Poor Little Rich Women
nytimes.com
nytimes.com
That being said, perhaps it's a requirement in order to belong to the rich white boys club to act in this manner. The super-rich are generally connected enough not to need assurances into prestigious universities for their kids, and those poorer can't always afford a non-working mother, or to give out "performance" bonuses.
Is the oppression of women in America such a sensitive topic that you feel the need to reflexively deny it's happening whenever the subject crops up?
These women choose that lifestyle. They choose not to work, but being stay at home moms. This is not the 50s, where women had a lot less opportunities, many were discouraged go to college, etc.... Even the author mention that women make the majority of college grads, and have all kinds of opportunities today. Being a stay at home mom is not a necessity.
They got their easy mode on life, by deciding to marry rich, and not bother with working, and the stresses of work as the rest of us have to. No need to feel pity over them. I am sure in case of a divorce, many of them have multi-million dollars prenups, money that the rest of the population will not earn in a lifetime.
To deny the women in question agency and not see their situation as a direct consequence of their actions is in many ways more sexist, than to actually see their situation as the result of a concious choice that is available to them because they are women, highly valued by certain types of men.
if you want to retain any credibility for your views, you need to learn when and where to apply your reality-distortion efforts.
The OP doesn't involve any kind of abuse. Women who can afford to choose the most powerful and fulfilling partners do so.
The bigger issue is that women are highly unlikely to be in the position that the men are in this story. There are many cultural barriers to entry for women to reach those positions if they so desire, despite their "prestigious post-graduate degrees". The hierarchies described in the stories only perpetuate this narrative.
*Edit: Spelling
Sure, there aren't very many wealthy female hedge fund managers or CEOs but there are tons of women who are the sole breadwinners for stay-at-home husbands.
As of 2007, 2.7% of parents are stay-at-home dads[0]! That's up from less than 1% in 1997. I don't know what the numbers are today but I don't think it's unreasonable to believe they're even higher. There are A TON of women graduating from college these days and not nearly so many wealthy male hedge fund managers to marry.
[0]http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06...
Maybe we'll find out it behaves more like upper middle class, and income extremes are rare.
There's the root of censorship, right there. Justified with presumed intentions and subjective feelings instead of the content.
> Staying at home and raising kids is very hard and respectable work.
It is, but it's not enough. The kids also need shelter, food, schooling, healthcare and all those things that cost money. Money that the hard-working stay-at-home mom is not bringing to the household.
> The bigger issue is that women are highly unlikely to be in the position that the men are in this story.
What if they don't want to? They have the education, they have the degrees, they have the connections, but they prefer not to do any remunerated work outside the house. What if this is for them the good life we all dream of in one way or another?
There's always a mix of both contempt and jealousy in these kinds of articles.
The article wasn't about being oppressed, so much as being disempowered.
"But they really aren't."
Ok. So why aren't they disempowered in the situation described in the article?
"She mentions women foraging for tubers as a contrast"
What she really said was: "women who contribute to the group or family’s well-being are empowered relative to those in societies where women do not".
"And they don't get to be "empowered" somehow in the bargain."
So again, why don't they get to be empowered (relative to similar societies)?
Can you give an example of such a society? I'm not doubting that they exist, but I've never heard of any and I'm curious.
There is more than one way to be oppressed.
It's rather sad to discover that the group who's "liberation" you dedicated your professional life to doesn't really want to be liberated.
That's quite judgmental. They really are rich stay-at-home moms and it's a worthy life.
Feminism was not about forcing a new lifestyle. It's about giving the freedom to choose the path.
Good. Judging is a strong indication of thinking ;-)
In the case described in the article the males are obviously getting something out of the symbiotic relationship, but it's nowhere near what the females are getting. I'm sticking to my figurative use of "parasitism" to describe the imbalance.
Seems unlikely.
This is the bargain they've made. It's a rather simple exchange. "Parasitic" is a loaded term here, by applying it you're displaying that you have some sort of political axe to grind.
This was also the sentiment being expressed above, when someone said that what you said sounded "judgmental" -- an accusation that you dismissed by being, or pretending to be, oblivious to it's true intent: "you're attaching pejorative terms to these women, without enough information to make a fair case for it."
It's an obviously imbalanced exchange. We don't take intestinal worms out of the parasites category just because they help us prevent autoimmune diseases.
> you're attaching pejorative terms to these women, without enough information to make a fair case for it
No, I'm just trying to be objective. If I wanted to insult them I could have called them prostitutes with a single, long-term client.
Sorry for whatever experiences you've had that led to this.
Maybe we should instead practice substitution therapy, i.e. basic income?
Personally I think the reasonable argument would be that women should be able to reach the same status as men in the article if they choose to do so, without the socioeconomic barriers to entry that they will inevitably face in the process. If women in society have absolutely no choice but to depend on men economically, then that's where the problem is.
"In the book, which I co-edited, 20 of us take on different topics that have become part of the “choice feminism” landscape: from pornography and prostitution, to female genital mutilation, from women’s magazines and marriage, to sexual violence. While coming from a range of different perspectives, we all critique the notion that “choice” should be the ultimate arbiter of women’s freedom."
The TLDR version: there are no real choices for women as they're limited by their status in society, etc. The idea of "choice" is comical to them.
If "most feminists" believe choice is the key freedom, they better speak out or risk being drowned out.
>If "most feminists" believe choice is the key freedom, they better speak out or risk being drowned out.
Indeed, also in your link is the quote (in only the second paragraph): "Read almost any online article about feminism and the comments will soon devolve into a debate about choice.". It seems that the feminists are already doing what you're demanding, but you're... ahem... choosing to ignore them to make your point.
Anyway, if you read the article, it says the same thing that your quoted section does - that choice itself isn't bad, but that it should stop being used as the 'ultimate arbiter', including examples where the author considers 'but it's her choice' to be undermining feminism. She doesn't say 'choice' is bad, but her argument is to stop having 'choice' used as a trump card.
There are many more women who choose to forego their own education or career advancement to stay at home to raise a family, and without the income of their husband would be destitute. If their husband becomes abusive, for example, they can be quite literally trapped in the relationship because they have no other means of supporting themselves or their children.
In contrast, the women in the article seem to be perfectly capable of leaving whenever they choose. Many of them have excellent education and career experience, and many of them also come from wealthy families who could help them. In the event of divorce, many of them would undoubtedly collect sizable settlements from prenups and possibly alimony.
There's nothing wrong with the choice that they've made, but it remains a choice.
Yes, in public the men and women may be segregated, but behind closed doors, wives and husbands talk and plan. Although not always obvious, it is very likely that their husband's social and economic stature is bolstered by activities of their wives, which according to this article have no value.
His social and economic standing because of her actions is probably much higher than if they were to both have a separate job. Not to mention that they get to raise children who get to spend plenty of time with at least one parent, the value of which is almost never taken into consideration these days.
Nonsense. People don't shut up about 'quality time', and talk more about parenting time with kids than ever before. If anything, the problem is something of the opposite - 'helicopter parents' who are always around and always protecting kids from failure may be making their kids less resilient and less capable of dealing with problems. But the idea that few people consider parental time with children to be valuable is just not true.
It is certainly possible for society to have both problems of "parents don't spend enough time with their children" and "parents are micromanaging their children" simultaneously when the distribution of parental tendencies bimodal about both sides of whatever is optimal.
Economics has no business inside a household. People oughta leave it in the market place where it belongs.
The other day I was watching a talk by a professor on financial incentives - one of the topics he touched upon was whether we should use financial incentives to encourage kids to read (2 dollars per book, some schools are already trying it). The audience gave reasons for both sides of the debate and it was quite interesting. Point is, we are already using financial incentives for all kinds of things that feel weird (paying kids to read?). I personally don't think this is a great idea but I'm sure many people would disagree. So why not in personal lives too?
Probably got mashed up in the potential divorce court paperwork.
What I'm really curious about is how you come to negotiate such terms and how that conversation plays out, but it really wouldn't surprise me if both sides approached the marriage in rational, economic terms and enjoyed that approach.
Perhaps I feel this way because I am an immigrant and family culture is very different in my (Asian) country. I just cannot fathom such calculating behavior when it comes to relationships.
And it's not even like these women couldn't support themselves (and their kids) if they had to. They are smart, they have degrees. They have enormous and powerful social networks.
No, they are exactly where they want to be - they get all the material benefits of having a successful career, minus the stress, plus the family time. It's a strange life, but to call it oppressive is offensive to women who are truly oppressed. Oppression is not having options, and these women have every option possible in this world.
The year-end bonus is a very powerful form of behaviour conditioning and it would seem that the husbands have seen its power in their workplace lives and are simply using it as a tool to maximize their childrens opportunities
And finally, who are we (or anyone) to judge these women's choices? It's not like these were arranged marriages or that they were sold to these men.
In fact, it would seem to me that they were, and still are, competing for them with their advanced degrees and Flywheel exertions
It's just a somewhat unfortunate fact that we live in a world where money pretty much rules all, and these woman understand this and have made the choices necessary to make sure they are on the right side of the pile.
Maybe it's the question of who they will marry in this case, if they will?
All the article says is they have an education. It doesn't say in which field - business administration, literature, engineering? I don't think all subjects are equal and the typical "education" certainly doesn't enable you to be an important board member.
I think a lot of the disgusting behavior is about the personality types and the values that tend to manifest among those types rather than anything intrinsic to wealth. A family member is extremely wealthy (.01%er) and from what I remember that household has never discusses business unless at a designated place and time. Perhaps this is simply an old money v. new money sort of contrast fundamentally.
I read this article recently, and it provided a stark contrast to the NYT article- http://www.vogue.co.uk/news/2015/05/18/miuccia-prada-advice-...
For many women (including myself), work and earning money is often a source of pride and self-respect.
So when such high power men get married, chances are pretty high that the women they marry will be less powerful, and thus relegated to a subservient position.
I wonder if there have been similar studies done of family structures where the woman is the primary breadwinner?
If anything, the article echoes the stigma toward stay-at-home mothers and family oriented couples.
Maybe you've been conditioned to think that raising children does not contribute to society. I guess having both partners working to death is the new normal. Such widespread belief might explain why employers don't respect paternity leaves.
Some women gladly leave their career in favor of their children. Some men do it too, despite the stigma that "raising a child does not contribute back to society". Deal with it.
I won't reply to other posts.
P.S.: I don't care you won't reply to other posts
They aren't some Cinderellas, they are highly educated and capable.
My question is, if you're rich, why not hire dedicated tutors to help get the kids into college and manage the household, and save money on those 'mommy bonuses'?
I think the answer is because the type of women who do this actually enjoy the process of living a mega-rich lifestyle, "Many ran their homes (plural) like C.E.O.s.".
“It’s easier and more fun,” the women insisted when I asked about the sex segregation that defined their lives.
It's a modern, (and sexist) myth that only desperate, destitute women are capable of pursuing materialistic relationships.
Much easier to find somebody who is already rich and powerful and latch on. In fact, it might be the smarter approach.
I shouldn't be so sensitive, though. The author is an anthropologist and I guess that's just how they write on these subjects.