Thoughts?
That Mitt Romney holds a double standard for rich mothers and poor ones is no surprise - but the fact is that he is able to capitalize on Hilary Rosen's gaffe (see, for example: http://www.mittromney.com/store/moms-economy-bumper-sticker) when he's clearly made similar statements in public forums and he doesn't expect to get called on that hypocrisy. I'm not sure what to think about that....
Oh yes. "Unemployed" mothers raise indolent children, have no sense of dignity, and are a burden on society. "Stay at home" mothers...well, they run the economy! Getting money from your husband = good, getting money you don't "work" for = bad. Oh, and your 2 year old totally knows the difference.
I was posting on this earlier but i didn't know if my comments would come out clearly but I'm gonna try- I'm all for stay at home moms and dads and I totally think its a great life choice. My hubby was a stay at home for the first 6 months of my sons life and it was awesome. But I think saying someone "never worked a day in her life" is not a statement against stay at homes- its a statement against people so rich that they literally never have to hold a job outside the home. There is a difference between taking time out to raise a family and never having held a job. There have been many years in Ms. Romney's life that she did not have underage children in the home - not having held a job in these years is not an amazing gift to her kids- its wealth.
Sherylsue - I agree with you.
What I think is hypocritical is that Romney invoked the rage of SAHMs - to the extent that he was profitting off of it (see the bumperstickers), and yet, made essentially the same comment only directed at poor mothers. There are plenty of other reasons he might have given for why he wants moms to get off of welfare earlier, but the reason that he chose (they should have the "dignity of work") was in direct contradiction with his campaign's reaction to Hilary Rosen's comment (that SAHMing IS work & should have dignity). The only difference between the first scenario and the second is wealth. So his implication is that wealthy SAHMs = the noblest work there is, whereas SAHMs who are poor or on welfare = don't have the dignity of work. Whether or not you choose to frame SAHMing in terms of work or not, there is a double standard there. AND it is not just Romney's double standard. It is enough ingrained in society that he(/we) expects people to be nodding along to these two contradictory statements.
Bumping this up because it is so true, and so important.