
When Hilary Rosen uttered The Remark and the politics-fueled Mommy Wars absurdity ensued, I got mired in a comment thread on a popular blog site. The blogger was of the opinion that Rosen was biased against SAHMs and wrote a post calling for the end of the Mommy Wars.
The post set off an avalanche of comments. Most commenters believed that Rosen was anti-SAHM and saw Ann Romney as a victimized role model for mothers who raise kids full-time.
A minority of commenters, of which I was one, believed that the Mommy Wars debate was a smoke screen for the more pressing issue of Privilege, and how those who lack it are hindered, whether or not they stay home to raise children.
Some of the moms who weighed in were inspired by the Romneys and felt that they were proof that those who worked hard would inevitably be rewarded with financial gain.
One mom, "Stella," explained that she had started a work-at-home business in order to become a "job creator," because, she said, "when was the last time a poor person offered you a job?"
I became fascinated by Stella as she fired off comment after comment. How many people can ask "when was the last time a poor person offered you a job?" without a shred of irony or acknowledgment of the lack of Privilege that leads people who sell strawberries on the road side to be unable to offer steady employment with a nice benefits package?
Each of Stella's comments was like a puzzle piece, and when I put them all together this is what emerged:
Stella was a single mom of four children. Her ex had limited involvement in her kids' lives. She was a disciple of a how-to-get-rich guru -- let's call him Richie -- who sells books, DVDs, audiotapes, and seminar packages to people who want to be just like him.
Stella was convinced she would hit the money-lode any day and she used the comment thread for what appeared to be a pyramid scheme, peddling Richie's videos. She was almost evangelical in her insistence that these videos would teach others how to be business dynamos and lead the life of their dreams.
Because that's what Richie promised.
There are many Richies out there. Some of them offer sound business advice that also incorporates living a life of integrity. Some of them are snake oil salesmen. Richie, in my opinion, is one of the latter.
Regardless of their integrity or lack thereof, motivational gurus are charismatic figures who have an endless supply of betterment products -- books and tapes and seminars and day planners and vitamin water and God knows what else -- that do create wealth.
For the gurus.
And while a minority of their disciples might become successful putting their principles into practice, most will not. As Malcolm Gladwell explains in his brilliant book Outliers, other factors such as luck, timing and possessing a very particular set of characteristics that a chosen career requires, have always diluted the hard-work-eventually-leads-to-success formula. Without these factors, hard workers will never strike gold.
What was possible after World War II was that middle-class people could work themselves into nice homes, nice cars, family vacations, and ultimately, comfortable retirement. They could do this because they could stay in jobs for thirty years and collect pensions. Houses were affordable. The tax system was far more equitable than it is today.
But the era of the contented middle-class worker is gone. Poof! It is a quaint, sepia-toned memory. Unless a miraculous sea change occurs -- for example, Warren Buffet's proposal for tax reform goes into effect, more billionaires bequeath their fortunes to organizations that benefit all of us, the defense budget is slashed and funds are diverted into education, social services, and universal healthcare -- middle-class people will be working till they drop.
And single mothers like Stella, who lack education and an influential social network, will face even grimmer prospects.
Which is why I believe Stella took to the Mommy Blogs to hawk Richie's wares. Confronting her reality is a downer. Fantasizing about hobnobbing with Ann Romney is an upper.
The inimitable social thinker Barbara Ehrenreich believes that the culture of positive thinking has actually contributed to the country's financial collapse. How? By convincing those who have been screwed over by corporate America to support policies that only benefit the 1%.
I was amazed that Stella, and many other commenters, felt protective of the Romneys and insisted that Mitt was a "job creator," despite staggering evidence to the contrary.
Ehrenreich would say that middle-class people like Stella unwittingly contribute to the class divide because they believe they can positive-think themselves into the 1%. And when they think this way they vote for politicians who are going to create policies that will further reduce their opportunities.
I'm not advocating pessimism. Relentless negative thoughts drag us down and sap us of the energy required to make the most of our situation. Judicious escapism serves a need. As much as I love Nobel Prize winner Paul Krugman for his spot-on economic forecasts, for instance, I sometimes feel like sticking my head in the oven midway through his columns.
But back to Stella -- and all women concerned with reduced options, whether their own or the options of others. You say you want to end the Mommy Wars? Join Unite Against the War on Women.
Founded by two women who got mad as hell with the abuse of privilege undermining women -- and men -- in this country, Unite Against the War on Women seeks to defend human rights.
How do they do this, exactly? By using social media to educate women about politicians' policies. By creating online auctions to raise money to keep budget-slashed rape crisis centers afloat. And by spearheading a nationwide rally on April 28th to urge legislators to create policies that support human rights -- equal pay, reproductive rights, access to healthcare -- instead of dismantle them. Click here to find a rally in your area.
I don't know if the rally, or the organization, will change anything. It certainly won't make anyone rich. But it's a step in the right direction. The very fact that in only two months time, two frustrated women have spawned a nationwide grass roots human rights campaign is remarkable.
It is the result of true positive thinking -- the kind that ignites people instead of numbing them to their circumstances.



Salon.com
Comments
All that dreaming is powerful stuff, and it obscures what we need to see right in front of us--our real finances, our families, our childen's hopes to get an education.
What was possible after World War II was that middle-class people could work themselves into nice homes, nice cars, family vacations, and ultimately, comfortable retirement. They could do this because they could stay in jobs for thirty years and collect pensions. Houses were affordable. The tax system was far more equitable than it is today. Why is this argument not repeated more often? I have never once heard it argued in association with the power and strength of the economy then.
It has taken me a great deal of effort and self-examination to get even the minimal self-esteem I currently have. You have to do the work. One of the better self-help CD's I have identified these hucksters by the best-selling made-up title, "Lose Weight And Grow Rich While You Sleep."
Well, it looks like the whole nation is sleeping. And everybody's still grossly overweight and poor.
Too many people (rather conveniently) mistake self delusion, magical thinking, bad judgement, self justification, hype, manipulation and other thought processes for true positive thinking.
The hyped up salesman and the pumped up motivational speaker use something else to work their audiences.
So the answer is no. Positive thinking works to cancel irrational negative thinking or external influence. The positive thought form helps people to not give up when there is discouragement, distraction, fretting, blocking or hard times.
Positive thinking is an internal process that cannot cause changes in the real world.
There is no magic working here, but a practiced person can keep dysfunctional and negative urges from controlling their lives. In this way, special things appear to be happening, but it is simply that a human got better at clearing up their own internal problems and focused on making them happen.
The opiate thought forms are obvious and identifiable. They are quite different from a positive mindset and they can cause different moods and behaviors. Meditation is an opiate thought form.
Great post, topic and EP!
When we expect Positive Thinking to supply the answer to absolutely everything, however, we are possessed by a kind of strict Fundamentalism.
Excellent post, Pauline.
Lezlie
As to demonstrations and marches and petitions and other forms of protest, I'm not one to get too excited about personally participating. For one thing I've lost the fire of youth needed to work up the energy to get involved in something I know pretty well will lead to naught. I took some encouragement last year in the OWS demonstrations throughout the land because I think they woke up a segment of our population that had been, if not asleep then pleasantly deluded and it raised and merged the economic consciousnesses of a large swath of demographic that ordinarily wouldn't "do lunch" together, i.e. from Tea Party to no party, to see thru the shuck and recognize the ugly reality of the oligarchy that makes us all dance to its tune. And any optimism I take from that is more of a hope we voters will send a message to the oligarchists in November that the worst of their sponsored minions will get their butts kicked. What good that would do is probly barely more than esthetic, but watching an oligarchist frown would kinda make my day, ya know?
As for Ehrenreich's theory, man have I seen people behave like this, time and again.
The problem facing middle class America is not the tax system, but the lack of good jobs with good salaries. There's plenty to fix with our current tax system, but comparing tax systems over time is hard, because we have such a convoluted system of deductions, exemptions, and oddball classifications that the rates don't mean much. Currently, the top tax rate is 35%, but Mitt Romney paid around 15% on his income. Comparing today's 35% to some past rate which was much higher, with more generous deductions tells you little about how what percentage today's or past multimillionaires actually pay.
Are you suggesting that people were better off in the 1960s than today? If yes, the economic data does not support your theory of decline. Simply stated, our economy has grown dramatically over the last 50 years and with that growth the average household is far better off than in the past. Even more ridiculous is the suggestion that there was less racism in the 1960s than there is today. I’d love to continue the attack on your false comparisons as it relates to tax policy and regulations but what would be the point if you can’t understand the simple stuff first?
There really are no such things as positive and negative thoughts, just honest and dishonest ones. And the truth is never negative.
I have also, sadly, given my self and my dollars over several times to those get-rich gurus, multi-level marketing their books, cd's, or software. I'm still not rich, but they are. There's no fool...
But the every social movement or phenomenon erodes with time. I think the phrase "positive thinking" is little more than that now -- a catch phrase that people use to browbeat critical thinkers, outliers, rebels, and their ilk. Kind of like saying "Jesus loves you" and expecting it to mean something to the person being addressed.
A recent episode of American Greed exposed a multi-million dollar scam that promised people a return of 10% a month -- not a year, a month. Even Bernie Madoff wasn't that audacious. Anyone who believes it's possible to return 10% a month on any investment (with the possible exception of congressional bribes) is a lamb waiting to be slaughtered.
As to why they are succeeding, I give you this exchange I had another post:
Commenter One: [This is the] second post I'm mentioning this on... Ann and Mitt were not rich when they had their kids. Mitt did not make his fortune until 16 years after their first kid was born. They lived in a shitty apartment for their first child, and while their situation may not be as bad as many others, I don't think it was what others are claiming it be. Again, not a supporter of the guy, just get irritated with the crap on both sides.
[H]onestly, democrats are not making themselves look good with a lack of research on the issue and just spouting privilege. I'm in the middle, Libertarian... but I've seen more crap from Democrats than Republicans as far as personal attacks. No clue what that is about.
My reply: Yeah, the Romneys were just a couple of struggling newlyweds, living hand to mouth just like the rest of us. That certainly is what you're trying to insinuate, and that is simply ludicrous. Read their bios before you make such a foolish claim.
Mitt is the son of the former Governor of Michigan, and the millionaire CEO of American Motors, who was himself a candidate for President -- until he fessed up to being brainwashed about the Vietnam War. Ironically, under Nixon his dad headed HUD, the same dept Mitt wants to eliminate. Say, is there a little Oedipal thing going on here? Shades of Bush the Least. God help us!
For the record, Mitt attended Cranbrook School in Bloomfield Hills, a private boys preparatory school. His childhood sweetheart, Ann Davies, attended the private Kingswood School, the sister school to Cranbrook. Those of us from Michigan know that Bloomfield Hills and private schools ARE NOT the realm of the struggling young people, as you're trying to suggest.
Yes, their son Tagg was born while they were living in a basement apt while attending BYU, but that's about the only truth in the "log-cabin" legend you're trying to foist off on us. Mitt also earned a JD from Harvard, as well as an MBA -- just like Bush the Least. God help us on that score, too.
Commenter Two: Good points, [addressing Commenter One]. It's why I despise American politics. Romney and others like him shouldn't ever have to apologize for being an affluent and diversely wealthy family formulated from humble beginnings...this is why America is known by the global community as the land of opportunity. When people stop, act and think responsibly, they just might realize that they can also be opportunists.
My reply: Either you're joking or you're foolish. Celebrating opportunists? I'll grant you, it's the American Way -- but extolling it as a virtue? Well, I guess that goes with wingnuttery in general. For the record, here's the definition of an opportunist:
"A person who exploits circumstances to gain immediate advantage rather than being guided by principles or plans."
I'd say that's Mittmormon in a wingnutshell.
______
That one of these dullards imagines a prep school upbringing left Ann and Mitt familiar with the difficulties faced by ordinary Americans, and that the other dullard imagines opportunists make America great, explains a great deal about the outcome of our elections since 1980.
Indeed, the greatest shine job in the history of this country was Reagan polishing a turd and calling it Morning in America. Alas, when the rains came, the turd was exposed, and we had Mourning in America.
SAHM -- stay at home mothers
To be fair, even in The Secret the panel states that positive thinking without you making actions that begin to align yourself to your visions is foolish and not what they mean. It all seems like goal-setting with new wording really, but somewhere along the line, certain agendas left out the crucial step of action toward those visions or goals...