New York Daily News columnist S.E. Cupp argues that Ann Romney's decision to "marry up" makes her an excellent role model who is "uniquely qualified to talk about the most important economic issue that real women confront: How am I going to support myself and my future family?" Her argument is this: Ann was smart enough to land a rich boyfriend early on, at her private high school, and keep him โ€” a premeditated act, obviously, because she knew that she would have to work if she didn't snag a wealthy guy โ€” and she deserves more praise for this than she does for getting an education because, "by marrying wealthy, Ann made a truly empowering decision that allowed her the freedom to do whatever she wanted." Also, it's hypocritical of Democrats to challenge Ann's knowledge of working women's issues because:

if Democrats insist that women need Obama to take care of them, then why shouldn't women also feel compelled to consider how their future husbands will take care of them? What's the difference between the feminists' political marriage to Obama and Ann's marriage to Mitt? Both choices are predicated on who will be the better provider.

Ann Romney did not exactly grow up on the wrong side of the tracks. Her dad was the president of a company that made maritime machinery, and he made enough for their family to reside in Bloomfield Hills, Michigan, one of American's wealthiest suburbs, and send Ann to a posh private school. Not all women have the luxury of meeting a future multimillionaire at a high school dance! Ann Romney married rich, but she was also born rich. Also, Democrats : Obama is not the same as Wife : Husband or Man : Woman. Women literally need Obama because he has the power to veto laws that affect their reproductive rights.

It's true that marriage is a partnership, not just a celebration of love, and plenty (most?) of people, whether they're male or female, wouldn't object to marrying rich. But Cupp apparently lives in a fantasy world where women are incapable of being financially independent โ€” or interested in working along with or instead of raising a family โ€” and men are incapable of being poor slackers. "The feminists may wish otherwise, but little girls want stability and security, not state-sponsored welfare," Cupp writes. "For choosing a life partner who could give her that, Ann Romney is a great role model."


It's just dumb to argue that feminists want women to rely on welfare โ€” obviously a lady's only other option if she can't golddig, right? โ€” but for those who don't have the luxury of marrying rich, there's the soon-to-be-introduced Woman's Option to Raise Kids (WORK) Act, which will allow mothers with children ages 3 and under to stay at home with their children and continue receiving benefits. Rep. Pete Stark of California told the Huffington Post that the bill was inspired by Mitt's declaration soon after the Hilary Rosen fiasco that "All moms are working moms":

"Mitt Romney was for forcing mothers into the workforce before he decided that 'all moms are working moms,'" Stark told The Huffington Post. "I think we should take Mr. Romney at his most recent word and change our federal laws to recognize the importance and legitimacy of raising young children. That's why I'm introducing the WORK Act to provide low-income parents the option of staying home to raise young children without fear of being pushed into poverty."


Stark is referring to the changes Mitt made to the Massachusetts welfare program when he was governor. "I wanted to increase the work requirement," Romney recently explained. "I said, for instance, that even if you have a child 2 years of age, you need to go to work. And people said, 'Well, that's heartless.' And I said, 'No, no, I'm willing to spend more giving day care to allow those parents to go back to work. It'll cost the state more providing that day care, but I want the individuals to have the dignity of work.'"

Oh, the "dignity" of not staying home to raise your kids. Everyone can understand that. Well, not Ann Romney โ€” but everyone else, totally.


WORK Act Would Give Low-Income Moms The Same Option As Ann Romney (For 3 Years) [Huffington Post]
The smartest choice Ann Romney made [NY Daily News}