Live data from Hacker News

Poor Little Rich Women

nytimes.com

41–50 of 83 posts

Re: Poor Little Rich Women

#41
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 highly doubt that this is the kind of economic dependence that they were referring to.

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.

Re: Poor Little Rich Women

#42

The author through her cultural lens is passing some fairly strong judgment. The women are highly educated and highly intelligent. They've decided to play a supporting role in the relationship. Many decisions that would otherwise seem illogical make perfect sense when judged within the context of raising a family. The women in this article understand it very well, I think. Yes, in public the men and women may be segr…

> 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.

Re: Poor Little Rich Women

#43
post #3

The problem isn't that these women choose to be with men that provide for them economically. They have every right to do so and they shouldn't be shamed for it. Staying at home and raising kids is very hard and respectable work. 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 s…

> and they shouldn't be shamed for it

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?

Re: Poor Little Rich Women

#44

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.

> ...parasitic life

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.

Re: Poor Little Rich Women

#45

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.

>What happened to the sense of duty that comes from filial piety and love?

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.

Re: Poor Little Rich Women

#46
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?

Yes, please to basic income. Economic dependency is a problem for both women and men. Many people stay in unhappy and unhealthy relationships because of money, and many people stay in jobs that they hate and that are harmful to society because of money.

Re: Poor Little Rich Women

#47
post #4
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?

I know of no definition of "oppressed" that applies to these women, and calling them so does a disservice to those who truly are. Even if they were, there is no evidence of fraud or coercion, so we must conclude the exchange (marriage) is, at least, mutually beneficial.

Re: Poor Little Rich Women

#48

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.

What would you say to people who use kanban to plan their wedding or family goals?

Re: Poor Little Rich Women

#49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 maga…

Your own quote shows that this tweet is a fringe attack against a theme in feminism - it is a counter against 'choice feminism'. It's clearly a statement by a edge concept against a central theme.

>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.

Re: Poor Little Rich Women

#50
post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Parasitism in general is not completely harmful: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parasitism#Value nor is it always forced on the host: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helminthic_therapy

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.

Post reply on HN