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.
Kinda makes you wonder if the guy even took care of his own offspring, let alone know what it is like to be raising the next generation of (hopefully) educated Americans with about a handful of weeks from maternity leave.
ReplyDelete-Barb the French Bean