rich, sahms are the reason for the war on women

[msmerymac]

I really feel like choice such as to be a SAHM or a working mom should be divorced from discussions of feminism. Yes, if your husband is forcing you to get pregnant and stay home and not further the education or career you would like to have, that's a problem, but the gender inequality in that problem goes a lot deeper than the decision to SAH full time to care for children.

My relationship is a partnership. It is not based on gender roles. My husband and I surely look like any normal married couple, but we are definitely both feminists. However, when it comes to deciding what is best for our family unit, it would be best for me to stay home, work part time, work from home, etc. We can argue all damn day about whether our financial situation has to do with the fact that women are discriminated against in promotions, raises and other career options, and if that's why my husband makes more money than I do, but I assure you, there are a ton of variables in there, not the least of which is that he's a mathematician and I studied humanities.

I mean, if the wife makes less money and hates her job more, but decides she needs to work and have her partner stay at home because that's the "feminist" thing to do, more power to her. But I don't think I've ever met someone who would think like that.

I agree with the Jezebel commenters that choices are not feminist because a woman makes them. A choice can be inherintly UNfeminist. But it's hard for me to see where the choice of childcare and the work a parent does or doesn't do outside the home relates to feminist or unfeminist choices. How you decide to raise your children and run your household can (traditional gender roles, etc), but really, the best choice for my family unit? Eff off. Like someone commented, what if both partners are lesbians? Is it okay for one to "rely" on the other because neither is a man?

[mominatrix]

Good to know there are women having ultrasound wands unnecessarily shoved into their girly parts because I choose to stay at home.

MorAn.

Sent from my HTC Glacier using ProBoards... So excuse any wonky autocorrect.

[ttt]

So it's feminist instead to have your husband stay at home and sacrifice his career and be financially dependent on you? Or it's more feminist to pay another woman (because lets face it, it's nearly always women) $7 an hour to watch your child in daycare all day?

[MrsAxilla]

Women who can afford to shop at Chanel should be wage earners instead? They don't need (or want) a job. Leave it for someone who does.

[whitewolf]

"Because here's what happens when women go shopping at Chanel and get facials at Tracy Martyn when they should be wage-earning mensches," Wurtzel explains: "the war on women happens."

haha.

[EloiseWeenie]

This article is so stupid.

also- it's really easy for her to frown upon SAHMs when she gets paid to write shit.

[emmybean]

Fuck this broad for making me side with Jezebel. Fuck her hard in the ass with a walrus cock!

[AJL]

Best comment on that article so far:

"This reminds me of a story.

One time when I was in college I took a course in knitting and my dad was all like, "we're paying herp derp for you to herp derp derp" and I was like, it's okay dad. It's not your fault that you've been conditioned to see female-coded pursuits as worthless. And at first he was like but then he lol'ed and continued paying for college."

[KateAggie]

I'm halfway through the original piece, and I have to say, she needs to broaden her horizons. There are plenty of SAHMs that are no where NEAR the 1%, with educations, with prior careers, that have traded for a life that is not as financially comfortable as it could be. Not because we're married to men who demand it of us, but because we are more satisfied with a role where our worth is not measured by a paycheck or a promotion.

Please don't take my statement to mean more than it does. I'm not trying to say that my choice is a selfless choice, or that something is wrong with getting your value out of paychecks or promotions. I'm talking about choices here, and there are tradeoffs regardless of which direction you go. I'm not one of those who ascribes to the idea that anyone can stay home, if they just are willing to part with material possessions. I fall into the economic bracket where we CAN afford for me to stay at home without cutting cable and still send our kids to preschool, and if that wasn't the case, I'd be working today.

[KateAggie]

I should've just waited until I finished the article, because one of the comments after said it so much better than I could:

"Who can possibly take feminism seriously when it allows everything, as long as women choose it? The whole point to begin with was that women were losing their minds pushing mops and strollers all day without a room or a salary of their own."

Yes, if only it weren't for that darned freedom to choose.

And this, unfortunately, is the evidence that much of the feminist movement isn't actually about equality, freedom, or self-determination for women. Rather, a significant portion of the feminist movement is dedicated to an attempt to force every woman, everywhere, to ascribe to and follow a poorly defined set of rules that involves, at minimum, dedication to a career, a focus on financial gain, and, importantly, a disdain for any who disagree or dissent that often comes across as anger or hatred of men. It redefines the value of being a woman in terms of money or status. Interestingly, it seems to try to make women into a sad caricature of what it portrays selfish and unjust men to be - promoters of their own power above any other consideration.

I also find that the implication that anyone who chooses to be a full-time mother, anywhere, is not "earning [her] keep" (paragraph 6), based apparently on the fact that rich people have it easy (paragraph 9), is an insulting load of manure. All full-time mothers, everywhere, are now lazy non-contributors because Ann Romney has servants? Look, I'll be the first to admit that the rich have it easier, but that has nothing to do with feminism or the value of motherhood, and everything to do with the fact they they're RICH.

---------------------------------------------------------------

"I don't want everyone to live like me, but I do expect educated and able-bodied women to be holding their own in the world of work."

Cognitive dissonance, anyone? I don't want everyone to live like me, as long as they prioritize the same things I do and make the same choices I make? It is sad to imagine that a thinking person could write that sentence seriously.

---------------------------------------------------------------

"I am going to smack the next idiot who tells me that raising her children full time -- by which she really means going to Jivamukti classes and pedicure appointments while the nanny babysits -- is her feminist choice."

and

"To be a stay-at-home mom is a privilege, and most of the housewives I have ever met -- none of whom do anything around the house -- live in New York City and Los Angeles, far from Peoria."

Then lady, you should get out of New York and Los Angeles more often, because right now you're just reinforcing the stereotype that big-city elitists don't have the first clue about what happens in the rest of the country. You do know that for most folks, life isn't actually an episode of [insert "reality" TV show here], right?

---------------------------------------------------------------

It is saddening that feminism has apparently been reduced to this - a woman's value is measured by the size (or at least, regularity) of her paycheck.

[Deleted]

Silly me I thought Feminisim was all about making a choice - that choice being what was best for you (and your family) not what society dictated you should be doing. Which is what this article seems to be wanting, dictating what you do with your life.

[ttt]

You know, I get the argument that being a SAHM means becoming financially dependent on another person and giving up years of earning power plus likely difficulties reentering the job market should it be necessary. I really do. But I just don't think the solution is "everybody works and nobody should do their own childcare."

IMO, feminists should be pushing things like greater work-life balance so that the women who either have to or who choose to work can still see their families without sacrificing their career - and that men can do that too! - as well as increased pressure on men to take on some of the work that women have traditionally done so that a man isn't suddenly Father of the Year because he changed a single diaper, and better legal protections for those women (and men) who do sacrifice their careers to stay home with their children so that they are not financially ruined in the event of a divorce or death. They should also be promoting ways for SAHMs to keep their skills current so that they have a better time reentering the job market when their children get older (if they wish) and helping connect SAHMs with job opportunities. I'm not saying a woman who has been out of the job market for 10 years should be able to just pick up where she left off, but I also don't think it's right that she should automatically be excluded from open positions because she must not be capable of doing the job.

[Deleted]

What she's choosing to ignore is that high income earners generally work very long hours for that money. There's a thread on MM right now discussing how hard this is to handle. Something usually has to give to in order to accomodate this type of career and still have a family life. Sometimes that's the wife's career but increasingly it's the husbands. What difference does it make if both partners are happy and respectful of this choice? I suppose Wurtzel would prefer for both parents to be working 10+ hours a day and weekends while never seeing their kids.

[ttt]

I'd also like to see someone like Wurtzel address the issue of, if you're working and not caring for your kids all day, who is? I bet it's a woman, and I bet she's not making a lot of money either. Does she not count?

[ttt]

I just read the article again and you know what, it's a huge mess. She never explains at ALL how rich women staying home leads to a war on women. It doesn't even make an actual point. It's just a bunch of random "Well I chose independence instead of getting married" and "OMG housewives are soooo shallow" thoughts thrown together.

[ttt]

Jun 16, 2012 14:00:54 GMT -5 @littlemoxie said:

You guys. This woman is famous for writing prozac nation - about her entitled life in elite high schools in NY. She somehow got into Yale Law School despite horrific LSAT scores because of her "other accomplishments" (writing said book) and then kept her job at a firm despite failing the NY bar at a time where that would have got you fired at many places.

She is a fame-whore, pure and simple. It pisses me off that she gets to keep this platform, but there is really no need to take her seriously. She is nothing but a muckraker and is not really an expert in this field AT ALL. Ugh.

I know it's still disheartening that it's out there, but she will say what she needs to stay shocking and somewhat relevant.

I wish she would get fired for this shit. I would hate to have her as an associate at my firm.

She's also a mediocre-at-best writer.

[Deleted]

I didn't realize it was the Prozac Nation chick. Yeah, screw her. That book suuuucked.

[eclaires]

I JUST WANT TO GO SHOPPING AT CHANEL.

I think if I could shop at Chanel, I wouldn't give a shit if I was the instigator of the war on women.

Just kidding. I'd feel a little bad, but I'm guessing my Chanel bag(s) would make me feel better about it.