Feminism has been co-opted by the lesbian movement.

Hilary Rosen (Left) and a recent but
estranged partner. 

updated to included Rosen's million dollar earnings since 2002.   

 Hilary Rosen is gay and proudly so. I am fine with her decision, although I disagree that it is anything more than a personal decision.    She has had many "significant others,"  has never given birth,  has never been married,  has earned millions in CEO  salary's and bonuses since [at least] 2002  and owns a world view that is exclusive and angry . . . . . and  she has criticized Ann Romney for being out of touch with real women!  Wow.

Linda Hirshman recently wrote an article in the Leftist publication,  the Washington Post, titled "Hilary Rosen was right: Ann Romney has never worked a day in her life."  Under that banner,  Hirshman adds the following bit of  convoluted rhetoric, successfully confusing all who read her words with the hope of comprehension:

And surely, taking care of a family is hard work. In Ann Romney’s case, managing the very elaborate Romney establishment — five children, three or four houses and two Cadillacs — probably takes as much labor as most jobs in the market economy. 

Which is it,  does Ann Romney work or not;  and is her particular calling in life to be compared to a market place position or not?  Like Hilary Rosen,  Hirshman is a lesbian,  unmarried and and has never given birth.  She is a woman of accomplishment and means.  If she does not live in a mansion similar to that of any well-to-do woman,  no one knows why.  And, few believe that she runs around in 1996 Honda Accord.  

Apparently she and Rosen share an angry emotion because of the cars and housing Ann Romney shares with her husband.  Worst, yet, the two gay pundits expect others to share in that anger.  What other reason could there be for the constant reminder of the homes and cars the two Americans own?  

Linda Hirshman: gay and
accomplished but no more
representative of the American
woman than a transgendered
blue bird. 

Understand this: the vast majority of American women are not gay,  bear and raise children,  and understand (first hand) what it means to function in a domestic setting.  If we are going to carry this ridiculous argument to its logical conclusion,  we must reason that a woman who rejects the normative relationship of a male companion and is often angry about that decision,  does not physically bear children and, in many cases,  has not raised any children,  is no more "in touch" with the larger community of women than the "out of touch,"  Ann Romney.  

Understand this: in this country,  if you want to be gay,  that is fine.  I would never work to punish someone for that decision,  BUT,  to, then,  pretend that this rather extreme minority somehow is representative of a larger population and, therefore, qualified to frame the larger narrative,  is nuts.  

Ann Romney, giving Mitt a piece of her mind
and looking quite professional.  

You want to be a gay, rich or well-to-do feminist?  Fine.  But stop with the anger and cease with the fantasy that you represent the larger community.  You do not.  Indeed,  you are representative,  but only of a minority opinion.  What do these women need to do? Well, they can begin by getting over themselves.  Secondly,  they can learn to speak and write in terms that do not require apologies and incessant explanation for their actions and contradictory rhetoric.  Follow that up with trying to figure out how to bridge their personal biases and expressed opinions with those who disagree . . . . or do they expect there to be no debate?   

I am saying that if you are going to go gay,  give everyone who disagrees, the finger,  accomplish yourself  with an education and status for no reason other than vain glory, then expect to get some heavy duty blow-back.  

Ann Romney is as much a part and functionary in her husband's successes, as is any accomplished woman a part of the success of her chosen and professional entity.  Think about this terrible possibility:  if Ann and Mitt were to go through a divorce,  would she not end up sharing in the wealth of the family?  Of course . . . .. big time.  Why?  Because the people who craft our laws, originally recognized that an "Ann Romney" is deserving of that wealth,  that she has earned that wealth, that she was and is a functionary in its creation.

But,  how would Rosen and Hirshman know of these things?  I really haven't a clue.