
Poor Little Rich Women - tristanj
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/17/opinion/sunday/poor-little-rich-women.html
======
orbifold
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.

~~~
spcoll
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?

~~~
ardit33
Not sure you are being sarcastic with this comment or not.

These women choose that lifestyle. They choose not to work, but being stay at
home moms. This is not the 50s, where women had a lot less opportunities, many
were discouraged go to college, etc.... Even the author mention that women
make the majority of college grads, and have all kinds of opportunities today.
Being a stay at home mom is not a necessity.

They got their easy mode on life, by deciding to marry rich, and not bother
with working, and the stresses of work as the rest of us have to. No need to
feel pity over them. I am sure in case of a divorce, many of them have multi-
million dollars prenups, money that the rest of the population will not earn
in a lifetime.

------
some-guy
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 so desire, despite their "prestigious post-
graduate degrees". The hierarchies described in the stories only perpetuate
this narrative.

*Edit: Spelling

~~~
chongli
_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...](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-
dyn/content/article/2007/06/16/AR2007061601289.html)

------
mynameishere
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 each other. _Those_ are the
women who are oppressed. And they don't get to be "empowered" somehow in the
bargain.

There's always a mix of both contempt and jealousy in these kinds of articles.

~~~
stefantalpalaru
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.

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

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

~~~
bruceb
These are smart, rich, and powerful men, yet some how they are "snookered" in
to the short end of the stick?

Seems unlikely.

~~~
stefantalpalaru
Do you know of any other way they could procreate and provide the best
environment for their children to grow in, all the while keeping a high social
status and level of respectability?

~~~
mrrrgn
"procreate and provide the best environment for their children to grow in, all
the while keeping a high social status and level of respectability"

This is the bargain they've made. It's a rather simple exchange. "Parasitic"
is a loaded term here, by applying it you're displaying that you have some
sort of political axe to grind.

This was also the sentiment being expressed above, when someone said that what
you said sounded "judgmental" \-- an accusation that you dismissed by being,
or pretending to be, oblivious to it's true intent: "you're attaching
pejorative terms to these women, without enough information to make a fair
case for it."

~~~
stefantalpalaru
> It's a rather simple exchange.

It's an obviously imbalanced exchange. We don't take intestinal worms out of
the parasites category just because they help us prevent autoimmune diseases.

> you're attaching pejorative terms to these women, without enough information
> to make a fair case for it

No, I'm just trying to be objective. If I wanted to insult them I could have
called them prostitutes with a single, long-term client.

~~~
mrrrgn
Once again, the words you choose betray antipathy towards women. Each phrase
is packed with loaded words; it makes it impossible to have a legitimate
discussion.

Sorry for whatever experiences you've had that led to this.

~~~
stefantalpalaru
It's better to refrain from attributing and condemning hidden intent and
thoughtcrime. Let's stick to what's explicit when we communicate and maybe
we'll avoid wasting each other's time.

------
belorn
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.

~~~
some-guy
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 the socioeconomic barriers to entry that they will inevitably face in
the process. If women in society have absolutely _no choice_ but to depend on
men economically, then that's where the problem is.

~~~
caseysoftware
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-...](https://theconversation.com/no-feminism-is-
not-about-choice-40896) 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.

~~~
vacri
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.

------
vishaldpatel
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 segregated, but behind closed doors,
wives and husbands talk and plan. Although not always obvious, it is very
likely that their husband's social and economic stature is bolstered by
activities of their wives, which according to this article have no value.

His social and economic standing because of her actions is probably much
higher than if they were to both have a separate job. 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.

~~~
vacri
> _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.

~~~
thesteamboat
> If anything, the problem is something of the opposite [...]

It is certainly possible for society to have both problems of "parents don't
spend enough time with their children" and "parents are micromanaging their
children" simultaneously when the distribution of parental tendencies bimodal
about both sides of whatever is optimal.

------
littletimmy
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.

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

~~~
littletimmy
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.

------
javajosh
If this is oppression, aren't all employee/employer relationships oppressive?
After all, just like the men in this article, an employer could choose to not
pay you for any reason. It is they who "gather" money from customers, not you.

And it's not even like these women couldn't support themselves (and their
kids) if they had to. They are smart, they have degrees. They have enormous
and powerful social networks.

No, they are exactly where they want to be - they get all the material
benefits of having a successful career, minus the stress, plus the family
time. It's a strange life, but to call it oppressive is offensive to women who
are truly oppressed. Oppression is not having options, and these women have
every option possible in this world.

------
bruceb
If you don't want to be in this position then don't marry one of these guys.
Find a man that values your career and will take care of the kids. Pretty
simple.

~~~
BendertheRobot
You infer that men made the decision that defines the women's lifestyle.
Whereas the women say, “It’s easier and more fun,”

~~~
bruceb
I am responding to what apparently is the author's view. I didn't say that men
defined these women's lifestyle and the women didn't choose to live this way.

------
cubano
It would seem to me that although on the surface it may seem that there is
some sort of repressive sexism going on here, that simple economics can
explain it all.

The year-end bonus is a very powerful form of behaviour conditioning and it
would seem that the husbands have seen its power in their workplace lives and
are simply using it as a tool to maximize their childrens opportunities

And finally, who are we (or anyone) to judge these women's choices? It's not
like these were arranged marriages or that they were sold to these men.

In fact, it would seem to me that they were, and still are, competing for them
with their advanced degrees and Flywheel exertions

It's just a somewhat unfortunate fact that we live in a world where money
pretty much rules all, and these woman understand this and have made the
choices necessary to make sure they are on the right side of the pile.

------
guard-of-terra
Why won't those women sit on important boards and earn real money? They surely
have enough education and social capital, some of them at least.

Maybe it's the question of who they will marry in this case, if they will?

~~~
swagasaurus-rex
There are many successful women who have stake and sit on notable companies'
boards. These wives are not always those kinds of women.

~~~
guard-of-terra
How do their families look like? Do we need a separate article for their
husbands?

------
rndn
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?

~~~
roel_v
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.

------
valleyhut
This uncannily describes some of the culture in the Bay Area too. Areas of
wealth probably create such environments. For example, mother groups start
spiraling cycles of outrageousness in their birthday parties for their infants
and toddlers, either trying to impress or avoid boredom --- I haven't figured
out which. It would probably help if we had more cultural support for stay-at-
home parents, where they could focus their energy on community support, and
not just the children.

~~~
devonkim
There was a somewhat recent article about this dynamic on a forum that DC area
women post on. It described a lot of type A personalities one-upping each
other around how much their husbands make ($400k+ / year at the low end I
think it was noted), what they paid for a baby carriage, how many vacations
they go on yearly, etc. that all reminded me a lot of what kids do in high
school. It was a bit embellished probably, but eating out here and there in
Northern Virginia I've overheard a lot of really eye-rolling conversations of
similarly shallow topics but also accompanied by a more chilling conversation
of such incredible privilege that's so commonplace. I did a short count while
I sat in a parking lot once and literally over 50% of the cars being driven
were recent model German import luxury vehicles - I literally never saw a
Mercedes Benz or even knew what BMW was by the time I was 13. For kids growing
up in the suburbs here, you'd statistically expect the average household to
have a $45k car.

I think a lot of the disgusting behavior is about the personality types and
the values that tend to manifest among those types rather than anything
intrinsic to wealth. A family member is extremely wealthy (.01%er) and from
what I remember that household has never discusses business unless at a
designated place and time. Perhaps this is simply an old money v. new money
sort of contrast fundamentally.

------
ckomlo
It's sad to read this. Particularly when earning money is so self-empowering.

I read this article recently, and it provided a stark contrast to the NYT
article- [http://www.vogue.co.uk/news/2015/05/18/miuccia-prada-
advice-...](http://www.vogue.co.uk/news/2015/05/18/miuccia-prada-advice-
wrinkles-work-pride)

For many women (including myself), work and earning money is often a source of
pride and self-respect.

------
kstenerud
It's pretty standard in anthropology circles that whoever can generate the
greatest share of prosperity in a group (protein in primitive societies, money
and influence in advanced) will have the greatest power.

So when such high power men get married, chances are pretty high that the
women they marry will be less powerful, and thus relegated to a subservient
position.

I wonder if there have been similar studies done of family structures where
the woman is the primary breadwinner?

------
chophamsammich
This is such waste. These women went to prestigious universities to earn
degrees that they won't use. They are just parasites on their husbands'
wealth, which in turn is generated through parasitic exchanges of companies'
wealth valuations. They would do better to stop coddling their children and go
back to work; that way, at least they could use their resources to better the
world.

------
Red_Tarsius
The OP doesn't seem to aknowledge the agency of those women. They are free,
consentient adults who agreed on such lifestyle and its tradeoffs.

If anything, the article echoes the stigma toward _stay-at-home mothers_ and
family oriented couples.

~~~
cjsthompson
Don't you know yet that neurobiology has shown that free will/agency is a
myth? (I'm also replying here to all the other comments about a so-called
"choice") These women are culturally conditioned to think it's acceptable for
them to not contribute back to society by being producers and they perpetuate
making gender roles culturally acceptable.

~~~
Red_Tarsius
> _conditioned to think it 's acceptable for them to not contribute back to
> society by being producers_

Maybe you've been conditioned to think that raising children does not
contribute to society. I guess having both partners working to death is the
new normal. Such widespread belief might explain why employers don't respect
paternity leaves.

~~~
cjsthompson
Maybe you've been conditioned to think that only women have the magical power
to raise children?

~~~
Red_Tarsius
That has nothing to do with the topic! The last line of my comment even
mentioned _paternity leave_.

 _Some_ women gladly leave their career in favor of their children. Some men
do it too, despite the stigma that "raising a child does not contribute back
to society". Deal with it.

I won't reply to other posts.

~~~
cjsthompson
The problem (as someone already mentionned in this thread) being that you
can't actually raise children without some prerequisite things that need to be
produced. I'm actually arguing against sex-based division of labor. Women &
men should echo do doing 50% of the producing and raising not women 100% of
raising and men 100% of producing.

P.S.: I don't care you won't reply to other posts

------
WalterSear
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.

~~~
guard-of-terra
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.

~~~
swagasaurus-rex
I bet a great many women do find complementary marriages, even to rich and
powerful men... This social subcircle seems to be quite a curious arrangement.

My question is, if you're rich, why not hire dedicated tutors to help get the
kids into college and manage the household, and save money on those 'mommy
bonuses'?

I think the answer is because the type of women who do this actually enjoy the
process of living a mega-rich lifestyle, "Many ran their homes (plural) like
C.E.O.s.".

    
    
        “It’s easier and more fun,” the women insisted when I asked about the sex segregation that defined their lives.
    

They know the game, and they're happy to play it.

------
Dewie3
At first I thought the title was mocking. But I guess it veers more on the
genuine side? Anyway, from a more middle-class perspective, it's a mockery to
call these women oppressed in any way. They even apparently have some self-
irony about their peculiar lifestyle, so it's not like they are
psychologically _trapped_ in this particular _world_. Even after having lived
in it so long.

I shouldn't be so sensitive, though. The author is an anthropologist and I
guess that's just how they write on these subjects.

