remarks, taken in context, are clear -- her references to Ann Romney not working a day in her life -- are about Mrs. Romney ECONOMIC realities, and NOT her choice to stay at home. No one has ever implied directly or indirectly that Mrs. Romney is "lazy" or "made the wrong choice" by not working outside the home. The FACTS are that Mrs. Romney had the MEANS to make a choice -- and -- 99% of women do not have that same choice. (BTW, I heard on television that Mrs. Romney had the "help" of FIVE housekeepers during that time too -- not serial housekeepers, five at one time!) Clearly, Mrs. Romney has NEVER worried about whether or not they would have electricity, nor has she worried about her children not getting enough to eat, or if they would have shoes that fit them. Mrs. Romney has had her share of life's problems - however, the economic realities that mean our children SUFFER as a result of LACK - have NEVER been ANY part of her problems.

I would have liked this article much better if it actually addressed the issue of women being compensated. Right now, women are often FORCED into abject poverty by being solely responsible for raising (and paying for that raising) of their children. While there are child support laws, they do not good if the states and courts continue, as they did in my case, to FORGIVE the unpaid child support. Where is the federal government Title IV-D "oversight"? Why isn't the federal government making these states forfeit their federal dollars as the law says they will if the law is not followed?

Why are women, making 3/4ths of a man's pay for the same work, being denied Social Security benefits for the time they are at home raising this nation's future? For that matter, any parent? Why do we, the wealthiest country in the history of the world, NOT pay a stay-at-home parent some wage? Why are grass widows and widows NOT guaranteed some basic, MINIMUM standard of living when the other parent ABANDONS the children? Ironic in my case is that I took out student loans because I was "guaranteed" that my unpaid child support could not be forgiven. Now that it HAS been forgiven by the state of Texas, my Social Security will be GARNISHED to pay for those "can not be forgiven" student loans. It appears my diet will include cat food in my old age.

My question is if republicans "value" the "work" of stay-at-home Moms so much, why don't they have ANY policies SUPPORTING them? (i.e., pay, minimum standard of living, Social Security benefits, equal pay laws, re-entry into the workforce laws)?? I would also like some republican - ANY republican of national import - to explain to me why it is okay to treat women and children this way?

She probably worked up quite a sweat managing her nannies and housekeepers.

Hilary Rosen's comments were specifically about Ann Romney. Mrs. Romney has four housekeepers, that by the way, are paid about 1/3rd less than the going wage for housekeeping based on their tax forms. And she has had nanny help. With that much paid support - How much did she have to work. If she did not have full time paid help I am sure that taking care of those huge houses and all that family would have been a huge amount of work - but she did not do it. Her paid employees did the work while she had the time to take riding lessons and attend to social occasions. Her situation is not typical of hardly any working or at home mothers and should not be talked about as though she was anything typical when it comes to the work involved. That is what Ann Romney's press conference was supposed to make you believe and it just is not true!

Is there video footage of Hillary's comment? I would like to download it for a future film. Thanks in advance.

support Hilary Rosen at all costs! Go DNC Go Pres Obama no matter what

"It truly is disheartening to hear a supposedly progressive woman proclaim that a fulltime mother “never worked a day in her life.” "

That would be true if she was talking about a normal fulltime mother. The particular mother she was talking about had her kids cared for by nannies, fed by her chef, driven about by her chauffeur, had their clothes washed and rooms cleaned by the maid.

Of course, she would have spent time with her kids, but she was too busy riding around her estate on her $100,000 horses.

Yes, she never worked a day in her life, and it's a stretch to call her a fulltime mother because she didn't do the care giving ... her servants did.

And best of all, she was able to go through life without working because of all the money her husband made laying off working people, including many thousands of working mothers who needed their jobs to provide for their children.

Women privileged enough to breed and stay at home are hardly under-appreiated in America. They get the blessings of churches everywhere, TV praises them while they watch in the daytime, and we've all been conditioned to knee-jerk citation of "the most difficult job in the world." I'm sorry, but I've seen many a stay-at-home Mom play that game for discounts, faster service, commiseration, praise, donations, extra-help, etc.

They're a social ideal, hardly a forgotten under-class.

At this time in human history, when the Earth is over-over-over populated, praising the righteous and selfish choices of breeders and uber-consumers seems really, really dispicably wrong.