In an apparent attempt to wrest the title of Champion of Unintended Irony from Michelle Bachmann, Mitt Romney declared that poor women should be required to work outside the home or lose Temporary Assistance for Needy Families [TANF] benefits.
Because only rich women should be afforded the “choice” to become trophy wives and put their hard-earned managerial skills to use bossing around the domestic help, Romney stated "even if you have a child 2 years of age, you need to go to work."
While I don’t in theory disagree with the idea of having to work to earn benefits, it just seems a wee bit contradictory coming from the camp that saw their opportunity and went for the jugular when someone implied being a stay-at-home-mom wasn’t much work.
So which is it, Mitt? Is being a stay-at-home-mom one of the toughest jobs? Or not work at all? Are these women the backbone of our society? Or worthless dregs with no dignity who need to be catapulted out into the almost-non-existent job market? Or is this maybe, just maybe, yet another example of the classist, racist and misogynistic policies that currently define the Republican party?
What about if we just ensured that those women had the education and opportunity to avoid having those children in the first place, so they could work, improve their situation, and hopefully be ready and able to financially care for children later on?
Or is logic something we’re not allowed to discuss?
Looks like you should have stuck to your policy of deferring to Ann on all the “women-related” issues, Mittens.