Mitt Romney's answer to the question about automatic weapons:

In spite of Governor Romney's mistake in thinking automatic weapons are illegal in the U.S., I was more interested in a more rambling answer about single mothers. I surmise that his completely unstated mental link seemed to be single mothers = poverty = violence. There is one, of course. For POOR single mothers. At least for those of the subgroup of the subgroup of that subgroup who aren't surrounded with good supportive families but are rather living all alone in poverty and are living in weapon-heavy urban neighborhoods.

My problem is that his big answer to assault weapons on our streets (no need for any laws) seemed to be disapproval of single parents. ALL single parents, but after mentioning men once he, of course, moved on to focus on female ones, regardless of the circumstances. Regardless of education, income, quality of existing family support, fitness for parenthood, or personal beliefs. 

Would his version of the war on poverty be as much about rolling women back to June Cleaver days as about training kids for jobs in new industries? We're talking BIG government interference here. 

IF  single moms are the root of society's evils ( and not, for instance, a 30% poverty rate where two-parent families can't support two children on minimum wage):

Do women who decide to have children on their own even deserve to be have good jobs? Good pay? Wouldn't rewarding these women for bad behavior just encourage more of the same?

Wouldn't it be best to allow society to show its disapproval by allowing hiring and wage discrimination, rental discrimination, and other forms of disapproval? Use low wages to encourage mothers to stay home and take care of their husbands so they don't end up single parents?

Hasn't equal pay for equal work really been a recipe for skyrocketing automatic weapon murder rates?