Rosen explained in a Huffington Post piece that her point was that Ann Romney should not be a person who Mitt Romney looks to for advice about the economic conditions of women, because, “she’s never really dealt with the kinds of economic issues that a majority of the women in this country are facing, in terms of how do we feed our kids, how do we send them to school, and why do we worry about their future.”

Of course, if this is the standard, then most women who work in politics—including Rosen—should not be able to offer advice on the economic plight of the average American woman, since with few exceptions they are hypereducated upper-income yuppies. Really, according to this line of reasoning, Hillary Clinton and Elizabeth Edwards should never have been able to talk about women’s issues as the spouse of candidate since they never had to worry about how to feed their kids…

The idea that “women’s work” is indeed valuable to society has long been a contention of feminists, so it’s strange to see a prominent Democrat lash out a stay-at-home mother and wife in this fashion. Feminists have agitated for as long as I can remember for society to value and respect the “unpaid work” that women do in the home and society. The fact that Ann Romney doesn’t struggle financially doesn’t make what she does any less valuable. I suspect there is a lot about how she has contributed to her community that we don’t know.