海角大神

It's hard not to appreciate the scene in the aftermath of the Ann Romney versus Hilary Rosen mommy wars dustup:聽Republicans scrambling over themselves to voice shocked feminism, and the Democrats scrambling over themselves to smooth over a gaff that offended women 鈥� and then making the assertion that the whole thing doesn鈥檛 really matter that much anyhow.

But I also wonder if all sides might be missing a big point.

The Obama camp is sticking up for stay-at-home-mom Ms. Romney, whose husband the president is likely to be running against in November elections:聽Michelle Obama tweeted yesterday that 鈥淓very mother works hard, and every woman deserves to be respected.鈥� President Obama said the comment by Ms. Rosen, a Democratic strategist that Romney had "never worked a day in her life" was "the wrong thing to say." The president's strategist David Axlrod tweeted that he was "disappointed" with Rosen's "inappropriate and offensive" words. Rosen even apologized, saying聽she was sorry if she had offended people and asking to "declare peace in this phony war and go back to focus on the substance."

I don't write much about politics 鈥� don't really want to. And sure, in the grand scheme of the presidential landscape (hello North Korean nuclear program!), perhaps Rosen is correct 鈥� the mommy wars should not, probably, be given too much weight.

But it鈥檚 hard to stomach the idea that this issue doesn鈥檛 have substance.聽

Since we first wrote about this yesterday, I鈥檝e been thinking a lot about one of Rosen鈥檚 Tweets 鈥� one she wrote before the grand apology. Read it, and see if you catch the missing link: the people聽产别丑颈苍诲听the women who work out of the home - the childcare providers.

鈥淲hen I said @AC360 Ann Romney never worked I meant she never had to care for her kids AND earn a paycheck like MOST American women! #Truth.鈥�

I鈥檝e decided the reason this tweet has been bothering me is that it ignores another big #Truth: that somebody needs to be taking care of the kids, even when mom goes to work. It鈥檚 not like most career moms are bringing baby to the office, or trying to man that conference call or workstation with a toddler scurrying around their ankles. 聽

So while they face a juggle 鈥� one that can be incredibly stressful (or rewarding) 鈥� it鈥檚 not quite fair to characterize 鈥渨orking moms鈥� as聽 having two jobs, while 鈥渟tay-at-homes鈥� have one. (That whole 鈥渟econd shift鈥� thing, where moms take on housework and childcare at the end of the day, probably happens to everyone 鈥� stay-at-homes and career moms alike).聽

What's missing in Rosen鈥檚 argument is the other person (or people) involved in childcare. 聽

That person is invisible. And that, I鈥檇 venture, is a problematic 鈥� but pretty common 鈥� omission. It seems to me that鈥檚 pretty reflective of how we, as a society, tend to treat people who take care of our kids.聽

Recent stories of $100,000-a-year nannies aside, childcare workers are notoriously underpaid. This is true in the United States, where the Bureau of Labor statistics say the median pay of childcare workers is just under $20,000 a year; it is even more glaring elsewhere in the world.聽

In South Africa, where I lived for a number of years, nannies (or 鈥渄omestics,鈥� as they were regularly called) often made pennies; last year the South African government announced an increase of the minimum wage for domestic workers up to the equivalent of about $50 a week.

Because if we鈥檙e going to talk about parenting, and the social questions involved in raising kids, it鈥檚 worth looking at how (and why) we weigh it economically.聽 Because for better or worse, in our world that often equals value.聽

And how we value kids, I鈥檇 say, is an issue for all political parties.