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

51–60 of 83 posts

Re: Poor Little Rich Women

#51

Post by emp_zealoth »

bruceb wrote: post #40
stefantalpalaru wrote: post #36

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.

Forced? I'm sure some of those couples are based on love (or whatever you might want to name it), but I would not be the least surprised if most of them are trophy wives, objectified to hell and back, liable to get dumped/have money fountain dialed back when they become "obsolete" Seems quite plausible, especially in light of effective sex segregation mentioned in the article

Re: Poor Little Rich Women

#52

Post by vijayr »

littletimmy wrote: post #38

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.

WTF is one way of looking at it. Another way is - it is between two perfectly consenting, smart people. If they want to write such prenups, why should you and I care?

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?

Re: Poor Little Rich Women

#53

Post by littletimmy »

platz wrote: post #48
littletimmy wrote: post #38

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?

Nothing, man. I feel this society is too alien for me. One of these days I'm going to quit it and go live on a farm.

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.

Re: Poor Little Rich Women

#54

Post by facepalm »

some-guy wrote: 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…

That's like saying an apple will never be an orange. These woman are where they are because of the life choices they make. The theory that there are barriers preventing them from doing something else is not at all supported from the evidence given in the article. The article does not even mention any attempts to do something else, nor barriers encountered.

Re: Poor Little Rich Women

#55

Post by chongli »

some-guy wrote: 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…

The bigger issue is that women are highly unlikely to be in the position that the men are in this story.

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...

Re: Poor Little Rich Women

#56

Post by throwaway9324 »

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…

"I suspect she started out with the thesis [...] are "oppressed""

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)?

Re: Poor Little Rich Women

#57

Post by facepalm »

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…

At the very least she lost credibility as an anthropologist when citing a select few tribes and their dealings with women. Surely there are many, many more tribes and situations with different approaches to solving the problems the environment presents to them. As well as birds where the females are not foraging all the time.

Re: Poor Little Rich Women

#58

Post by facepalm »

caseysoftware wrote: post #32
some-guy wrote: post #15

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…

Simone de Beauvoir, famous feminist thinker, said that no woman should be allowed to stay at home with her children because it would be too easy and comfortable. (quoted from memory, not sure about the exact words).

Re: Poor Little Rich Women

#59

Post by facepalm »

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.

All we know about their status is that they "graduated". That doesn't imply that they are capable of becoming billionaires. If you think about it, the same is true for men - not every men who graduates in something becomes wealthy and powerful.

Much easier to find somebody who is already rich and powerful and latch on. In fact, it might be the smarter approach.

Re: Poor Little Rich Women

#60

Post by stefantalpalaru »

Red_Tarsius wrote: post #44
stefantalpalaru wrote: post #36

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.

> ...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.

> That's quite judgmental.

Good. Judging is a strong indication of thinking ;-)

Post reply on HN