Maybe I'm getting overly sensitive.
But this comment by Democratic Strategist Hilary Rosen kind of pisses me off:
"What you have is Mitt Romney running around the country, saying, 'Well, you know, my wife tells me that what women really care about are economic issues, and when I listen to my wife, that's what I'm hearing.' Guess what? His wife has actually never worked a day in her life," Rosen said.
Ann Romney's reaction?
"I made a choice to stay home and raise five boys," Romney tweeted. "Believe me, it was hard work."
(And in the interest of full disclosure, I am a Democrat myself).
My first reaction is to go all Ann Romney on here and to yell and scream and preach that yes, raising kids is HARD WORK. Yes, work. If I was not staying at home with my two children, I would be paying someone else to do so. It's a job for them, it's a job for me. I may not receive societal recognition for it - no 401ks or social security contributions - but it's work nonetheless.
But at the end of the day, that's all just semantics.
What's more concerning is the notion that women without paying jobs shouldn't have a voice in the debate when it comes to economic issues.
Women that stay at home with their children may not receive traditional monetary rewards, but many of these women manage finances. Go grocery shopping. Fill up a gas tank. See firsthand the state of public schools. Many of these women have advanced degrees and read the newspaper and know something about something.
I'm not saying that women with paying jobs don't do or have these things.
I'm simply saying that women without paying jobs do still have something to say.
And I think it's a sad state when those in politics think it's okay to insinuate otherwise.