In the wake of the Ann Romney-Hilary Rosen stay-at-home mom dustup, Salon's Joan Walsh on Thursday predictably made the totally false claim "being able to stay home with your children [is] a choice for the wealthy only."
Fortunately, former RNC chairman Michael Steele was also on MSNBC's Hardball to set the record straight saying, "This isn’t about just rich women. There are a lot of middle class women out there who stay at home with their kids too" (video follows with transcribed highlights and commentary):
In the opening segment of Hardball, which predictably dealt with the Romney-Rosen dustup, Walsh said, “The very real issue is that life is tougher for women who have to work, that being able to stay home with your children right now is an issue, it's a choice for the wealthy only.”
“And we need to be discussing the issues of poor women, of working class women, of middle class women, and getting our panties in a twist over the issues of very wealthy women when the woman in question, Hilary Rosen, has apologized. This is a bad day.”
Minutes later when he had the chance to respond, Steele said, “This isn’t about just rich women. There are a lot of middle class women out there who stay at home with their kids too. They teach their kids, they raise their kids. So it’s not just the wealthy, and that’s part of that class warfare conversation that I think just distracts and distorts the overall effort to do what we need to do to help all people, not just one group.”
Well, to begin with, Fox News reported today there are currently five million stay-at-home moms in America.
Obviously, they are not all rich.
Far from it as the Washington Post reported in October 2009 (with emphasis): "census statistics released Thursday show that stay-at-home mothers tend to be younger and less educated, with lower family incomes. They are more likely than other mothers to be Hispanic or foreign-born."
Maybe liberal media members like Walsh desperately looking to make stay-at-home moms a wealthy minority in this country ought to actually read some studies on the subject before going on television to misinform the public.
Or would that be too much like journalism?