Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Poor Little Rich Women

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 83 posts

Re: Poor Little Rich Women

#11

Post by guard-of-terra »

belorn wrote: post #6

I remember reading a feminist opinion piece that economic dependency should be equivalent to abuse, and thus should be treated in similar way we handle drug abuse or alcohol abuse. A adult with their health intact should support themselves, and choosing not to do so will put the person at higher risk for unbalanced relationships, lower self-esteem, and increase gender inequality.

Realistically we live in a society where a minority of people can really support themselves; most people actually rely on some sort of subsidy (be it tax breaks, welfare, social security).

Maybe we should instead practice substitution therapy, i.e. basic income?

Re: Poor Little Rich Women

#12

Post by bruceb »

If you don't want to be in this position then don't marry one of these guys. Find a man that values your career and will take care of the kids. Pretty simple.

Re: Poor Little Rich Women

#13

Post by swagasaurus-rex »

guard-of-terra wrote: post #5

Why won't those women sit on important boards and earn real money? They surely have enough education and social capital, some of them at least. Maybe it's the question of who they will marry in this case, if they will?

There are many successful women who have stake and sit on notable companies' boards. These wives are not always those kinds of women.

Re: Poor Little Rich Women

#14

Post by Dewie3 »

At first I thought the title was mocking. But I guess it veers more on the genuine side? Anyway, from a more middle-class perspective, it's a mockery to call these women oppressed in any way. They even apparently have some self-irony about their peculiar lifestyle, so it's not like they are psychologically trapped in this particular world. Even after having lived in it so long.

I shouldn't be so sensitive, though. The author is an anthropologist and I guess that's just how they write on these subjects.

Re: Poor Little Rich Women

#15

Post by some-guy »

belorn wrote: post #6

I remember reading a feminist opinion piece that economic dependency should be equivalent to abuse, and thus should be treated in similar way we handle drug abuse or alcohol abuse. A adult with their health intact should support themselves, and choosing not to do so will put the person at higher risk for unbalanced relationships, lower self-esteem, and increase gender inequality.

I spend my time around a lot of feminist circles, and I would say that most feminists don't believe this. They would suggest that economic dependency should be a choice, and if so, there is a viable alternative for them if that choice ends up not working out.

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.

Re: Poor Little Rich Women

#16

Post by cubano »

It would seem to me that although on the surface it may seem that there is some sort of repressive sexism going on here, that simple economics can explain it all.

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.

Re: Poor Little Rich Women

#17

Post by Dewie3 »

bruceb wrote: post #12

If you don't want to be in this position then don't marry one of these guys. Find a man that values your career and will take care of the kids. Pretty simple.

Curiously, I didn't find any mention that any of these women had any regrets. The negative framing seems to only be on the author's part.

Re: Poor Little Rich Women

#18

Post by ardit33 »

spcoll wrote: post #4
orbifold wrote: post #2

A wildly unpopular view on why women behave this way was put forward by Esther Vilar's book "The Manipulated Man". It was written, when this kind of gender inequality was the norm, rather than something people in priviledged positions could afford. Arguably today there is noone forcing the women described in the article to behave this way, their actions and choices are their responsibility alone.

You're not even trying to make a point, you're just flat denying these women are being oppressed, without any argument to back that up. 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?

Not sure you are being sarcastic with this comment or not.

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.

Re: Poor Little Rich Women

#19

Post by mynameishere »

I suspect she started out with the thesis that women who don't work, do unpaid community service, raise children, try to look attractive, etc, are "oppressed", and it has nothing to do with table seating. But they really aren't. She mentions women foraging for tubers as a contrast, but, eh... In some traditional societies, the women do all the work, and the men spend their time in lazy indolence or in fighting with each other. Those are the women who are oppressed. And they don't get to be "empowered" somehow in the bargain.

There's always a mix of both contempt and jealousy in these kinds of articles.

Re: Poor Little Rich Women

#20

Post by swagasaurus-rex »

guard-of-terra wrote: post #9
WalterSear wrote: post #7

The sold themselves for their bed: let them lie in it. They've certainly managed to get a better price than many others who see marriage this way.

The question here is: why did they "sell" themself to someone of comparable stature instead of "buying" or "merging"? They aren't some Cinderellas, they are highly educated and capable.

I bet a great many women do find complementary marriages, even to rich and powerful men... This social subcircle seems to be quite a curious arrangement.

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.
They know the game, and they're happy to play it.
Post reply on HN