And again, I'm not talking about the average SAHM, I'm talking about Ann Romney. I'm not sure why I'm having to repeat myself yet again.
Because what you're repeating isn't what Rosen was saying. She didn't criticize Anne Romney for being rich (although I agree that this was clearly her intent), she criticized her for not working. A choice made by millions of women and usually championed by liberals like Rosen.
The issue is that Rosen clearly wanted to make a dig at the Romney's wealth, but saying something like "She can't know anything about handling money because she's got so much of it" might not have played so well. So instead, she went with the "doesn't work" angle. But in the process basically was saying that women who don't work don't know anything about economics, don't understand money, should not have any opinions about it, and if they do, those opinions should be ignored.
I'm sure you can see why some people found that a tad offensive.
I have a very hard time picturing Ann Romney budgeting their millions of dollars. Obviously, a "normal" middle class, SAHM is going to know how to budget money and pinch a penny. I would trust you to know a lot more about economics than I would trust Ann Romney.
What's "normal" though? I'd argue that the more money you have the more complicated a household budget becomes. While we can certainly say that Anne Romney didn't have to worry so much about pinching pennies (although rich people don't become rich by spending wastefully), she arguably had to handle a hell of a lot more money matters than the typical housewife. When you've got 10 times as many bills to pay, it's kinda 10 times as much work regardless of how much money you have. And while I'm sure they had hired help for some of that stuff, that's also more work to manage. Employing people requires a fair amount of paperwork, right?
What she did may not have been identical to what the typical housewife does, but to argue that it somehow makes her unqualified to have any opinions about economics is beyond absurd.
gbaji, the reason why Romney's response to the Ledbetter Act question didn't help him, is because he didn't say whether or not he would have voted for it. He has said he wouldn't change it, which is better than saying he'd overturn it for sure, but iirc, that wasn't the question.
Ok. But that's not remotely the point made in the article. They seemed to be making a big deal of the fact that Romney's aid, when asked this off topic question out of the blue didn't have an answer right off the bat, and that Romney "eventually" gave them an answer (with eventually apparently being just a few hours later). I don't recall that the article made any sort of analysis of the answer itself.
My point is that it's a contrived story. They planted someone in a low level meeting, tossed a question they knew the staffer would not have a prepared answer for, and then wrote an entire story about this. Um... Ok. Why is this a story? Because it fits a narrative. That's it. The narrative is that Romney is bad on women's issues, so lets write as many stories that fit that narrative as possible. And if we can't find a story, let's invent one out of thin air.