Poor Little Rich Women • Hacker News Board

Re: Poor Little Rich Women

#31

Post by htns » Sun, May 17, 2015, 10:05 PM UTC

some-guy wrote: post #15

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 th…

Equality of choice is just one kind of equality. The trick is to pick between choice and outcome equality as it benefits you the most.

Re: Poor Little Rich Women

#32

Post by caseysoftware » Sun, May 17, 2015, 10:05 PM UTC

some-guy wrote: post #15

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 th…

I think you're wrong on this one. @FemFreq heavily promoted this article on Twitter (getting 512 RTs and 780+ favorites): https://theconversation.com/no-feminism-is-not-about-choice-... which includes this quote:

"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.

Re: Poor Little Rich Women

#33

Post by MichaelDickens » Sun, May 17, 2015, 10:06 PM UTC

mynameishere wrote: post #19

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 e…

> 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.

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.

Re: Poor Little Rich Women

#34

Post by allannienhuis » Sun, May 17, 2015, 10:08 PM UTC

MichaelDickens wrote: post #33

mynameishere wrote: post #19

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 e…

> 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. 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.

Much of rural Haiti is like this. The stories I've heard from people who have spent time there are heartbreaking.

Re: Poor Little Rich Women

#35

Post by idlewords » Sun, May 17, 2015, 10:09 PM UTC

mynameishere wrote: post #19

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 e…

Where do you see contempt in this article? The author writes with affection about women who are clearly in her social circle.

Re: Poor Little Rich Women

#36

Post by stefantalpalaru » Sun, May 17, 2015, 10:10 PM UTC

mynameishere wrote: post #19

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 e…

It's not about oppression. It's about honor. The author is a bit humiliated that these rich and educated women chose the path of least resistance and are perfectly happy to lead a parasitic life.

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.

Re: Poor Little Rich Women

#37

Post by vacri » Sun, May 17, 2015, 10:11 PM UTC

mynameishere wrote: post #19

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 e…

> Those are the women who are oppressed.

There is more than one way to be oppressed.

Re: Poor Little Rich Women

#38

Post by littletimmy » Sun, May 17, 2015, 10:12 PM UTC

What is particularly worrisome, in my opinion, is the slow creep of market values into our daily lives. "Performance bonuses" to spouses? WTF? What happened to the sense of duty that comes from filial piety and love?

Economics has no business inside a household. People oughta leave it in the market place where it belongs.

Re: Poor Little Rich Women

#39

Post by roel_v » Sun, May 17, 2015, 10:14 PM UTC

rndn wrote: post #30

Weird. Why would someone give a bonus to his wife? I can't even remotely get behind this way of thinking. Is this plain conditioning or a just playful kind of meme these rich people invented for fun?

It's part of a prenup, a way to level financial inequality in relationships where one partner makes a lot more than the other. It's not really a bonus, more a 'we distribute some income despite a prenup, depending on some objective measures'. I don't find it as weird as the author makes it out to be.

Re: Poor Little Rich Women

#40

Post by bruceb » Sun, May 17, 2015, 10:15 PM UTC

stefantalpalaru wrote: post #36

mynameishere wrote: post #19

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 e…

It's not about oppression. It's about honor. The author is a bit humiliated that these rich and educated women chose the path of least resistance and are perfectly happy to lead a parasitic life. 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.

How are they leading a "parasitic life"? Their husbands were not forced to marry them.