
The fruits of the feminist revolution: eight hours a day in a cubicle. - asciilifeform
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200807/working-moms
======
danteembermage
I don't think having children really fits well with the feminist paradigm.
While tricky, it's certainly possible to change the world and raise children
at the same time, I just get the sense that a personification of the women's
movement might say something like "Well you certainly _can_ do that, and more
power to you if you can!". It seems like child-rearing is relegated to a hobby
that distracts from the real work, like gardening or going to the symphony. I
don't think there are many people actively hostile toward mothering, but it
just doesn't seem all that valued in society.

For example, suppose an individual took child development and nutrition
classes because it would help make them a better parent. Would that garner the
same lever of respect as, say, studying for the bar or going to french club.

If parenting isn't valued, but a lot of it still has to go on, the result
isn't a happy contented society.

~~~
lionhearted
I learned a lot about parenting from an amazing man I met in Barcelona. His
son and he were staying in the same hotel as me, they were traveling Europe
together after he just graduated college.

His son met a really cute Czech girl in Spain, so Dad rightfully gave him
space. But the father and I really hit it off, so we'd sit at a Spanish bar
and eat tortilla sandwiches and drink coffee and we had some really
interesting chats. He's a very successful real estate developer from Los
Angeles, even post-crash. He converts rental properties into vacation
properties, which is a lot more work but can generate 3x-7x stable rents. (Of
course, you've got to rent/clean/maintain/etc - definitely more active and
risky money than standard landlording).

He told me about his family. After having his second son was born about 15
years ago, his wife got depressed and wanted to get out of the marriage and
family life ASAP. She was breaking down mentally, basically, and wanted to run
- fast.

So the man says, "I understand, that's fine, but you can't support yourself
right now, and you'll need to be able to do that before we can get divorced.
Even if I take the kids, they'll still spend a lot of time with you and you
need to have a clean, nice place and income so they can have a nice life with
you and be proud." She got into a nursing program, and got either a
certificate or a degree in nursing. By the time she finished 2-4 years later,
she's cleared up. They had another child and went on to both be very happy and
successful. She pulls down $80k/year now as a nurse, and they've done very
well investing too. His son seems like a hell of a guy, thoughtful, mature,
intelligent, cultured, poised. The Dad's a very cool guy too. A good family.

One thing he told that made a lot of sense - "Sebastian, you've got to
understand, kids are the most selfish, ungrateful creatures in the world when
they're young. All they do is demand, demand, demand things, and they're not
grateful at all. Later they realize and appreciate what you've done for them,
but a woman who just raises kids pours in so much effort for so little
gratitude and appreciation and respect...." He goes on to explain how the
regular praise, promotions, and the steady paycheck are instant rewards and
validations from work, and help a person's self esteem. He thinks any woman
would do well to have at least some part time work or project that she gets
respect, appreciation, and validation from - because kids won't provide that
until they're 20+, and you need to not go crazy in the meantime.

Maybe now in the West, society doesn't value parenting as much as
traditionally, so women get even less respect for being a good parent now. Not
sure about that myself - if that's true, then it's even harder to raise
children than historically. But his points really resonated with me - I've
talked about it with all the girls I've dated. I personally date two types of
women - hyper-driven, top of the game, ambitious high performance girls, and
quite traditional, feminine, nurturing girls - and usually not much in
between. But all of them, with some talking to, come to agree about keeping a
part time project to help women stay sane. If I make my life with a
traditional woman who is happy to be just a good mother and keep a good
household, it'll still be good for her to do a little bit of work for the
validation that comes from that. Even something small like teaching a one hour
class twice a week, or doing some flower arranging for a couple local small
businesses. Same with driven women - they'd go crazy if they completely hung
up their spurs and only raised kids.

I'm probably a bit more traditional than most American men from the
international cities - I place a lot of respect and value on having a woman
who is very in tune with my emotions after a long day, can cook well, can
clean and mend clothing well, and has mastered the other domestic skills,
which I consider quite invaluable. It's less important to have hyper-
intellectual conversations with my girl or play Chess with her - I get plenty
of that with my male friends anyway. But even if I take the most traditional,
old world European or Japanese girl to make a life with, I still think
something that provides her that instant positive feedback is very good for
happiness.

~~~
JimmyL
This gut got lucky, specifically at this stage:

>> So the man says, "I understand, that's fine, but you can't support yourself
right now, and you'll need to be able to do that before we can get
divorced..."

The wife was well within her rights to say "screw you" to the guy, file for
divorce with a contingency lawyer, and get a bunch in child support and income
equalization from the guy - and probably custody too if she put a bit of
effort in.

~~~
lionhearted
I'm with you on how ugly the family court system can be, but this one's a bit
different. She didn't want the kids - she wanted to leave because she was
going crazy. I'm pretty sure he/they weren't wealthy yet at that point either.
She wanted to leave the kids with him, end the marriage, and move on. She was
in a full blown panic/depression/something like that.

Most men would freak out there. Instead of taking it personally, he was
practical about it and helped put her through school, saying that the kids
came before both of them, and she needed to be able to support herself. He
didn't make her feel trapped or beg her or insult her, he just set about
practically so they could run two households effectively if they needed to. It
turned out, they didn't need to, now they run one very successful household.

I really admire his stoic practicality there. In a place where a lot of men
would freak out, he was calm, sympathetic, yet unfailingly practical. He was
willing to have his marriage end on a practical note, but instead it wound up
keeping his marriage together and building a very strong family. A very, very
insightful guy, I was very lucky to cross paths from him and get the
opportunity to learn some really important lessons.

~~~
iigs
He was clever. If he invested that time and money and she still wanted out,
her salary would be much closer to his, which would have worked out in his
favor when it came time to calculate child support or alimony. It's possible
(maybe unlikely) that if she had made more than him that _he_ could have ended
up receiving money in the divorce.

In fact, I can't see a down side in this case for either (adult) party --
being poor and uneducated with child support is inferior to being relatively
self-wealthy with modest child support, so it was a win for her.

There's a value to raising your children yourself; a stay-at-home parent can
focus on the needs of the children and spend more time on giving them a first
class childhood experience. If the relationship is headed for the wall,
however, it surely is superior to do this at the expense of trying to continue
stay-at-home parenting.

------
jimbokun
"it does not take well-developed political skills to rule over creatures
smaller than you are, weaker than you are, and completely dependent upon you
for survival or thriving."

Truly spoken as someone who has not spent much time caring for children. At
least, I hope not. The implication that being smaller than you gives you more
power, only makes sense if you are going to consistently use physical force to
ensure compliance. The fact they are completely dependent on you only gives
you power if you are willing to keep basic necessities from them to coerce
them into compliance.

Otherwise, political skills are going to be pretty darn handy at times.

------
Tichy
Isn't the talk about feminism mostly useless? I think technology is what
really drives things forward. Frozen food, washing machines, dishwashers,
industrially produced cheap clothes and stuff like that is what "frees" women,
not some philosophical discussions.

In former times it was not just evil, suppressive men that constructed society
as it was. The role models were necessary for survival.

------
arithmetic
What an insanely long, winding article. Get to the point already!

~~~
bkovitz
_In these post-Lisa-Belkin-New-York-Times-Magazine-“Opt-Out” years, we’ve now
learned the worst: even female Harvard graduates are fleeing high-powered
careers for a kinder, gentler Martha Stewart Living. Not only does the Problem
Have a Name, it has its own line of Fiestaware!_

What? Huh? This article is written in such überhip language, I can't tell what
it says.

~~~
nickpp
Same here - after trying hard to read each long, pointless paragraph I was
wondering: what is she saying? I gave up after the first third of the article.

~~~
Gormo
There are few things worse than reading an article consisting almost entirely
of obscure references, proper names, and (presumably) complex ideas, linked
together by an extremely subjective thought process, and expressed in such an
idiosyncratic style that only the author herself is likely able to make sense
of it, while to anyone else it resembles the output of a victim of Wernicke's
aphasia.

~~~
pj
For those curious, as I was: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Receptive_aphasia>
(also known as Vernicke's aphasia). Basically, these patients get words mixed
up and speak funny sentences like the article.

I too thought it was superfluous hipster talk and got bored reading it. The
point of the article in my mind was that after women's fighting for the choice
to work, now they want to choose not to work.

------
mynameishere
So much naval-gazing. Feminism is on Darwin's chopping block. Simple as that.
Unfortunately, the cleaver is mighty slow.

------
nico
Men are not better than women or the other way around. But we are different,
that's just a fact. We have to behave accordingly then, instead of trying to
ignore those differences.

~~~
likpok
<http://www.psy.fsu.edu/~baumeistertice/goodaboutmen.htm>

Interesting article talking about gender differences.

~~~
whimsy
This was also on HN a while back: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=589346>

I find the version linked on HN, from dennisdutton.com, much more readable.

EDIT: Your link could be considered "closer to the source," though, seeing as
it's the author's webpage rather than Dutton's.

------
sielskr
Let's not forget that the OP does not reveal what women think, it reveals what
women who went to Harvard and live in Manhattan think.

------
wyw
Upvoted for the title. The article not so much.

~~~
alex_c
What an incredibly succinct way to sum up how the decline in quality on social
news sites occurs. Thank you, I'll have to remember that phrase.

------
erlanger
It's never been easy to have your cake and eat it too.

~~~
mahmud
Feminism gives women the right to choose their destiny in life. If they want
grueling 8 hours in a cubicle over the "comfort" of being "taken care of" by a
loving, all-providing Man, so be it.

Men constantly choose to have their cake and eat it too. They have careers,
but they also have families. Men's right to choose the life they want is never
questioned, so why are the life choices of women under such scrutiny?

~~~
wensing
"Men constantly choose to have their cake and eat it too. They have careers,
but they also have families."

There's not much special about _have_ -ing a family. Almost anyone can create
children and/or get married. The question for both men and women is: what are
we missing by allowing ourselves to be taken out of the home and sent our
separate ways?

I (a man) ended up leaving my cube job fully convinced that a startup run from
or very close to home is the next step towards my goal of a family business.

~~~
mahmud
It's in the hands of the couple to choose which one of them needs to stay at
home with the kids at any given day. (e.g. a female executive need not quit
her high-paying job of if her novelist husband can stay at home during the day
with the kids.)

However, it's often the case that women end up sacrificing their dreams and
quit their jobs to raise kids, when the division of household labor is in fact
an artificial one, a remnant of cultures and societies past.

~~~
wensing
It's a sad day when raising your kids equates to sacrificing your dreams. Sad
day for the kids.

