TROY — On Friday, Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand made an extraordinary claim. "We have Democratic presidential candidates running for president right now who do not necessarily believe that it's a good idea that women work outside the home," Gillibrand said during a women's labor event in Iowa. "No joke."
...Wow. Who are these retrograde misogynists? Gillibrand didn't say and still won't. I asked Evan Lukaske, her national press secretary, whom she was referring to, but the question went unanswered. That's cowardly. A politician willing to make such a dramatic accusation should have the backbone to follow through with names. Instead, Gillibrand left voters guessing. You don't have to be Sherlock Holmes, though, to deduce that she was taking an underhanded swipe at Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts.
That may seem unlikely given that Warren is a woman (obviously) who has spent much of her life working. But Warren also coauthored a book called "The Two-Income Trap," which argued that women's entrance into the workforce was disastrous for middle-class families. Published in 2003, before Warren was a national figure, it's a thoughtful and well-researched book borne from her bankruptcy work and experience as a working mother. I won't be able to do justice to the complexity of her argument here.
To be clear,
Warren didn't argue that women shouldn't work; she explicitly made it clear that wasn't her point. But she did contend that having millions of women entering the workforce allowed corporations to lower wages and eventually boosted the cost of housing, day care and other key components of modern family life. "Middle-class mothers went into the workforce in a calculated effort to give their families an economic edge," wrote Warren and her daughter, coauthor Amelia Warren Tyagi. "Instead, millions of them are now in the workforce just so their families can break even." Some of those moms, spending exorbitant amounts on child care, would like to stop working so they can spend more time with their children, Warren noted. But many feel unable to do so. "Today's middle-class mother is trapped: She can't afford to work and she can't afford to quit," Warren wrote as she argued for a federal subsidy for stay-at-home moms — a proposal that, unfortunately, is not part of her presidential platform.
...
Gillibrand and other presidential candidates who have lived exceptionally privileged lives may not understand that anxiety or why some moms — and dads — might rue falling into the two-income trap. But Warren certainly does. No matter her faults or mistakes as a candidate, she at least knows what it means to live with the constraints faced by a typical American family. By the way, I twice asked Lukaske, the Gillibrand spokesperson, specifically if the senator was referring to Warren. He didn't answer, but did send along a statement attributed to Meredith Kelly, the campaign's communications director. Here it is: "Kirsten believes we need to have a broader and more intentional conversation about valuing women in this country and even this primary, and she intends to do so in the coming days. Stay tuned.” Again, it's a cowardly, mealy-mouthed answer, and one only needs to look at the polls to understand why Gillibrand might be desperate to make waves.
More at
https://www.timesunion.com/7dayarchive/article/Churchill-Kirsten-Gillibrand-s-unfair-swipe-at-14201944.php
