I can’t decide what the most offensive thing is about “Democrats Underestimate the Complexity of Female Voters.” Is it:
- The a self-avowed non-mother speaking in the first person plural for all women, especially working class mothers?
- Is it the sweeping generalization (in a column that purports to be about complexity) that “most” women wouldn’t go back to work after having children if they didn’t have to?
- Or the notion that working class women don’t “have the luxury of worrying about birth control,” because family planning apparently isn’t a financial issue?
- I think it’s the conclusion that “We ladies are a lot smarter than some people give us credit for being.” As though we still live in a world in which the value of women’s contributions (to matters other than childrearing, of course) still remains to be demonstrated? The fact that Christine Flowers is herself a 51 year old, childless woman with a column in the Philadelphia Daily News in which is able to express her opinions is a testament to the contrary. (Extrapolating her age from the fact that clicking on her name at the end of the article sends you to a contact form with the email handle “cflowers1961.”)
It’s the same sentiment at play when Mitt Romney said in the last debate:
“I recognized that if you’re going to have women in the workforce that sometimes you need to be more flexible.”
IF being the operative word.