The great political divide between Democrats and Republicans lengthens as the sensationalized “war on women” finds its roots in misconstrued and poorly phrased assertions, growing into a monster of unexpected proportion. Women’s rights are incredibly important and the opinions of the female population are essential in today’s politics, but much of the news surrounding women’s rights is so morphed that it has become strictly propaganda.
Wisconsin’s own Gov. Scott Walker is accused of participating in this “war on women.” When he repealed the Equal Pay Enforcement Act, Wisconsin got national attention, and is now considered the origin of the “war on women” debate by several sources. GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney was later questioned about Walker’s views and whether or not he supported the repeal, moving the topic to national debate.
Though it is true that Walker’s views do not line up with many women’s and the Equal Pay Enforcement Act probably should have been left in place, calling his agenda a “war on women” may be going a little too far. Walker is not a woman-hater, and neither is Romney. They both have wives, they both interact with women on a daily basis, and they both employ women in their campaigns.
American elections are becoming a ridiculous game of digging up dirty details and bad-mouthing the opponent. Candidates’ actual political platforms are getting lost among random and even useless accusations. Hilary Rosen, a Democratic strategist, pundit and lobbyist, recently remarked Ann Romney, Mitt Romney’s wife, had “never worked a day in her life” in an interview on CNN’s “Anderson Cooper 360.” What Rosen really meant, as she explained, is Romney “never really dealt with the kinds of economic issues that a majority of the women in this country are facing.” However, the statement was interpreted differently than the speaker intended, and once the media caught hold of Rosen’s comments there was no taking them back.
Because Ann Romney is a stay at home mom, the Romney campaign began using Rosen’s comments to try to win more female votes, mostly due to the campaign’s inability to connect with women on other fronts. Soon people were saying that Rosen disrespected women who stayed home with children, and the Obama campaign faced accusations about women. Reactions to Rosen’s words sprung up on every social media and news outlet, stinging stay-at-home mothers and distancing Rosen from the Democratic Party.
It is universally acknowledged that stay at home moms have their work cut out for them, a fact which neither Democrats nor Republicans deny. Rosen even apologized for her remark, which so easily complicated the presidential race. The problem is, however, not whether the United States as a nation appreciates women who raise children, but rather the type of campaigns that are being run. Rosen may identify with the Democratic Party, but she is not an integral part of the Obama campaign. She has very little influence on the president, so why were her comments used as the foundation for an attack on the Obama campaign? Rosen is quite irrelevant.
The issue goes beyond the “war on women,” including every topic imaginable. For example, it was recently made public that Romney strapped his dog—in a crate, of course—to the roof of his car on a 12 hour drive. Some of Obama’s followers quickly attacked Romney for his disrespect of the animal. And in response, the Romney supporters attacked Obama because he ate dog meat as a child in Indonesia. While eating dog meat is neither rare nor strange in Indonesia, it gave Romney his desired response.
But why? Should these things really affect their campaigns? It is certain that Obama does not make a habit of eating dog, and Romney’s pet was perfectly fine after the ride. As voters, it is time we look past this refined form of yellow journalism and focus on what really matters: how these people are going to change our country.
Kate is a freshman majoring in English and Spanish. Please send all feedback to opinion@dailycardinal.com.
