Wendy sent me a link to the Forbes article Don't Marry A Career Woman (text here or maybe still here) before it got taken down. There was a great debate about it on one of her mailing lists -- did I think it was sexist?
Yeah, I do -- the whole tone, the fact that it assumes only men read the magazine (Men, listen here!), the idea that all these studies support that women working is the problem with shaky marriages, not men refusing to adapt to a new way of life, of expecting women to keep cleaning the house and feeding them dinner even if said women work the same or more hours than they did.
My main reaction wasn't "Shock! Horror! Outrage!", however; it was more like "What, again? We're still talking about how feminism ruined the world, and implying that if women just went back to their theoretical 1950s happy housewife roles, all would be right with the world? Aren't we all tired of that now?"
Because it's not like articles like this are going to convince most women to stop working -- we work because we have to, to support ourselves or our families. There's some segment of society where one spouse makes enough money that the other can choose not to work, but that segment is pretty small. And look, I like supporting myself --- not the work itself, sometimes, but the independence. Would I rather not work, retire to an island somewhere and have comely cabana boys at my beck and call? Hell yeah. But that's unlikely to happen. And since that's not so much an option, I'm glad I have the choice to support myself rather than having to get married because women aren't allowed to work.
Wendy's take was that the author was a flippant ass, but that the stats were just stats, and there's nothing sexist about them. Her position may be at least partially represented here. (Does that sound right, Wendy?) I say that flippant-ass tone, along with taking some gender-neutral stats ("individuals who earn more than $30,000 a year are more likely to cheat") and saying that they support the argument that women working is baaaad pretty much makes it sexist.
Now personally, I don't think Forbes should have printed the article in the first place -- it's not terribly newsy and it doesn't really say anything, so what's the point? It's just going to piss people off. Which, of course, it did (rightly, I think), and it was taken down. Now, of course, Rush Limbaugh and such are saying the feminists have no sense of humor, blah blah blah. Fortunatley, a bunch of stuff went up to contradict that almost immediately.
I love the Gawker item, as well as the Cliff Notes version of the photo essay (no, seriously) that accompanied the original article. Discombobulation Station has some pretty awesome alternate headlines. Dealbreaker has a nice take on it: "In our opinion,** that could have easily been rewritten as professional women are "less likely to put up with mediocre or bad marriages, more likely to admit to cheating, less likely to have children if they feel they feel they're not equipped to, and if they do have kids, more likely to admit to being unhappy about it," but what do we know?" And Feministe has a point-by-point rebuttal.
(What strikes me as especially funny in the Feministe's one is the reflexive apology for her title, "Why You Should Marry a Doormat*" That asterisk leads to a disclaimer that "This should not imply that all women who stay home, or women who work but aren't "career women," are doormats...." Because she's thinking "Someone won't get the joke, and I'll get angry e-mails, because there are plenty of people out there who don't have a sense of humor, feminist or no, and it's just not worth the trouble....")
And I fall back on what I've pretty much always said: In most cases, the differences between individuals is wider than the differences between genders. Some women will be happiest staying homw and raising kids or taking care of the household, which is damn hard work. Some, like me, are happier not having kids and working on their own.
But let's face it: The vast majority of women work because they have to, not because they're pursuing female empowerment or sticking it to the man. So what do articles like this do, besides stir up guilt and recriminations and all sorts of ickiness? Women do work outside the home. It just is. I'm guessing the reason some marriages fail is because couples don't adapt to this new reality, are still buying into the idea that the woman is the "homemaker" and the man is the "breadwinner", when in reality they both need to fill both of those roles. And I'm thinking more marriages are failing because women have choices now: They don't have to be dependent on their husbands or fathers for support. They don't have to stay in marriages that don't work. They can leave. That fact, that ability, is a good thing. I'm not saying "Whee! Divorce is fun!" I'm saying that it's better to have the choice than not, it's better to have the ability than to be trapped. It's called free will. It's a good thing. Trust me.
(Wendy, feel free to rebut anything I said that you feel misrepresents your position -- as your token naive, heathen, liberal, moonbat, feminazi friend, I realize I may not have understood everything that my token traditional-family-values, religious, libertarian-to-the-point-of-scariness friend was getting at.)
Update: Wendy replied on IM with " and since you ask, part of my position is informed by statistics that show kids get the short end of the stick when mom works"... and then we went back and forth for a while, and then had this exchange:
Yeah, I do -- the whole tone, the fact that it assumes only men read the magazine (Men, listen here!), the idea that all these studies support that women working is the problem with shaky marriages, not men refusing to adapt to a new way of life, of expecting women to keep cleaning the house and feeding them dinner even if said women work the same or more hours than they did.
My main reaction wasn't "Shock! Horror! Outrage!", however; it was more like "What, again? We're still talking about how feminism ruined the world, and implying that if women just went back to their theoretical 1950s happy housewife roles, all would be right with the world? Aren't we all tired of that now?"
Because it's not like articles like this are going to convince most women to stop working -- we work because we have to, to support ourselves or our families. There's some segment of society where one spouse makes enough money that the other can choose not to work, but that segment is pretty small. And look, I like supporting myself --- not the work itself, sometimes, but the independence. Would I rather not work, retire to an island somewhere and have comely cabana boys at my beck and call? Hell yeah. But that's unlikely to happen. And since that's not so much an option, I'm glad I have the choice to support myself rather than having to get married because women aren't allowed to work.
Wendy's take was that the author was a flippant ass, but that the stats were just stats, and there's nothing sexist about them. Her position may be at least partially represented here. (Does that sound right, Wendy?) I say that flippant-ass tone, along with taking some gender-neutral stats ("individuals who earn more than $30,000 a year are more likely to cheat") and saying that they support the argument that women working is baaaad pretty much makes it sexist.
Now personally, I don't think Forbes should have printed the article in the first place -- it's not terribly newsy and it doesn't really say anything, so what's the point? It's just going to piss people off. Which, of course, it did (rightly, I think), and it was taken down. Now, of course, Rush Limbaugh and such are saying the feminists have no sense of humor, blah blah blah. Fortunatley, a bunch of stuff went up to contradict that almost immediately.
I love the Gawker item, as well as the Cliff Notes version of the photo essay (no, seriously) that accompanied the original article. Discombobulation Station has some pretty awesome alternate headlines. Dealbreaker has a nice take on it: "In our opinion,** that could have easily been rewritten as professional women are "less likely to put up with mediocre or bad marriages, more likely to admit to cheating, less likely to have children if they feel they feel they're not equipped to, and if they do have kids, more likely to admit to being unhappy about it," but what do we know?" And Feministe has a point-by-point rebuttal.
(What strikes me as especially funny in the Feministe's one is the reflexive apology for her title, "Why You Should Marry a Doormat*" That asterisk leads to a disclaimer that "This should not imply that all women who stay home, or women who work but aren't "career women," are doormats...." Because she's thinking "Someone won't get the joke, and I'll get angry e-mails, because there are plenty of people out there who don't have a sense of humor, feminist or no, and it's just not worth the trouble....")
And I fall back on what I've pretty much always said: In most cases, the differences between individuals is wider than the differences between genders. Some women will be happiest staying homw and raising kids or taking care of the household, which is damn hard work. Some, like me, are happier not having kids and working on their own.
But let's face it: The vast majority of women work because they have to, not because they're pursuing female empowerment or sticking it to the man. So what do articles like this do, besides stir up guilt and recriminations and all sorts of ickiness? Women do work outside the home. It just is. I'm guessing the reason some marriages fail is because couples don't adapt to this new reality, are still buying into the idea that the woman is the "homemaker" and the man is the "breadwinner", when in reality they both need to fill both of those roles. And I'm thinking more marriages are failing because women have choices now: They don't have to be dependent on their husbands or fathers for support. They don't have to stay in marriages that don't work. They can leave. That fact, that ability, is a good thing. I'm not saying "Whee! Divorce is fun!" I'm saying that it's better to have the choice than not, it's better to have the ability than to be trapped. It's called free will. It's a good thing. Trust me.
(Wendy, feel free to rebut anything I said that you feel misrepresents your position -- as your token naive, heathen, liberal, moonbat, feminazi friend, I realize I may not have understood everything that my token traditional-family-values, religious, libertarian-to-the-point-of-scariness friend was getting at.)
Update: Wendy replied on IM with " and since you ask, part of my position is informed by statistics that show kids get the short end of the stick when mom works"... and then we went back and forth for a while, and then had this exchange:
subversified: i agreeEveryone needs a friend like Wendy, who pushes and challenges even when you end up being in agreement.
sjerslix: ...
sjerslix: so why are we arguing?
subversified: because i keep saying things in ways that hit you wrong
sjerslix: So have we basically been in agreement this whole time?
subversified: i have no idea
sjerslix: Heh. Me neither
posted by SAJ at
6:52 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home