And then there were the wife bonuses
May 17, 2015 9:39 AM Subscribe
It was easy for me to fall into the belief, as I lived and lunched and mothered with more than 100 of them for the better part of six years, that all these wealthy, competent and beautiful women, many with irony, intelligence and a sense of humor about their tribalism, were powerful as well. But as my inner anthropologist quickly realized, there was the undeniable fact of their cloistering from men.
Poor Little Rich Women (NYT Op-Ed)
Yes, let me feel sorry for these "cloistered" women with their millions of dollars of capital, power and influence and being "forced" to organize cookie sales and galas to get their thousands of dollars of 'mommy-bonuses' while they are 'slaves' to a fitness center.
I saw and read the article, shook my head, and reset my DAYS SINCE THE NEW YORK TIMES MADE ME FEEL SORRY FOR THE 0.01% Counter to Zero.
posted by kurosawa's pal at 9:51 AM on May 17, 2015 [37 favorites]
I saw and read the article, shook my head, and reset my DAYS SINCE THE NEW YORK TIMES MADE ME FEEL SORRY FOR THE 0.01% Counter to Zero.
posted by kurosawa's pal at 9:51 AM on May 17, 2015 [37 favorites]
The part about wide bonuses in that article blew my mind.
posted by OmieWise at 9:57 AM on May 17, 2015 [4 favorites]
posted by OmieWise at 9:57 AM on May 17, 2015 [4 favorites]
A wife bonus, I was told, might be hammered out in a pre-nup or post-nup, and distributed on the basis of not only how well her husband’s fund had done but her own performance — how well she managed the home budget, whether the kids got into a “good” school — the same way their husbands were rewarded at investment banks. ...
Women who didn’t get them joked about possible sexual performance metrics. Women who received them usually retreated, demurring when pressed to discuss it further, proof to an anthropologist that a topic is taboo, culturally loaded and dense with meaning.
Good grief, what a strange approach to a marriage. That, and the rigorous sex-segregation the author describes, don't have any correlates in my world. No one I know lives like that in either respect, but both financially and geographically my world is exceedingly remote from the place she is describing. I realize that she is writing this to emphasize those differences (this is part of the book marketing, after all), but even discounting that it still reads very foreign to me.
It has been brought up before, but it would be great if authors, and most particularly women authors, were credited in FPPs. For one, it's a basic sign of respect, and Wednesday Martin is prominent enough to merit that. And for another, it makes finding and linking previous discussions much more straightforward.
posted by Dip Flash at 9:58 AM on May 17, 2015 [14 favorites]
Women who didn’t get them joked about possible sexual performance metrics. Women who received them usually retreated, demurring when pressed to discuss it further, proof to an anthropologist that a topic is taboo, culturally loaded and dense with meaning.
Good grief, what a strange approach to a marriage. That, and the rigorous sex-segregation the author describes, don't have any correlates in my world. No one I know lives like that in either respect, but both financially and geographically my world is exceedingly remote from the place she is describing. I realize that she is writing this to emphasize those differences (this is part of the book marketing, after all), but even discounting that it still reads very foreign to me.
It has been brought up before, but it would be great if authors, and most particularly women authors, were credited in FPPs. For one, it's a basic sign of respect, and Wednesday Martin is prominent enough to merit that. And for another, it makes finding and linking previous discussions much more straightforward.
posted by Dip Flash at 9:58 AM on May 17, 2015 [14 favorites]
I know it's the NYT and all but I would question if the point of the article is to feel sorry for the women. I thought it was just interesting to read about how the other half lives, and how it's different from and similar to other cultures. I definitely don't feel sorry for them as I feel pretty confident that any of them who wanted to work would just be working. Surely some of them do, no? But it was just a short piece and not a book so it didn't answer that.
posted by bleep at 9:58 AM on May 17, 2015 [14 favorites]
posted by bleep at 9:58 AM on May 17, 2015 [14 favorites]
Does the NYT have a "Rich People: They're Just Like Us" quota they're supposed to fill every month? Not to be flip, but the whole concept of the trophy wife underscores the fact that the 0.01% are as susceptible to sexism and the disempowerment of women as any other economic strata.
posted by Anonymous at 9:59 AM on May 17, 2015
posted by Anonymous at 9:59 AM on May 17, 2015
To say I don't think this is a problem because they're rich would be, I've realized, like saying that I don't feel that there's a problem if a rich Black or Hispanic person encounters racism. The thing about racism and sexism being systemic is that there's no way to get away from them completely, and seeing just how racist and sexist the very top of our economic ladder is--I think it's useful. It's proof that this is in fact coming from the top, and not a thing that the poor and middle classes do out of being insufficiently enlightened and educated, which is too often the implication in discussions among those who perceive themselves to be enlightened and educated.
posted by Sequence at 9:59 AM on May 17, 2015 [74 favorites]
posted by Sequence at 9:59 AM on May 17, 2015 [74 favorites]
If you don’t bring home tubers and roots, your power is diminished in your marriage. And in the world.
Because I have class issues, I really hope that those women read this article and were WOW WHAT THE FUCK AM I DOING HERE and then they go all Charlize Theron on everything.
posted by angrycat at 10:01 AM on May 17, 2015 [12 favorites]
Because I have class issues, I really hope that those women read this article and were WOW WHAT THE FUCK AM I DOING HERE and then they go all Charlize Theron on everything.
posted by angrycat at 10:01 AM on May 17, 2015 [12 favorites]
I know it's the NYT and all but I would question if the point of the article is to feel sorry for the women
Yeah, I don't think so either. I'm pretty sure it wasn't the author of the op-ed who came up with the terrible title.
posted by Flashman at 10:04 AM on May 17, 2015 [2 favorites]
Yeah, I don't think so either. I'm pretty sure it wasn't the author of the op-ed who came up with the terrible title.
posted by Flashman at 10:04 AM on May 17, 2015 [2 favorites]
Does the NYT have a "Rich People: They're Just Like Us" quota they're supposed to fill every month?I think that the point of this article, though, is that rich people are really not at all like us. I mean, how many couples do you know in which the wife gets a "wife bonus"?
I'm a little pruriently fascinated with this quadruple homicide in D.C., so "rich people: they're really not just like us at all" is sort of on my mind.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 10:09 AM on May 17, 2015 [3 favorites]
This just brings marriage to its logical conclusion as a capitalistic product and all the assumptions that underpin it. Life long legal pair bonding is mostly about property and asset protection anyway.
posted by The Whelk at 10:10 AM on May 17, 2015 [29 favorites]
posted by The Whelk at 10:10 AM on May 17, 2015 [29 favorites]
For most of the families I know, having the resources to permit one parent to stay-at-home is something out of a utopian novel. I suspect this may help fuel the unease I feel in reading this. Couple the metaphorical luxury of a one-income family with the literal luxury that permits one parent to focus almost entirely on providing their children with the set of tools (networks, social capital, expensive education, etc.) conducive to the perpetuation of deep inequality, and I'm just left feeling angry-sad.
I'll leave it to others to help unpack this in a less personal way. But I just can't right now. It touches too many nerves.
Which, perhaps, is the point.
posted by Xavier Xavier at 10:12 AM on May 17, 2015 [16 favorites]
I'll leave it to others to help unpack this in a less personal way. But I just can't right now. It touches too many nerves.
Which, perhaps, is the point.
posted by Xavier Xavier at 10:12 AM on May 17, 2015 [16 favorites]
I don't feel sorry for these women, exactly. What I do feel is sad that there are still so many women who are so totally afraid of providing for/taking care of themselves, that they willingly sell themselves to the highest bidder into a sort of indentured servitude.
posted by MexicanYenta at 10:21 AM on May 17, 2015 [17 favorites]
posted by MexicanYenta at 10:21 AM on May 17, 2015 [17 favorites]
Reading about how well educated these women are, and how they're channelling that into home keeping and unpaid work, reminded me of something I read about the kinds of short stories you saw in women's magazines just after World War II. There was this sudde profusion of stories where the woman was a Rosie-the-riveter type, or maybe even had a degree, but then her sweetie came home from the war and she had an epiphany that wait, giving up her career to stand by her man was more fulfilling. One story I heard about ended with a woman gushing to her fiancé that her degree in engineering could help her design a much better cradle for him to build for their eventual children.
Those stories were part of an intentional policy of social control meant to encourage women to give up their jobs and their newly- discovered independence so that the men returning from war could get their jobs back, and it carried down into the home ex classes at high schools and lasted throughout the 1950s until we got THE FEMININE MYSTIQUE.
Now, I am all for a woman saying "fuck this" and packing a job in and being a SAHM if that is her independent choice. But here, I'm getting more of a sense of social pressure - what would those women do, I wonder, if one of their number went back to work part time because she suddenly decided the idea of a "wife bonus" made her feel icky? Would they support her, or would they, as I suspect, subtly freeze her out because she wasn't doing things "right"?
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 10:21 AM on May 17, 2015 [57 favorites]
Those stories were part of an intentional policy of social control meant to encourage women to give up their jobs and their newly- discovered independence so that the men returning from war could get their jobs back, and it carried down into the home ex classes at high schools and lasted throughout the 1950s until we got THE FEMININE MYSTIQUE.
Now, I am all for a woman saying "fuck this" and packing a job in and being a SAHM if that is her independent choice. But here, I'm getting more of a sense of social pressure - what would those women do, I wonder, if one of their number went back to work part time because she suddenly decided the idea of a "wife bonus" made her feel icky? Would they support her, or would they, as I suspect, subtly freeze her out because she wasn't doing things "right"?
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 10:21 AM on May 17, 2015 [57 favorites]
Feel sorry for them or not, it reveals how these "very rich" men view the role of women in culture, and it's terrifying.
posted by allthinky at 10:24 AM on May 17, 2015 [51 favorites]
posted by allthinky at 10:24 AM on May 17, 2015 [51 favorites]
I think that the point of this article, though, is that rich people are really not at all like us. I mean, how many couples do you know in which the wife gets a "wife bonus"?
Outside of super-religious ones, none. But the purpose of this article seemed to emphasize a certain specialness or bizarreness to the sexism inherent in these marriages that I don't see. So their sexism emerges in sex-segregated dinners and "wife bonuses"--how is that functionally different than the many couples who default all housework and childcare to the woman? Where all the PTA meeting and bake sales are staffed by mothers? Where the woman pares down her career in order to meet this demands, and who, if forced to leave the marriage, would find herself at a severe disadvantage compared to her male counterparts, or even her female counterparts who didn't get married and have kids?
To me, the experiences of these women seem like a natural outgrowth from patriarchal trends already inbuilt into our culture. These families just have enough money to take them to their logical conclusion.
posted by Anonymous at 10:26 AM on May 17, 2015
Outside of super-religious ones, none. But the purpose of this article seemed to emphasize a certain specialness or bizarreness to the sexism inherent in these marriages that I don't see. So their sexism emerges in sex-segregated dinners and "wife bonuses"--how is that functionally different than the many couples who default all housework and childcare to the woman? Where all the PTA meeting and bake sales are staffed by mothers? Where the woman pares down her career in order to meet this demands, and who, if forced to leave the marriage, would find herself at a severe disadvantage compared to her male counterparts, or even her female counterparts who didn't get married and have kids?
To me, the experiences of these women seem like a natural outgrowth from patriarchal trends already inbuilt into our culture. These families just have enough money to take them to their logical conclusion.
posted by Anonymous at 10:26 AM on May 17, 2015
So the unwritten, unspoken truth behind the sex segregation is that the dudes are all out fucking 19-year-old Russian hookers, right?
posted by The Master and Margarita Mix at 10:27 AM on May 17, 2015 [24 favorites]
posted by The Master and Margarita Mix at 10:27 AM on May 17, 2015 [24 favorites]
#doom
posted by standardasparagus at 10:27 AM on May 17, 2015 [2 favorites]
posted by standardasparagus at 10:27 AM on May 17, 2015 [2 favorites]
Now, I am all for a woman saying "fuck this" and packing a job in and being a SAHM if that is her independent choice. But here, I'm getting more of a sense of social pressure - what would those women do, I wonder, if one of their number went back to work part time because she suddenly decided the idea of a "wife bonus" made her feel icky? Would they support her, or would they, as I suspect, subtly freeze her out because she wasn't doing things "right"?One of my really good friends is a college professor and until recently lived in upscale Brooklyn with her husband and small kids. I don't think that upscale Brooklyn is at all like this, and my guess is that none of her friends get "wife bonuses," but she does say that most of her Brooklyn mommy friends didn't work outside the home, and it was really hard to maintain friendships with them after she finished maternity leave. It's not that they disapproved or were intentionally freezing her out. It's just that her schedule and lifestyle didn't jibe with theirs at all. And I think that would be even worse for someone with a traditional 9-5 schedule. So I think there may be social pressure, even if it's not being applied intentionally.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 10:28 AM on May 17, 2015 [6 favorites]
Feel sorry for them or not, it reveals how these "very rich" men view the role of women in culture, and it's terrifying.
It is not hard to imagine these women being given handmaids in robes of red.
posted by Dip Flash at 10:29 AM on May 17, 2015 [19 favorites]
It is not hard to imagine these women being given handmaids in robes of red.
posted by Dip Flash at 10:29 AM on May 17, 2015 [19 favorites]
I'd have to see proof the "wife bonus" was in a pre-nup or a post-nup ... it sort-of sounds like a couple who says, "Okay, when I see how big my bonus is, we'll put 30% of it into savings, spend $5,000 on a big vacation with the kids, donate $10,000 to your charity, and split the rest for our own fun-money spending," or something like that. (But really, if your finances are complicated enough for a post-nup, I don't really see what's weird about saying, "Wife gets 30% of year-end bonus.")
Also wow was she hating on girls' weekends.
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 10:30 AM on May 17, 2015 [6 favorites]
Also wow was she hating on girls' weekends.
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 10:30 AM on May 17, 2015 [6 favorites]
I have probably never met someone who gets a "mommy bonus," but I have noticed a certain type of stay-at-home wife or mother who is married to a rich, powerful man, and her savvy, organizational skills, assertiveness are very much like that of a successful businessperson. I have always wondered about women like that, I find their existence interesting. It makes sense that managing the affairs of a wealthy household would call upon skills of that nature and in fact would involve a community of other women who are similarly situated. I think there are women who very much consider that the good life.
posted by jayder at 10:36 AM on May 17, 2015 [8 favorites]
posted by jayder at 10:36 AM on May 17, 2015 [8 favorites]
I'd have to see proof the "wife bonus" was in a pre-nup or a post-nup
I don't really see why it would be so unbelievable as to be needing "proof". It doesn't seem that different than an annual distribution from a living trust.
posted by poffin boffin at 10:40 AM on May 17, 2015 [3 favorites]
I don't really see why it would be so unbelievable as to be needing "proof". It doesn't seem that different than an annual distribution from a living trust.
posted by poffin boffin at 10:40 AM on May 17, 2015 [3 favorites]
Yeah, having a hard time understanding the segregation thing, one only hears about it in religious communities. I hope the author expands on this in her book.
Growing up, some of my parents' friends and relatives were rich. I used to wonder why their sons my age never gave me the time of day; now I know. I would never have remotely put up with this shit.
posted by Melismata at 10:40 AM on May 17, 2015 [4 favorites]
Growing up, some of my parents' friends and relatives were rich. I used to wonder why their sons my age never gave me the time of day; now I know. I would never have remotely put up with this shit.
posted by Melismata at 10:40 AM on May 17, 2015 [4 favorites]
On the West Coast it's completely different. No woman is a stay-at-home mom -- they are artists, writers, dancers, basically anything that sounds like it could make her a peer of her husband (but of course she isn't really). No one has multiple homes -- of course they have a house and a cabin and another cabin and the old house they're trying to rent out on AirBNB until they can sell it, but that's completely different. There aren't a lot of "prep schools," there are just "private schools" which are a lot less fancy in appearance but still give your kid the same social advantages -- and the wife doesn't get a bonus for getting her kid into one, she just gets the continuing accolades of all of her friends. Really it's like a completely different planet.
posted by miyabo at 10:42 AM on May 17, 2015 [32 favorites]
posted by miyabo at 10:42 AM on May 17, 2015 [32 favorites]
What I do feel is sad that there are still so many women who are so totally afraid of providing for/taking care of themselves, that they willingly sell themselves to the highest bidder into a sort of indentured servitude.
The phrasing of this seems to imply that they have nothing to be afraid of, that this is totally irrational, that the cause of whatever oppression women in that position might suffer is only themselves. And--yeah, no. For one thing, note that the entire focus of this article is not just wives, but mothers, who have children who they are also concerned about. And if you want to believe that any one of these women could leave their husbands tomorrow for total independence without any negative repercussions to their own lives or any judgment about the impact of doing so on their kids? That's more delusional than any of their fears.
They may never live the same lifestyle I'm living right now. They may have all the privileges of wealth and, in the vast majority of cases, whiteness. But they do not operate in a world where they are actually capable of being, across the board, the career equals of men with the same background and educational qualifications and number of children, and it is really gross to imply that this is the fault of the women in this equation.
posted by Sequence at 10:42 AM on May 17, 2015 [29 favorites]
The phrasing of this seems to imply that they have nothing to be afraid of, that this is totally irrational, that the cause of whatever oppression women in that position might suffer is only themselves. And--yeah, no. For one thing, note that the entire focus of this article is not just wives, but mothers, who have children who they are also concerned about. And if you want to believe that any one of these women could leave their husbands tomorrow for total independence without any negative repercussions to their own lives or any judgment about the impact of doing so on their kids? That's more delusional than any of their fears.
They may never live the same lifestyle I'm living right now. They may have all the privileges of wealth and, in the vast majority of cases, whiteness. But they do not operate in a world where they are actually capable of being, across the board, the career equals of men with the same background and educational qualifications and number of children, and it is really gross to imply that this is the fault of the women in this equation.
posted by Sequence at 10:42 AM on May 17, 2015 [29 favorites]
poffin boffin: "I don't really see why it would be so unbelievable as to be needing "proof". It doesn't seem that different than an annual distribution from a living trust."
The part where she implied there were performance metrics (especially sexual ones), basically. I think there's NOTHING weird about a year-end bonus being distributed to different parts of family and personal budgets. The author is clearly trying to imply it's weird and there's some kind of "pay for wifely performance" trade going on. I think she's sensationalizing something mundane for clickbait.
jayder: " I have noticed a certain type of stay-at-home wife or mother who is married to a rich, powerful man, and her savvy, organizational skills, assertiveness are very much like that of a successful businessperson. I have always wondered about women like that, I find their existence interesting. "
I mean we're not RICH, but I'm the well-educated stay-at-home wife and mother of a mid-career attorney and I have more degrees than my husband -- AMA.
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 10:46 AM on May 17, 2015 [16 favorites]
The part where she implied there were performance metrics (especially sexual ones), basically. I think there's NOTHING weird about a year-end bonus being distributed to different parts of family and personal budgets. The author is clearly trying to imply it's weird and there's some kind of "pay for wifely performance" trade going on. I think she's sensationalizing something mundane for clickbait.
jayder: " I have noticed a certain type of stay-at-home wife or mother who is married to a rich, powerful man, and her savvy, organizational skills, assertiveness are very much like that of a successful businessperson. I have always wondered about women like that, I find their existence interesting. "
I mean we're not RICH, but I'm the well-educated stay-at-home wife and mother of a mid-career attorney and I have more degrees than my husband -- AMA.
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 10:46 AM on May 17, 2015 [16 favorites]
For most of the families I know, having the resources to permit one parent to stay-at-home is something out of a utopian novel. I suspect this may help fuel the unease I feel in reading this.
i want to say upfront that i recognize my own privilege in being a stay at home wife. i know it's a choice that comes out of our unique circumstances and most families have to have two people working. however - i will say, that we're not rich - not even close. we live in an area with a very cheap cost of living in a vaguely too small apartment, we decided to not have kids, we have one car - a 17 year old chevy sedan with a broken a/c, no cable tv, no netflix subscription, no traveling vacations. it's not a utopian ideal, it's a lot of hard work and choices and doing without (and utterly completely worth it - i am very happy and not at all cloistered in my life).
and yeah - these women's lives look nothing like mine. mine is all about getting laundry and dishes done and budgeting grocery trips around cheap meats and on sale produce.
posted by nadawi at 10:47 AM on May 17, 2015 [5 favorites]
i want to say upfront that i recognize my own privilege in being a stay at home wife. i know it's a choice that comes out of our unique circumstances and most families have to have two people working. however - i will say, that we're not rich - not even close. we live in an area with a very cheap cost of living in a vaguely too small apartment, we decided to not have kids, we have one car - a 17 year old chevy sedan with a broken a/c, no cable tv, no netflix subscription, no traveling vacations. it's not a utopian ideal, it's a lot of hard work and choices and doing without (and utterly completely worth it - i am very happy and not at all cloistered in my life).
and yeah - these women's lives look nothing like mine. mine is all about getting laundry and dishes done and budgeting grocery trips around cheap meats and on sale produce.
posted by nadawi at 10:47 AM on May 17, 2015 [5 favorites]
i will also say - yeah, part of being a housewife is organizational and support. we're a team who has decided to separate out roles and responsibilities in our lives. i don't fill out his spreadsheets or do his conference calls, but i do a lot of support work that enables him to concentrate on his day job with few interruptions.
posted by nadawi at 10:51 AM on May 17, 2015 [3 favorites]
posted by nadawi at 10:51 AM on May 17, 2015 [3 favorites]
Props to the artist who did the drawing: both the alarmed look on her face and how it looks like the faceless man is going to garrote her with the necklace.
posted by sfkiddo at 10:53 AM on May 17, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by sfkiddo at 10:53 AM on May 17, 2015 [1 favorite]
Financially successful men in Manhattan sit on major boards — of hospitals, universities and high-profile diseases
Who is the chairman of the board of cancer? Because fuck him.
posted by univac at 10:53 AM on May 17, 2015 [40 favorites]
Who is the chairman of the board of cancer? Because fuck him.
posted by univac at 10:53 AM on May 17, 2015 [40 favorites]
it's not a utopian ideal, it's a lot of hard work and choices and doing without (and utterly completely worth it
That is the case for the people I know who have chosen the single-earner approach. It is mostly working well for them, but there are very real sacrifices as well.
posted by Dip Flash at 10:55 AM on May 17, 2015
That is the case for the people I know who have chosen the single-earner approach. It is mostly working well for them, but there are very real sacrifices as well.
posted by Dip Flash at 10:55 AM on May 17, 2015
The fucked-up part is that these people call themselves "middle-class"
posted by Renoroc at 11:01 AM on May 17, 2015 [3 favorites]
posted by Renoroc at 11:01 AM on May 17, 2015 [3 favorites]
Wednesday Martin is the writer.
Notice the necklace carefully, it is a round pendant, while the shadow it casts is a lock on a necklace.
The sexual segregation is the new, international business model, to facilitate international ingrained sexism, so there is no awkwardness. I doubt the women are all white, they probably represent an international, intercultural mix. This is the dual face of our new management.
posted by Oyéah at 11:01 AM on May 17, 2015 [3 favorites]
Notice the necklace carefully, it is a round pendant, while the shadow it casts is a lock on a necklace.
The sexual segregation is the new, international business model, to facilitate international ingrained sexism, so there is no awkwardness. I doubt the women are all white, they probably represent an international, intercultural mix. This is the dual face of our new management.
posted by Oyéah at 11:01 AM on May 17, 2015 [3 favorites]
I mean we're not RICH, but I'm the well-educated stay-at-home wife and mother of a mid-career attorney and I have more degrees than my husband -- AMA.
uhh... TMI?
/sorry
so, this is a nytimes styles trend piece: WHERE IS THE MORAL PANIC?
posted by ennui.bz at 11:09 AM on May 17, 2015 [4 favorites]
uhh... TMI?
/sorry
so, this is a nytimes styles trend piece: WHERE IS THE MORAL PANIC?
posted by ennui.bz at 11:09 AM on May 17, 2015 [4 favorites]
it's not a utopian ideal, it's a lot of hard work and choices and doing without (and utterly completely worth it - i am very happy and not at all cloistered in my life).
Nadawi, I'm sorry if my choice of "utopian" implied anything at all negative about those parents who are in a position to choose to stay at home, however much sacrifice that may entail. That was not at all my intention. I just meant that a one-income household seems like a "positive yet highly implausible/unworkable" ideal for a lot of the folks in my cohort (for a host of reasons, largely financial). I'm happy that it's worked for you, and I can definitely empathize with the amount of work and sacrifice it takes for many to make it work.
posted by Xavier Xavier at 11:13 AM on May 17, 2015
Nadawi, I'm sorry if my choice of "utopian" implied anything at all negative about those parents who are in a position to choose to stay at home, however much sacrifice that may entail. That was not at all my intention. I just meant that a one-income household seems like a "positive yet highly implausible/unworkable" ideal for a lot of the folks in my cohort (for a host of reasons, largely financial). I'm happy that it's worked for you, and I can definitely empathize with the amount of work and sacrifice it takes for many to make it work.
posted by Xavier Xavier at 11:13 AM on May 17, 2015
I saw and read the article, shook my head, and reset my DAYS SINCE THE NEW YORK TIMES MADE ME FEEL SORRY FOR THE 0.01% Counter to Zero.
Huh. What I got from it was "Rich people have super-gross sexism that they combine with CEO-style douchebaggery to make Nightmare Salad."
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 11:16 AM on May 17, 2015 [47 favorites]
Huh. What I got from it was "Rich people have super-gross sexism that they combine with CEO-style douchebaggery to make Nightmare Salad."
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 11:16 AM on May 17, 2015 [47 favorites]
[…]and it is really gross to imply that this is the fault of the women in this equation.
That's not what I was implying at all, that's why I said it was sad, rather than, say, stupid. FWIW, I'm female and a mother, and I did the single parent, no-child-support thing from the time my kid was 2 years old. It was really hard, but there's no way I would have traded it for these womens' lives.
I've known lots of women who have bought into the lifestyle in the article, and they have all been scared in one way or another to try to make it on their own. This is undoubtedly the fault of a society that tells them from the time they're small that they can't make it without a man. And that is sad.
posted by MexicanYenta at 11:16 AM on May 17, 2015 [4 favorites]
That's not what I was implying at all, that's why I said it was sad, rather than, say, stupid. FWIW, I'm female and a mother, and I did the single parent, no-child-support thing from the time my kid was 2 years old. It was really hard, but there's no way I would have traded it for these womens' lives.
I've known lots of women who have bought into the lifestyle in the article, and they have all been scared in one way or another to try to make it on their own. This is undoubtedly the fault of a society that tells them from the time they're small that they can't make it without a man. And that is sad.
posted by MexicanYenta at 11:16 AM on May 17, 2015 [4 favorites]
But they do not operate in a world where they are actually capable of being, across the board, the career equals of men with the same background and educational qualifications and number of children […]
This is undoubtedly true. And as long as women keep giving up and giving in to this, rather than fighting back, it will continue to remain the truth.
posted by MexicanYenta at 11:23 AM on May 17, 2015 [3 favorites]
This is undoubtedly true. And as long as women keep giving up and giving in to this, rather than fighting back, it will continue to remain the truth.
posted by MexicanYenta at 11:23 AM on May 17, 2015 [3 favorites]
Count me in the "totally squicked out by wife bonuses" camp, however...
Eyebrows: " The author is clearly trying to imply it's weird and there's some kind of "pay for wifely performance" trade going on. I think she's sensationalizing something mundane for clickbait."
I think the key is that these women have the same motivational structure that their investment-banker husbands do, expecting superstar pay for what they view as superstar work, and the "weird, sensationalized" color that her remarks have comes from the cultural baggage attached to substantially remunerating family members for domestic labor (not just paying your kids $10 to mow the lawn). Remember the guy who calculated out the value of his wife's labor and came to the conclusion that he couldn't afford her? Well, these people can.
posted by katya.lysander at 11:23 AM on May 17, 2015 [7 favorites]
Eyebrows: " The author is clearly trying to imply it's weird and there's some kind of "pay for wifely performance" trade going on. I think she's sensationalizing something mundane for clickbait."
I think the key is that these women have the same motivational structure that their investment-banker husbands do, expecting superstar pay for what they view as superstar work, and the "weird, sensationalized" color that her remarks have comes from the cultural baggage attached to substantially remunerating family members for domestic labor (not just paying your kids $10 to mow the lawn). Remember the guy who calculated out the value of his wife's labor and came to the conclusion that he couldn't afford her? Well, these people can.
posted by katya.lysander at 11:23 AM on May 17, 2015 [7 favorites]
By the author of "Stepmonster". I don't think this is a serious peer-reviewed study.
posted by Ideefixe at 11:24 AM on May 17, 2015 [2 favorites]
posted by Ideefixe at 11:24 AM on May 17, 2015 [2 favorites]
I realize that there are families who wish one parent could stay home and families where one person freely and happily choose to stay home, but talking about it being a utopia or luxury or ideal makes me really uncomfortable because "parent" almost always equals "woman." Woman-stays-home can't really be divorced from systemic sexism at the macro level and I hate seeing it talked about as some sort of ideal to aspire to. When equal numbers of men are staying home I'll feel better about this model being held up as a utopia that isn't inextricably tied to sexism. I doubt I'll live to see that, though.
posted by Mavri at 11:44 AM on May 17, 2015 [19 favorites]
posted by Mavri at 11:44 AM on May 17, 2015 [19 favorites]
In all seriousness... I found this map of where in the US the greatest percentage of women are working fascinating. You would think that more women would work in places where the cost of living is higher... but that doesn't seem to be the case at all, it seems to have more to do with social and cultural values than money.
posted by miyabo at 11:49 AM on May 17, 2015
posted by miyabo at 11:49 AM on May 17, 2015
"...I doubt the women are all white..."
Upper EAST Side
posted by Stu-Pendous at 11:54 AM on May 17, 2015 [2 favorites]
Upper EAST Side
posted by Stu-Pendous at 11:54 AM on May 17, 2015 [2 favorites]
allthinky: Feel sorry for them or not, it reveals how these "very rich" men view the role of women in culture, and it's terrifying.
I have no data & could be completely wrong, but my hunch is that many/most of these men care not at all about the role of women in culture write large, only in their own immediate spheres of concern. I bet they would be neither immensely pleased nor bothered to learn that a particular woman across town is a nail salon slave or a powerful, agentive individual. My sense is that most super-rich people are ideological about their own right to have and increase wealth, but their ideology stops there, and they are not Koch-level masters of doom. A number of these bros & wives probably write huge checks to Hillary Clinton.
Anyway, let's liberate these women by redistributing their families' wealth.
For reals. As a matter of public policy. Let's get that top marginal tax rate back up in the 90% range.
posted by univac at 11:55 AM on May 17, 2015 [18 favorites]
I have no data & could be completely wrong, but my hunch is that many/most of these men care not at all about the role of women in culture write large, only in their own immediate spheres of concern. I bet they would be neither immensely pleased nor bothered to learn that a particular woman across town is a nail salon slave or a powerful, agentive individual. My sense is that most super-rich people are ideological about their own right to have and increase wealth, but their ideology stops there, and they are not Koch-level masters of doom. A number of these bros & wives probably write huge checks to Hillary Clinton.
Anyway, let's liberate these women by redistributing their families' wealth.
For reals. As a matter of public policy. Let's get that top marginal tax rate back up in the 90% range.
posted by univac at 11:55 AM on May 17, 2015 [18 favorites]
The thing about racism and sexism being systemic is that there's no way to get away from them completely, and seeing just how racist and sexist the very top of our economic ladder is--I think it's useful.
Especially when you take it in light of the study showing that men with stay at home wives tend to have more sexist attitudes in the workplace. It's something that I suspect a lot of women noticed long before there was a study bolstering it.
When you look at a phenomenon like this, these are the guys at the very top of the hierarchies of corporate structures. Their attitudes affect a lot of people who aren't being compensated for their oppression, both directly and trickling down throughout their spheres of influence. You don't have to feel sorry for the wives to care about that.
posted by ernielundquist at 11:55 AM on May 17, 2015 [34 favorites]
Especially when you take it in light of the study showing that men with stay at home wives tend to have more sexist attitudes in the workplace. It's something that I suspect a lot of women noticed long before there was a study bolstering it.
When you look at a phenomenon like this, these are the guys at the very top of the hierarchies of corporate structures. Their attitudes affect a lot of people who aren't being compensated for their oppression, both directly and trickling down throughout their spheres of influence. You don't have to feel sorry for the wives to care about that.
posted by ernielundquist at 11:55 AM on May 17, 2015 [34 favorites]
No woman is a stay-at-home mom -- they are artists, writers, dancers
These women are helping to run museums and charities, including fundraising, as well as significant volunteer work in classrooms. It isn't a job outside the house, but it's not this lesser thing that society can do without.
(The amount of work you need to do on the board of some non-profit is not at all linked at how much money you bring in.)
posted by jeather at 11:59 AM on May 17, 2015 [5 favorites]
These women are helping to run museums and charities, including fundraising, as well as significant volunteer work in classrooms. It isn't a job outside the house, but it's not this lesser thing that society can do without.
(The amount of work you need to do on the board of some non-profit is not at all linked at how much money you bring in.)
posted by jeather at 11:59 AM on May 17, 2015 [5 favorites]
If you don’t bring home tubers and roots, your power is diminished in your marriage. And in the world.
Great. Now, every time I go to work I'm going to have the old Kibbles & Bits ad running theough my head, but with the words, "Tubers and roots! Tubers and roots! I'm gonna get me some tubers and roots!"
posted by The Underpants Monster at 12:00 PM on May 17, 2015 [13 favorites]
Great. Now, every time I go to work I'm going to have the old Kibbles & Bits ad running theough my head, but with the words, "Tubers and roots! Tubers and roots! I'm gonna get me some tubers and roots!"
posted by The Underpants Monster at 12:00 PM on May 17, 2015 [13 favorites]
I feel that I already know how this works, because Emily Gilmore. I could see her getting a wife bonus.
posted by Bee'sWing at 12:06 PM on May 17, 2015 [3 favorites]
posted by Bee'sWing at 12:06 PM on May 17, 2015 [3 favorites]
i don't think i'm a coward or the reason sexism keeps trucking on or a slave or less than my husband. i do not stay in my marriage because i can't or am afraid of providing for myself. i do not misunderstand my value to the household and neither does my husband. does sexism play a role? of fucking course - just like in ever other facet of my life. i am the stay at home spouse because i was raised in a very conservative religion where women were expected to stay home - i gave up the religion but i've maintained all the training in domestic arts. my husband is the spouse that works because with our level of education and place in society, he has the higher earning potential. so yes, the patriarchy influenced our choices, but that doesn't mean the wage gap is our fault or that we picked it because we think that's what women/men do.
i am a feminist housewife and i'm not ashamed, no matter how people might want to make me feel about it.
posted by nadawi at 12:18 PM on May 17, 2015 [52 favorites]
i am a feminist housewife and i'm not ashamed, no matter how people might want to make me feel about it.
posted by nadawi at 12:18 PM on May 17, 2015 [52 favorites]
These women are helping to run museums and charities, including fundraising, as well as significant volunteer work in classrooms.
Yes, this is all very important stuff for society, and also very personally fulfilling. Which is why the qualifications for doing it shouldn't be that you are an attractive female who was lucky enough to find a rich dude to marry.
posted by miyabo at 12:19 PM on May 17, 2015 [9 favorites]
Yes, this is all very important stuff for society, and also very personally fulfilling. Which is why the qualifications for doing it shouldn't be that you are an attractive female who was lucky enough to find a rich dude to marry.
posted by miyabo at 12:19 PM on May 17, 2015 [9 favorites]
Also I don't see a lot of stay-at-home moms volunteering at classrooms in the poor neighborhoods or serving on the board of Meals On Wheels. It's always rich schools and art museums.
posted by miyabo at 12:21 PM on May 17, 2015 [8 favorites]
posted by miyabo at 12:21 PM on May 17, 2015 [8 favorites]
Yes, this is all very important stuff for society, and also very personally fulfilling. Which is why the qualifications for doing it shouldn't be that you are an attractive female who was lucky enough to find a rich dude to marry.
But surely the people to blame for this state of affairs aren't the women who do actually have time to devote to these things.
posted by jeather at 12:25 PM on May 17, 2015 [6 favorites]
But surely the people to blame for this state of affairs aren't the women who do actually have time to devote to these things.
posted by jeather at 12:25 PM on May 17, 2015 [6 favorites]
Mod note: Couple of comments deleted; go ahead and flag things first before angrily responding. Also, folks, this article is describing just one very narrow group of stay-home moms who are not representative of all, and it would be silly to have a big fight over generalizations from this group to all stay-home moms.
posted by LobsterMitten (staff) at 12:28 PM on May 17, 2015 [5 favorites]
posted by LobsterMitten (staff) at 12:28 PM on May 17, 2015 [5 favorites]
I have probably never met someone who gets a "mommy bonus," but I have noticed a certain type of stay-at-home wife or mother who is married to a rich, powerful man, and her savvy, organizational skills, assertiveness are very much like that of a successful businessperson. I have always wondered about women like that, I find their existence interesting. It makes sense that managing the affairs of a wealthy household would call upon skills of that nature and in fact would involve a community of other women who are similarly situated. I think there are women who very much consider that the good life.
My grandmother spent most of her life as a stay-at-home military wife to my career-officer grandfather and when he retired from the navy, she translated exactly those skills into politics and a second career as a diplomat/social organizer. I would never speak for her, but from the conversations I have had with her, I get the sense that she would have preferred to play a role with more direct power attached to it and that "affairs of the family" have never been her first priority or the thing she enjoyed most. My sense was that she was a very intelligent woman who was bored by the household and wanted to get out and organize, and as soon as her kids were mostly grown she got to do what she had wanted to do all along and get to be in the working spotlight instead of in the shadow of domestic life. That wasn't a possibility for her when she got married, so she channeled her talents and interests into unpaid work and volunteer work instead.
I find the existence of women in roles like this interesting, too, but having watched them up close and personally in a few generations of my family... yeah, no, you could never pay me enough to do that. Not in money and not in love. I've watched too many women who expressed a desire to work, who had trained themselves for a demanding career, but who also expressed a frustration with social pressures preventing them from just going out and doing something actually suited to their talents to be remotely tempted.
posted by sciatrix at 12:32 PM on May 17, 2015 [6 favorites]
My grandmother spent most of her life as a stay-at-home military wife to my career-officer grandfather and when he retired from the navy, she translated exactly those skills into politics and a second career as a diplomat/social organizer. I would never speak for her, but from the conversations I have had with her, I get the sense that she would have preferred to play a role with more direct power attached to it and that "affairs of the family" have never been her first priority or the thing she enjoyed most. My sense was that she was a very intelligent woman who was bored by the household and wanted to get out and organize, and as soon as her kids were mostly grown she got to do what she had wanted to do all along and get to be in the working spotlight instead of in the shadow of domestic life. That wasn't a possibility for her when she got married, so she channeled her talents and interests into unpaid work and volunteer work instead.
I find the existence of women in roles like this interesting, too, but having watched them up close and personally in a few generations of my family... yeah, no, you could never pay me enough to do that. Not in money and not in love. I've watched too many women who expressed a desire to work, who had trained themselves for a demanding career, but who also expressed a frustration with social pressures preventing them from just going out and doing something actually suited to their talents to be remotely tempted.
posted by sciatrix at 12:32 PM on May 17, 2015 [6 favorites]
And to clarify: I don't mean that there aren't women who really enjoy staying at home and the rewards that choice can bring, even among women of this class. But it's been my observation that many of the women who get very heavily involved in volunteer labor like this are women who do find work outside their own households rewarding and maybe are doing this work rather than paid work for social reasons.
posted by sciatrix at 12:35 PM on May 17, 2015
posted by sciatrix at 12:35 PM on May 17, 2015
I'm really surprised that nobody has pointed out that this opinion piece is for all intents and purposes an advertisement for a book to be released on June 2. From the bottom of the article, "A writer and social researcher in New York and the author of the forthcoming memoir “Primates of Park Avenue.” When the author makes the rounds of the morning talk shows (if she does, but my money is on yes), it will also be to sell this book more than to raise awareness of the plight of the UES housewife.
What we are parsing and criticizing here is by necessity the clickbait or inflamatory essay/condensation/excerpt of the most sensational "opinion" part of the work. Secondly, ya, this book is probably not peer reviewed, since it's for popular press. But even if it were peer reviewed, there would be another anthropologist with a dissenting book to follow next year. If I had to take a stab at guessing what theory Ms. Martin would use to frame this book, I'd go with structural functionalism because it's a favorite of mine and I'd love to read that book. I'd also enjoy a book that looks at this issue through the language used by these stay at home mothers to describe artifacts and rituals of their lives. Because let me tell you, artifacts and rituals abound. But maybe it's environmental. It could certainly be feminist, given that her other work (step-motherhood, and comparing Notting Hill women to NYC women with regard to appearance standards) are forthrightly female focused. Each lens, or theory, would require a different set of conclusions to be drawn about what is happening and how the state of affairs came to be. Anthropologists are not a monolith and do not universally agree on...much of anything.
Take a look at the numbers of peer reviewed articles published by men and by women in Anthropology. Take a look at the bibliographies of published articles. Who is getting cited? Take a look at the numbers of tenure track positions at universities held by women versus by men, not just currently but historically. The work of doing peer reviewed research is resource intensive, and while I won't go so far as to say impossible for all mothers, there are definitely still barriers to field work that is considered "legitimate" for mothers. Anthropology still has a problem with dickwaving about going to Borneo. This whole "this isn't really worthy research because it focuses on motherhood, or wealth, or worse yet, wealthy mothers," because of course, there are more valuable things she could be doing with her time, so this must be a waste and not revelatory about the human condition just gets my goat. Any practice of anthropology can fall to this or similar arguments. Why go to Borneo? Your people need you here to solve problems we have here! Why stay here, there are people suffering in a different, more dramatic way who cannot help themselves or tell their own stories? Why focus on people who don't have what we consider to be real enough problems? focus instead on farming or water conservation or preserving a language! Can feminism include the voices of men? These are arguments that have not been settled and likely won't be for a long time.
There is a lot of really good research about women in the workforce, as compared to men in the same roles/same degrees/same years of experience. A married woman is often ***considered to bring less than a whole person to work, because she is assumed to be "busy" outside of work taking care of the ironing, the social planning, the feeding and tending of at least the spouse, and probably the kids or potential kids. A married man, on the other hand, is considered to bring more than a whole person to work. Why? Because he is assumed to have someone else (the spouse) to take care of the ironing, the social planning, the feeding and tending of at least the spouse, and probably the kids or potential kids. These gender issues come up not just in high status high paid work, but in most fields. The assumptions about the allocation of household tasks are as strong and persistent as the allocations themselves.
There's also a bit of newer research that suggests (heavily qualified, suggests, not proves) that outcomes for mothers and children improve when the mother is able to make the childcare decisions that are in line with what she wants. So the matrix of Does mom want to work? [yes, no] Does mom have the ability and freedom to stay home? [yes, no] Leads to very tough outcomes. There are some mothers who WANT to work, but either by social constraint, family stuff, geography, cost of childcare, or a host of other issues, are forced to stay home. There are also mothers who want to be home, but cannot, also for a varying combination of reasons.
In job offers, women are often punished for negotiating. Women who do not negotiate are also punished when they accept lower initial offers than men receive. This boosts men's lifetime earnings. Combine this negotiation tax with other gendered workforce pay problem (see above, plus getting an offer in the first place, appearance standards, harassment, all that and much much more!) and it hardly surprises me that some women do not want to be or cannot get into in highest echelons of the workplace.
The insistence that this will only get easier if and when women push back enough (and I'd bet in the right tone and with the right persistence and volume) is really hard to swallow. Yes, pushing back helps. But the biggest boon for white middle class women in the workforce (in my opinion) was the Civil Rights Act. And that gives me all sorts of privilege problems that I don't have space to address and should get my own blog to yammer about.
Spending your days being told that you're "probably" going to get married any day now and then dump the company to "go play house" is exhausting, whether your aspiration is toward stay at home motherhood, or it is something that you know will happen for you whether you want to return to work or not. Going back into the workplace after having kids is documented as a hard thing to do, in lots of settings, even in the most well documented progressive workplaces. And even for women who are determined to make mothering while earning a wage into a successful balance for themselves, and even with the support of the spouse. Like I said, I'd go for structural functionalism to look at where these difficulties come from.
In NYC, getting a seat on (lots and lots, but sure, not all) of these boards is All About how much money you gave or raised, and commit to giving or raising. The men and women who remain in the workplace have more access to making giving choices with "their own" money, and more access to convincing businesses and peers to give generously. Extending yourself for 40 hours a week of accounting, or library story time, or cupcake decorating at the preschool does not get you onto the board. Convincing Big Corporate Bank to sponsor the annual Spring Fling that is going to renovate the library for $1m does get you on the board.
***This is qualified and usually an implicit rather than explicit bias, though there still are people in hiring roles who will say out loud that they don't hire women of childbearing age because they might screw him out of maternity leave only to decide not to come back to work after leave, as though she's secretly planning that during the hiring process. Women with children are often given a pass because they're "obviously" not dedicated enough to work. Or else they'd be keeping their legs closed, right?
posted by bilabial at 12:39 PM on May 17, 2015 [39 favorites]
What we are parsing and criticizing here is by necessity the clickbait or inflamatory essay/condensation/excerpt of the most sensational "opinion" part of the work. Secondly, ya, this book is probably not peer reviewed, since it's for popular press. But even if it were peer reviewed, there would be another anthropologist with a dissenting book to follow next year. If I had to take a stab at guessing what theory Ms. Martin would use to frame this book, I'd go with structural functionalism because it's a favorite of mine and I'd love to read that book. I'd also enjoy a book that looks at this issue through the language used by these stay at home mothers to describe artifacts and rituals of their lives. Because let me tell you, artifacts and rituals abound. But maybe it's environmental. It could certainly be feminist, given that her other work (step-motherhood, and comparing Notting Hill women to NYC women with regard to appearance standards) are forthrightly female focused. Each lens, or theory, would require a different set of conclusions to be drawn about what is happening and how the state of affairs came to be. Anthropologists are not a monolith and do not universally agree on...much of anything.
Take a look at the numbers of peer reviewed articles published by men and by women in Anthropology. Take a look at the bibliographies of published articles. Who is getting cited? Take a look at the numbers of tenure track positions at universities held by women versus by men, not just currently but historically. The work of doing peer reviewed research is resource intensive, and while I won't go so far as to say impossible for all mothers, there are definitely still barriers to field work that is considered "legitimate" for mothers. Anthropology still has a problem with dickwaving about going to Borneo. This whole "this isn't really worthy research because it focuses on motherhood, or wealth, or worse yet, wealthy mothers," because of course, there are more valuable things she could be doing with her time, so this must be a waste and not revelatory about the human condition just gets my goat. Any practice of anthropology can fall to this or similar arguments. Why go to Borneo? Your people need you here to solve problems we have here! Why stay here, there are people suffering in a different, more dramatic way who cannot help themselves or tell their own stories? Why focus on people who don't have what we consider to be real enough problems? focus instead on farming or water conservation or preserving a language! Can feminism include the voices of men? These are arguments that have not been settled and likely won't be for a long time.
There is a lot of really good research about women in the workforce, as compared to men in the same roles/same degrees/same years of experience. A married woman is often ***considered to bring less than a whole person to work, because she is assumed to be "busy" outside of work taking care of the ironing, the social planning, the feeding and tending of at least the spouse, and probably the kids or potential kids. A married man, on the other hand, is considered to bring more than a whole person to work. Why? Because he is assumed to have someone else (the spouse) to take care of the ironing, the social planning, the feeding and tending of at least the spouse, and probably the kids or potential kids. These gender issues come up not just in high status high paid work, but in most fields. The assumptions about the allocation of household tasks are as strong and persistent as the allocations themselves.
There's also a bit of newer research that suggests (heavily qualified, suggests, not proves) that outcomes for mothers and children improve when the mother is able to make the childcare decisions that are in line with what she wants. So the matrix of Does mom want to work? [yes, no] Does mom have the ability and freedom to stay home? [yes, no] Leads to very tough outcomes. There are some mothers who WANT to work, but either by social constraint, family stuff, geography, cost of childcare, or a host of other issues, are forced to stay home. There are also mothers who want to be home, but cannot, also for a varying combination of reasons.
In job offers, women are often punished for negotiating. Women who do not negotiate are also punished when they accept lower initial offers than men receive. This boosts men's lifetime earnings. Combine this negotiation tax with other gendered workforce pay problem (see above, plus getting an offer in the first place, appearance standards, harassment, all that and much much more!) and it hardly surprises me that some women do not want to be or cannot get into in highest echelons of the workplace.
The insistence that this will only get easier if and when women push back enough (and I'd bet in the right tone and with the right persistence and volume) is really hard to swallow. Yes, pushing back helps. But the biggest boon for white middle class women in the workforce (in my opinion) was the Civil Rights Act. And that gives me all sorts of privilege problems that I don't have space to address and should get my own blog to yammer about.
Spending your days being told that you're "probably" going to get married any day now and then dump the company to "go play house" is exhausting, whether your aspiration is toward stay at home motherhood, or it is something that you know will happen for you whether you want to return to work or not. Going back into the workplace after having kids is documented as a hard thing to do, in lots of settings, even in the most well documented progressive workplaces. And even for women who are determined to make mothering while earning a wage into a successful balance for themselves, and even with the support of the spouse. Like I said, I'd go for structural functionalism to look at where these difficulties come from.
In NYC, getting a seat on (lots and lots, but sure, not all) of these boards is All About how much money you gave or raised, and commit to giving or raising. The men and women who remain in the workplace have more access to making giving choices with "their own" money, and more access to convincing businesses and peers to give generously. Extending yourself for 40 hours a week of accounting, or library story time, or cupcake decorating at the preschool does not get you onto the board. Convincing Big Corporate Bank to sponsor the annual Spring Fling that is going to renovate the library for $1m does get you on the board.
***This is qualified and usually an implicit rather than explicit bias, though there still are people in hiring roles who will say out loud that they don't hire women of childbearing age because they might screw him out of maternity leave only to decide not to come back to work after leave, as though she's secretly planning that during the hiring process. Women with children are often given a pass because they're "obviously" not dedicated enough to work. Or else they'd be keeping their legs closed, right?
posted by bilabial at 12:39 PM on May 17, 2015 [39 favorites]
I think the thing that makes me saddest is wondering what these families want for their daughters.
posted by bile and syntax at 12:49 PM on May 17, 2015 [11 favorites]
posted by bile and syntax at 12:49 PM on May 17, 2015 [11 favorites]
These women are helping to run museums and charities, including fundraising, as well as significant volunteer work in classrooms. It isn't a job outside the house, but it's not this lesser thing that society can do without.
Absolutely. And those positions should be compensated accordingly.
Part of the reason they are not, I think, is that rich idle women have done them for free, leading to their undervaluation. So many 'women's jobs' fall prey to that.
posted by Dashy at 12:58 PM on May 17, 2015 [7 favorites]
Absolutely. And those positions should be compensated accordingly.
Part of the reason they are not, I think, is that rich idle women have done them for free, leading to their undervaluation. So many 'women's jobs' fall prey to that.
posted by Dashy at 12:58 PM on May 17, 2015 [7 favorites]
women's work isn't undervalued because women will do it for free - women's work is undervalued because it's a required cornerstone of the myth that men are more necessary and important. script writing was a woman's job until men realized there could be prestige and money, same with math, computing, programming, and on and on. if this type of volunteer work was suddenly seen as important, women would be muscled out by men who would claim women's minds or bodies aren't up to the task.
posted by nadawi at 1:33 PM on May 17, 2015 [44 favorites]
posted by nadawi at 1:33 PM on May 17, 2015 [44 favorites]
I think it's sad that while the article is saying "Isn't it sad that these women are not the equals of their husbands because they don't work outside the home?" the author doesn't interrogate the sexism that says that running your home(s) and looking after your children isn't "work". In a twisted way I think the wife bonus is more egalitarian - it's a cash recognition that doing things like getting your kids into a good school or running bake sales is actual "work".
posted by supercrayon at 1:38 PM on May 17, 2015 [24 favorites]
posted by supercrayon at 1:38 PM on May 17, 2015 [24 favorites]
Part of the reason they are not, I think, is that rich idle women have done them for free, leading to their undervaluation. So many 'women's jobs' fall prey to that.
I would beg to differ. Part of the reason that idle rich women do these things for free is that someone is always asking a "stay at home mom" What did you do today? and it is a very pointed question, as though the asker expects the answer to be "oh, you know, ate bon bons on the couch while the children defenestrated one another for three hours."
But a connection that is actually well supported by research (because studying well to do mothers as well to do mothers is hard to justify in a peer reviewed environment when so many of your peers are, for a variety of reasons, unable to see the connection to their own lives) is that people of a higher socioeconomic status from high school, through college, and beyond, volunteer more. More than one study has found this link. Continuing along the life span, older adults with more education appear to be the most likely to volunteer. Which older adults tend to have more education? Those in higher socioeconomic strata.
"Idle women" (what an inflammatory descriptive phrase you chose) are not individually to blame for the poor compensation of the kinds of emotional and uncompensated labor we are discussing. While it is true that they have the resources to engage in this labor, their pattern of doing so does not appear to begin at the conferring of their status as mothers or even wives.
These kinds of uncompensated labors are foisted upon women at all stages of life. Beginning in early childhood and continuing through the teen years.
This goes to the comparison of medical doctor pay and status in Russia vs in the US. Who are medical doctors in each place? And how does their pay compare? The insistence that women are to blame for their poor compensation is old and needs to stop. Whether we're talking about wealthy women being compensated by way of "bonus" or not being compensated at all for labor performed outside the home. I would bet that the book takes a close look at UES wives feelings about pay and spending money and what that means in relation to the work they perform. I'll certainly be disappointed if it does not. There also will have to be a close (or maybe just cursory) inspection of the employment of housekeepers and nannies and delivery services. The kinds of work done in million dollar homes are often more about managing people than about scrubbing toilets.
posted by bilabial at 1:41 PM on May 17, 2015 [22 favorites]
I would beg to differ. Part of the reason that idle rich women do these things for free is that someone is always asking a "stay at home mom" What did you do today? and it is a very pointed question, as though the asker expects the answer to be "oh, you know, ate bon bons on the couch while the children defenestrated one another for three hours."
But a connection that is actually well supported by research (because studying well to do mothers as well to do mothers is hard to justify in a peer reviewed environment when so many of your peers are, for a variety of reasons, unable to see the connection to their own lives) is that people of a higher socioeconomic status from high school, through college, and beyond, volunteer more. More than one study has found this link. Continuing along the life span, older adults with more education appear to be the most likely to volunteer. Which older adults tend to have more education? Those in higher socioeconomic strata.
"Idle women" (what an inflammatory descriptive phrase you chose) are not individually to blame for the poor compensation of the kinds of emotional and uncompensated labor we are discussing. While it is true that they have the resources to engage in this labor, their pattern of doing so does not appear to begin at the conferring of their status as mothers or even wives.
These kinds of uncompensated labors are foisted upon women at all stages of life. Beginning in early childhood and continuing through the teen years.
This goes to the comparison of medical doctor pay and status in Russia vs in the US. Who are medical doctors in each place? And how does their pay compare? The insistence that women are to blame for their poor compensation is old and needs to stop. Whether we're talking about wealthy women being compensated by way of "bonus" or not being compensated at all for labor performed outside the home. I would bet that the book takes a close look at UES wives feelings about pay and spending money and what that means in relation to the work they perform. I'll certainly be disappointed if it does not. There also will have to be a close (or maybe just cursory) inspection of the employment of housekeepers and nannies and delivery services. The kinds of work done in million dollar homes are often more about managing people than about scrubbing toilets.
posted by bilabial at 1:41 PM on May 17, 2015 [22 favorites]
Who is the chairman of the board of cancer? Because fuck him.
Louis C. Camilleri
posted by srboisvert at 1:42 PM on May 17, 2015 [3 favorites]
Louis C. Camilleri
posted by srboisvert at 1:42 PM on May 17, 2015 [3 favorites]
Oh! And doing these things for pay?
That often requires committing an amount of time to them that is just not available, like 20 or 40 hours a week. Or dividing the time spent "working" and time spent "socializing" in one setting in a way that might feel icky. Or demanding commission on fundraising. Or saying "Sure, I'll pick up the cupcakes for this weeks' class party, but you'll pay my rate of (any number you insert here is ridiculous, because the cupcake place is on your way/or you only made $paltrysum before having kids/or you were the CEO of something and you got paid $300/hour.)
The game is rigged.
posted by bilabial at 2:00 PM on May 17, 2015 [5 favorites]
That often requires committing an amount of time to them that is just not available, like 20 or 40 hours a week. Or dividing the time spent "working" and time spent "socializing" in one setting in a way that might feel icky. Or demanding commission on fundraising. Or saying "Sure, I'll pick up the cupcakes for this weeks' class party, but you'll pay my rate of (any number you insert here is ridiculous, because the cupcake place is on your way/or you only made $paltrysum before having kids/or you were the CEO of something and you got paid $300/hour.)
The game is rigged.
posted by bilabial at 2:00 PM on May 17, 2015 [5 favorites]
It makes some amount of sense. If your primary goal for your family is to gain/maintain wealth and status, it's going to take some concerted effort. That might mean taking a more economic approach to home life.
Growing up, my parents cared about me and wanted me to be happy, but they largely left my future economic and social prospects to chance. They were busy with their own careers and social lives.
posted by mantecol at 2:22 PM on May 17, 2015 [1 favorite]
Growing up, my parents cared about me and wanted me to be happy, but they largely left my future economic and social prospects to chance. They were busy with their own careers and social lives.
posted by mantecol at 2:22 PM on May 17, 2015 [1 favorite]
On the West Coast it's completely different. No woman is a stay-at-home mom -- they are artists, writers, dancers, basically anything that sounds like it could make her a peer of her husband (but of course she isn't really).
This is pretty nonsensical. I was a stay at home mom for over two years in the Bay Area and met plenty of women (and a few men) who were/are stay at home parents and never hesitated to describe themselves as such.
posted by JenMarie at 2:23 PM on May 17, 2015 [4 favorites]
This is pretty nonsensical. I was a stay at home mom for over two years in the Bay Area and met plenty of women (and a few men) who were/are stay at home parents and never hesitated to describe themselves as such.
posted by JenMarie at 2:23 PM on May 17, 2015 [4 favorites]
There aren't a lot of "prep schools," there are just "private schools," and the wife doesn't get a bonus for getting her kid into one
I believe we call them 'Montessori schools' out here.
posted by pwnguin at 2:26 PM on May 17, 2015 [1 favorite]
I believe we call them 'Montessori schools' out here.
posted by pwnguin at 2:26 PM on May 17, 2015 [1 favorite]
Friend who lives in NYC characterizes this article as "sensationalism" and says such people aren't the norm. I agree. However, I know people like this.
posted by Peach at 2:39 PM on May 17, 2015
posted by Peach at 2:39 PM on May 17, 2015
Does the NYT have a "Rich People: They're Just Like Us" quota they're supposed to fill every month
Isn't that just the New York Times?
posted by Ray Walston, Luck Dragon at 2:45 PM on May 17, 2015 [1 favorite]
Isn't that just the New York Times?
posted by Ray Walston, Luck Dragon at 2:45 PM on May 17, 2015 [1 favorite]
Guys, these women weren't just plucked off the rich housewife marriage ranch, they went to Harvard and Yale and Oxford and stuff. They've probably taken Gender Studies 101. They're not just unwitting tools of the patriarchy.
And miyabi, the boards of poverty-focused organizations are FULL of stay-at-home moms and housewives. That's what makes them GO. They tend to be a little bit more balanced, though, since they try to put people from within the communities they serve on the board as well as donor-catching highly-connected people and high-free-time, high-skill retirees and at-home parents.
I just spent five years of my LIFE serving on the board of a high-poverty school district. I also served two terms on the board of the county agricultural extension, two years on an STD task force (A+++ would join syphilis club again, so interesting), and ten years in various positions (including stints on the board, but more time as a volunteer) helping to create a children's museum that opens later this month. The children's museum is maybe a bit yuppie-ish, but the other things aren't.
I'll probably go back to work in a couple years when my kids are in school full time and some family health issues that I'm spending a lot of time managing are resolved. I don't know exactly what I'll do (I wasn't happy with my career when it got to be baby-havin' time, which is part of why we decided stay-at-home parenting would be a good idea), but I have a pretty big network from my at-home mom years, and I've learned some skills and competencies through my work on boards that would have taken me YEARS to acquire in traditional work. So hopefully I'll find something interesting.
I'm a bit bored right now -- too many of my projects came to an end all at once, leaving me without enough to do to keep my mind busy; and my kids have outgrown the "tiny sucking balls of constant need" phase and into the "just need you once every 30 minutes" phase -- but since I have to wait for some of my family member's health stuff to resolve before I can really take on anything new (paid or unpaid), I'm filling my time reading all the books I've been "meaning to get around to" for years and years (like Moby Dick!) so at least I don't feel like the time is "wasted."
I also view myself as part of an interconnected system trying to succeed, not just and only an individual. I've contributed substantially to my husband's career success by being the "support spouse"; I've also been able to contribute to other family members' needs, helping a sibling with a job hunt; helping plan a wedding; helping get ready for a baby; helping with recovery from surgery. And then I've been able to provide a lot of time to my friends who need help recovering from a C-section or coping with a parent's death. It's nice that I can do those things and make other people's lives less-hectic, and I don't really feel put-upon about it because that same network has always been there to provide ME with logistical, monetary, or personal support when I've needed it. I think I'm well-suited to being the person who sits there and keeps company (I mean, I went to divinity school, I have got a lot of pastory stuff DOWN) and helps with practical problems, so it's nice for me to be able to help people that way for a while.
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 2:45 PM on May 17, 2015 [28 favorites]
And miyabi, the boards of poverty-focused organizations are FULL of stay-at-home moms and housewives. That's what makes them GO. They tend to be a little bit more balanced, though, since they try to put people from within the communities they serve on the board as well as donor-catching highly-connected people and high-free-time, high-skill retirees and at-home parents.
I just spent five years of my LIFE serving on the board of a high-poverty school district. I also served two terms on the board of the county agricultural extension, two years on an STD task force (A+++ would join syphilis club again, so interesting), and ten years in various positions (including stints on the board, but more time as a volunteer) helping to create a children's museum that opens later this month. The children's museum is maybe a bit yuppie-ish, but the other things aren't.
I'll probably go back to work in a couple years when my kids are in school full time and some family health issues that I'm spending a lot of time managing are resolved. I don't know exactly what I'll do (I wasn't happy with my career when it got to be baby-havin' time, which is part of why we decided stay-at-home parenting would be a good idea), but I have a pretty big network from my at-home mom years, and I've learned some skills and competencies through my work on boards that would have taken me YEARS to acquire in traditional work. So hopefully I'll find something interesting.
I'm a bit bored right now -- too many of my projects came to an end all at once, leaving me without enough to do to keep my mind busy; and my kids have outgrown the "tiny sucking balls of constant need" phase and into the "just need you once every 30 minutes" phase -- but since I have to wait for some of my family member's health stuff to resolve before I can really take on anything new (paid or unpaid), I'm filling my time reading all the books I've been "meaning to get around to" for years and years (like Moby Dick!) so at least I don't feel like the time is "wasted."
I also view myself as part of an interconnected system trying to succeed, not just and only an individual. I've contributed substantially to my husband's career success by being the "support spouse"; I've also been able to contribute to other family members' needs, helping a sibling with a job hunt; helping plan a wedding; helping get ready for a baby; helping with recovery from surgery. And then I've been able to provide a lot of time to my friends who need help recovering from a C-section or coping with a parent's death. It's nice that I can do those things and make other people's lives less-hectic, and I don't really feel put-upon about it because that same network has always been there to provide ME with logistical, monetary, or personal support when I've needed it. I think I'm well-suited to being the person who sits there and keeps company (I mean, I went to divinity school, I have got a lot of pastory stuff DOWN) and helps with practical problems, so it's nice for me to be able to help people that way for a while.
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 2:45 PM on May 17, 2015 [28 favorites]
miyabo: "No woman is a stay-at-home mom -- they are artists, writers, dancers"
You're right that the cultural trappings change, but the power relation imbalance remains. I'm reminded of so many late-Antiquity portraits of Roman women holding pens, or reading. To our eyes, this seems enlightened and progressive. But back then "letters" was something effete and not at all suitable for a paterfamilias, but something trivial best reserved for children, women (wives or concubines) and slaves.
Hot yoga, amongst many other things, seems to serve a similar function within specific subcultures in today's Western society.
posted by meehawl at 3:03 PM on May 17, 2015 [1 favorite]
You're right that the cultural trappings change, but the power relation imbalance remains. I'm reminded of so many late-Antiquity portraits of Roman women holding pens, or reading. To our eyes, this seems enlightened and progressive. But back then "letters" was something effete and not at all suitable for a paterfamilias, but something trivial best reserved for children, women (wives or concubines) and slaves.
Hot yoga, amongst many other things, seems to serve a similar function within specific subcultures in today's Western society.
posted by meehawl at 3:03 PM on May 17, 2015 [1 favorite]
One of my exes was hired to direct a semi-major arts organization soon after we got involved, and I ended up being pressed into service as her date for the many fund-raising dinners, openings, dedications and other occasions associated with her job, so I got to know a fair number of these women at the chit-chat level, and some a bit deeper than that because they'd often come over to our house for planning and strategizing sessions. These were both wives of male board members and board members in their own right.
With very few exceptions, they were very capable human beings by any standard -- often brilliant, actually -- and if they were anybody's 'indentured servants', that certainly didn't get across to me.
In fact, they were generally self-willed and quite assertive, and did not appear to be excessively concerned about what their husbands might think. One day early on, my partner's receptionist was out sick, her trusted temp agency had dropped the ball somehow, and I got drafted to man the front desk because other staff had to be present at an important board meeting. Board members filtered in one by one late that morning, and as an attractive woman I had only glanced toward as I was getting off that damnably busy phone was passing my desk, she suddenly stopped dead with an audible clash of bracelets, said "what have we here?", walked over to perch ~10 in. away from me on the edge of my desk in her pencil skirt, and suggested that it might be fun if we were to go have coffee in the near future at a little place she knew. Tilting my head back at an angle that prevented me from gazing at anything that would have made me blush (worse), I replied that it did sound like fun, but [the director] was keeping me pretty busy these days. She said something like 'so that's the way the way the wind blows, is it?', and then "if you find yourself at loose ends, give me a call" as she handed me her card -- and judging by the expression of razor-edged glee on her face, the image of a collar around my neck her words evoked was not unintended. My partner laughed when I related this and named a couple of others to watch out for.
Manhattan may be different, but these women were influential and respected in the arts community, and by extension in politics and local government as well. When the mayor or city council members showed up at events, they invariably made a point of seeking these women out, addressing them by their first names, and asking after their families.
posted by jamjam at 3:18 PM on May 17, 2015 [7 favorites]
With very few exceptions, they were very capable human beings by any standard -- often brilliant, actually -- and if they were anybody's 'indentured servants', that certainly didn't get across to me.
In fact, they were generally self-willed and quite assertive, and did not appear to be excessively concerned about what their husbands might think. One day early on, my partner's receptionist was out sick, her trusted temp agency had dropped the ball somehow, and I got drafted to man the front desk because other staff had to be present at an important board meeting. Board members filtered in one by one late that morning, and as an attractive woman I had only glanced toward as I was getting off that damnably busy phone was passing my desk, she suddenly stopped dead with an audible clash of bracelets, said "what have we here?", walked over to perch ~10 in. away from me on the edge of my desk in her pencil skirt, and suggested that it might be fun if we were to go have coffee in the near future at a little place she knew. Tilting my head back at an angle that prevented me from gazing at anything that would have made me blush (worse), I replied that it did sound like fun, but [the director] was keeping me pretty busy these days. She said something like 'so that's the way the way the wind blows, is it?', and then "if you find yourself at loose ends, give me a call" as she handed me her card -- and judging by the expression of razor-edged glee on her face, the image of a collar around my neck her words evoked was not unintended. My partner laughed when I related this and named a couple of others to watch out for.
Manhattan may be different, but these women were influential and respected in the arts community, and by extension in politics and local government as well. When the mayor or city council members showed up at events, they invariably made a point of seeking these women out, addressing them by their first names, and asking after their families.
posted by jamjam at 3:18 PM on May 17, 2015 [7 favorites]
Two things struck me after thinking about this piece for a couple of hours:
1. It's not a controlled experiment. Our anthropologist isn't rigorously examining the wives of the wealthiest of men—she's informally anatomizing a particular subculture among the wives of the wealthiest of men, namely those who don't hire nannies/send the kids to boarding school and spend 80 hours a week in the workplace. So while her observations are correct inasmuch as they're an accurate description of what she's seeing, she's pointedly only looking at one part of the picture.[*]
2. It's a classic example of a one-shot prisoner's dilemma scenario. These women have an opportunity to get ahead by renting their bodies out to The OligoHeteroPatriarchy™ for a 20 year term as arm candy/a board-level spouse. Their willingness to sign up for this one reinforces the gender segregation/hierarchy stereotypes and implicitly makes it harder for other women to assert their identity as autonomous individuals ... but why should they not "defect" from the optimum-payout-for-all-women strategy? It's not as if this is an iterated prisoner's dilemma, after all: they get one round in, and that's it, you're dead.
[*] The alternative (rich hubby with working wife) seems to be rarer among the Wall Street rich, but nevertheless, they definitely exist. I know one quite well.[**]
[**] She's in her forties, four kids, big house, married to a rich finance sector guy who works on Wall Street. Where she diverges from the picture is that she's a senior publishing person and terrifyingly good at her job. While she earns a lot less than hubby, she's definitely not a stay-at-home mom. The interesting thing is, she's met lots of these stay-at-home-mothers, and she makes a point: by the time they turn 40 and the kids are hitting their teens, most of them are desperate—desperate to learn a marketable skill, desperate to stay fit and attractive, desperate to keep hubby's increasingly roving eyes on Number One rather than wandering off in search of a midlife crisis sports car and Wife 2.0 (who looks just like wife 1.0, only 20 years younger and less experienced). The high status-inequality couple is an unstable lifestyle, and like an American Football star, the executive wife's career is unlikely to last past a certain age. The couples where both partners work, on the other hand ...
posted by cstross at 3:24 PM on May 17, 2015 [12 favorites]
1. It's not a controlled experiment. Our anthropologist isn't rigorously examining the wives of the wealthiest of men—she's informally anatomizing a particular subculture among the wives of the wealthiest of men, namely those who don't hire nannies/send the kids to boarding school and spend 80 hours a week in the workplace. So while her observations are correct inasmuch as they're an accurate description of what she's seeing, she's pointedly only looking at one part of the picture.[*]
2. It's a classic example of a one-shot prisoner's dilemma scenario. These women have an opportunity to get ahead by renting their bodies out to The OligoHeteroPatriarchy™ for a 20 year term as arm candy/a board-level spouse. Their willingness to sign up for this one reinforces the gender segregation/hierarchy stereotypes and implicitly makes it harder for other women to assert their identity as autonomous individuals ... but why should they not "defect" from the optimum-payout-for-all-women strategy? It's not as if this is an iterated prisoner's dilemma, after all: they get one round in, and that's it, you're dead.
[*] The alternative (rich hubby with working wife) seems to be rarer among the Wall Street rich, but nevertheless, they definitely exist. I know one quite well.[**]
[**] She's in her forties, four kids, big house, married to a rich finance sector guy who works on Wall Street. Where she diverges from the picture is that she's a senior publishing person and terrifyingly good at her job. While she earns a lot less than hubby, she's definitely not a stay-at-home mom. The interesting thing is, she's met lots of these stay-at-home-mothers, and she makes a point: by the time they turn 40 and the kids are hitting their teens, most of them are desperate—desperate to learn a marketable skill, desperate to stay fit and attractive, desperate to keep hubby's increasingly roving eyes on Number One rather than wandering off in search of a midlife crisis sports car and Wife 2.0 (who looks just like wife 1.0, only 20 years younger and less experienced). The high status-inequality couple is an unstable lifestyle, and like an American Football star, the executive wife's career is unlikely to last past a certain age. The couples where both partners work, on the other hand ...
posted by cstross at 3:24 PM on May 17, 2015 [12 favorites]
Yes! Cstross. No one has mentioned the biggest issue of all yet here -- divorce. With pre-nups accounted for, even, the entire life structure and social identity of these women depends almost ENTIRELY on the whim of one man. If he heads off to partner up with another person, even with regular payments of support the now-ex wife's life; apartment, routine, social circle, status, everything will be vastly different.
In this case we are focused on the wife bonus as an uncontrolled variable -- when the truth is that the women's entire lives are subject to the will of another person. That's not equality or freedom.
posted by jfwlucy at 3:36 PM on May 17, 2015 [11 favorites]
In this case we are focused on the wife bonus as an uncontrolled variable -- when the truth is that the women's entire lives are subject to the will of another person. That's not equality or freedom.
posted by jfwlucy at 3:36 PM on May 17, 2015 [11 favorites]
jfwlucy: When I am installed as Planetary Evil Overlord of Evil, among my many legislative tasks will be:
* Globally banning dowry payments
* Globally voiding pre-nup agreements
... Because they're both drivers of inequality (and I intend to use my reign as a Planetary Evil Overlord of Evil for Godless Socialism).
posted by cstross at 3:40 PM on May 17, 2015 [9 favorites]
* Globally banning dowry payments
* Globally voiding pre-nup agreements
... Because they're both drivers of inequality (and I intend to use my reign as a Planetary Evil Overlord of Evil for Godless Socialism).
posted by cstross at 3:40 PM on May 17, 2015 [9 favorites]
All of bilabial's comments here are right on the money. This piece panders to a rather problematic, neoliberal viewpoint that ultimately devalues female caregiving work in general while critiquing Upper East Side, high-SES, stay-at-home mothering in particular, and instead sees women acquiring legitimacy only through marketplace transactions. Something interesting happens by the end of the op-ed: once we learn that a great many of these women are directly paid for their caregiving work vis-a-vis the vaunted "wife bonuses," the piece makes a mockery of the practice and I think it's intentional (because: the transaction occurs outside of the capitalist marketplace.) Make no mistake: it's internalized misogyny to have discomfort about a woman actually being paid for her caregiving work, as the wives in this piece are.
Out of curiosity, what would these women have to change about their lives in order to pass muster as legitimate people with agency in the author's eyes? If these women instead had paying jobs outside their homes earning them at least the same amount as the "wife bonus," then the author would have no criticism of them? No more volunteering for free? Again, women cannot win here. Bottom line: we're not really challenging the patriarchy until we’re questioning the way in which capitalism relies upon a framework of unpaid care, and only legitimizes caregiving work occurring in the marketplace.
posted by hush at 3:45 PM on May 17, 2015 [24 favorites]
Out of curiosity, what would these women have to change about their lives in order to pass muster as legitimate people with agency in the author's eyes? If these women instead had paying jobs outside their homes earning them at least the same amount as the "wife bonus," then the author would have no criticism of them? No more volunteering for free? Again, women cannot win here. Bottom line: we're not really challenging the patriarchy until we’re questioning the way in which capitalism relies upon a framework of unpaid care, and only legitimizes caregiving work occurring in the marketplace.
posted by hush at 3:45 PM on May 17, 2015 [24 favorites]
per our mod: this article is describing just one very narrow group of stay-home moms who are not representative of all or as cstoss sez: a particular subculture
It's a NYTimes Style Section article. It's demographically targeted to a particular subculture : the people who would buy the Wall Street Journal but feel guilty about it so they buy the NYT instead.
posted by oneswellfoop at 3:46 PM on May 17, 2015 [1 favorite]
It's a NYTimes Style Section article. It's demographically targeted to a particular subculture : the people who would buy the Wall Street Journal but feel guilty about it so they buy the NYT instead.
posted by oneswellfoop at 3:46 PM on May 17, 2015 [1 favorite]
Actually I don't have a problem with pre-nups per se. My hope would be that the unpaid labor performed by either spouse (wiping up shit and string beans) would be recognized as having real economic value.
posted by jfwlucy at 3:49 PM on May 17, 2015 [2 favorites]
posted by jfwlucy at 3:49 PM on May 17, 2015 [2 favorites]
I'm uneasy for the same reason as jfwlucy-- mid-life divorce.
In many fields, success requires international experience and/or a very demanding work schedule and it takes a huge amount of effort to maintain two careers and two sets of commitments in those circumstances-- especially when there are kids involved. I know quite a few women whose lives resemble the women written about in the article (at least superficially) and very few of them ended up there on purpose. It just kind of happened. And suddenly they find themselves in their late 40s and early 50s with very little job experience, teenage kids leaving the home and often with a marriage which has been so eroded by the "sex segregation" as described that they often hang on to what is left purely as a matter of survival.
One of my best friends is now going through a messy divorce at 53-- and if you had looked at her life from the outside, it would have looked much like these women when she was in her 30s. The sad thing is, neither she nor her husband would have chosen-- really-- for her to be a SAHM; she was a marketing specialist when they met. But then at a certain moment, his career took off and they moved abroad and it made sense for her career to take a back seat. And when the kids were younger, it was fairly fulfilling and she threw herself in to the international school community and her book clubs and some occasional charity work. Her husband threw himself into his work-- always stressed about more money for their lifestyle. When their marriage collapsed it was because they literally had nothing in common left except the children--
My friend has taken a huge fall in lifestyle and is now trying to claw back enough confidence to even think about going back to work. Not so easy after a 25 year hiatus. I had my own midlife divorce a few years ago, and it really sucked rocks. But after watching her, I realise how much easier I had it with income from my own career and a focus outside the home to cushion the fall.
posted by frumiousb at 4:24 PM on May 17, 2015 [11 favorites]
In many fields, success requires international experience and/or a very demanding work schedule and it takes a huge amount of effort to maintain two careers and two sets of commitments in those circumstances-- especially when there are kids involved. I know quite a few women whose lives resemble the women written about in the article (at least superficially) and very few of them ended up there on purpose. It just kind of happened. And suddenly they find themselves in their late 40s and early 50s with very little job experience, teenage kids leaving the home and often with a marriage which has been so eroded by the "sex segregation" as described that they often hang on to what is left purely as a matter of survival.
One of my best friends is now going through a messy divorce at 53-- and if you had looked at her life from the outside, it would have looked much like these women when she was in her 30s. The sad thing is, neither she nor her husband would have chosen-- really-- for her to be a SAHM; she was a marketing specialist when they met. But then at a certain moment, his career took off and they moved abroad and it made sense for her career to take a back seat. And when the kids were younger, it was fairly fulfilling and she threw herself in to the international school community and her book clubs and some occasional charity work. Her husband threw himself into his work-- always stressed about more money for their lifestyle. When their marriage collapsed it was because they literally had nothing in common left except the children--
My friend has taken a huge fall in lifestyle and is now trying to claw back enough confidence to even think about going back to work. Not so easy after a 25 year hiatus. I had my own midlife divorce a few years ago, and it really sucked rocks. But after watching her, I realise how much easier I had it with income from my own career and a focus outside the home to cushion the fall.
posted by frumiousb at 4:24 PM on May 17, 2015 [11 favorites]
It's important to recognize the impact of taxes and child care costs on all of this.
If a mom on the UES has a successful husband and wants to work, and netting $36,000 a year would make it worthwhile, she has to earn a salary of $240,000 a year. The family's marginal tax rate on that income is about 60% (state, federal, and local income tax, plus payroll tax), making $240,000 a year into $96,000, and a full-time nanny who'll deal with a $240,000 a year woman's overtime costs about $900 a week, with 25% tax costs on top of that, or $60,000 a year with a Christmas bonus.
posted by MattD at 4:26 PM on May 17, 2015 [6 favorites]
If a mom on the UES has a successful husband and wants to work, and netting $36,000 a year would make it worthwhile, she has to earn a salary of $240,000 a year. The family's marginal tax rate on that income is about 60% (state, federal, and local income tax, plus payroll tax), making $240,000 a year into $96,000, and a full-time nanny who'll deal with a $240,000 a year woman's overtime costs about $900 a week, with 25% tax costs on top of that, or $60,000 a year with a Christmas bonus.
posted by MattD at 4:26 PM on May 17, 2015 [6 favorites]
But the women aren't being paid for their caregiving and housekeeping from an external source, it's the husband doling out an allowance to his wife from what should have been a shared pot of money in the first place. If the wife's at-home labor is necessary for the success of the man's paid career, as it is in these cases, all the money he earns should belong just as much to her as it does to him. A "wife bonus" positions the husband as the legitimate controller of the family's money.
Doesn't the more "traditional" arrangement, in which no money is officially made over to the wife for her performance in her role, usually include the basic assumption that the wife is free to spend out of the household's money as long as she isn't grossly irresponsible with it? A situation that sees the stay-at-home wife in a no doubt astronomically rich family waiting around for her husband to give her her "year-end" so she can shop for clothes seems like a step backward.
posted by ostro at 4:28 PM on May 17, 2015 [7 favorites]
Doesn't the more "traditional" arrangement, in which no money is officially made over to the wife for her performance in her role, usually include the basic assumption that the wife is free to spend out of the household's money as long as she isn't grossly irresponsible with it? A situation that sees the stay-at-home wife in a no doubt astronomically rich family waiting around for her husband to give her her "year-end" so she can shop for clothes seems like a step backward.
posted by ostro at 4:28 PM on May 17, 2015 [7 favorites]
I remember reading a few decades ago in the NYT that women were working more and volunteering less. I guess that pendulum has swung back around. Sure enough, here it is from 1993:
Mrs. Stock represents an increasingly rare breed: the full-time female volunteer. And volunteer organizations ranging from Junior Leagues to hospital auxiliaries are struggling to adapt themselves to the changing profile of their membership: working women who may not be willing or able to give large amounts of time to volunteering.
Many groups were structured on the assumption that women were available for many hours of service during the day. Increasingly, they have faced a decline in active membership.
http://www.nytimes.com/1993/10/17/nyregion/hunt-for-volunteers-grows-harder-in-a-changing-world.html
posted by maggiemaggie at 4:29 PM on May 17, 2015 [1 favorite]
Mrs. Stock represents an increasingly rare breed: the full-time female volunteer. And volunteer organizations ranging from Junior Leagues to hospital auxiliaries are struggling to adapt themselves to the changing profile of their membership: working women who may not be willing or able to give large amounts of time to volunteering.
Many groups were structured on the assumption that women were available for many hours of service during the day. Increasingly, they have faced a decline in active membership.
http://www.nytimes.com/1993/10/17/nyregion/hunt-for-volunteers-grows-harder-in-a-changing-world.html
posted by maggiemaggie at 4:29 PM on May 17, 2015 [1 favorite]
ostro, in the families I know the money is often simply equally shared within the household. But not always. I've never heard of a "wife bonus" but I do know many households where the major wage-earner puts money into various pots-- including a private account for both spouses. I can imagine that when the husband (assuming that is the case) gets his yearly bonus in his job that he transfers a larger-than-usual amount to the wife's account as the wife's share of the bonus. Not great, but not as bad as the article implies.
posted by frumiousb at 4:37 PM on May 17, 2015 [2 favorites]
posted by frumiousb at 4:37 PM on May 17, 2015 [2 favorites]
For everyone prattling on that 'oh this segregation never happens in my life' - look in the kitchen after a party. Look in the ER at 5pm on a saturday after sport. Look at the bedrooms at 2am when a kid has a nightmare. Look at school drop off. Look at school pick up. Look at daycare drop off and pick up. These are incredibly gendered spaces, even though there are inroads and changes happening almost all of these places are dominated by women. See: my brother-in-law with the FT job and sick leave taking the day off with a headache and exhaustion from the baby waking up, while his partner goes to her casual-no-sick-leave job and I leave my own work early to pick up all of our kids (which is the routine but do you think me calling and saying 'oh I'm tired and have a headache' will pass muster for him leaving work?) (not that he called or anything, just turned up at the last minute to pick his kids up and expected that we would grab his family dinner as well). The devaluation of women's labour isn't just at an employment level, it is at every single level possible - political, personal, educational, economical, spiritual, intellectual. No matter what I do, as a woman, there is always something I should be doing better.
I'm technically the primary carer - doing a fulltime PhD, a small teaching load, and freelance work, while my partner has a (mostly) 8-5 m-f office job. It still doesn't convince most of the people in our lives to take my time seriously. I'm always the 'hey you're home anyway' or 'it's fine to leave the kids with you' and the cook. It's fine to insist that I shouldn't expect anything more from my husband on the home front, he works, I should just cut back on sleep and somehow magically parenting, to fulfil my economic obligations which obviously don't actually require significant investment of time or labour. Or my sister-in-law, who volunteers and manages the house and a demanding health schedule for one of her kids, who gets shit from people saying a part-time job while the kids are in school 'would be a help'. Nah, son, it wouldn't be because half the shit she does you rely on and a job would mean she'd end up doing it anyway because you don't value it at all. Oh, you mean it would help her husband since they would end up with more money and he'd still get the expected amount of household and emotional labour anyway....
I'm 'lucky' (god I loathe that phrase) that my partner sees through this for the shittiness it is. He sees that my work - academic, paid, household - is actual work. That he has the opportunities he has because I do the work I do. That without me his life is infinitely harder, just like without him mine is infinitely harder. I loathe the phrase 'lucky' because we fucking worked at this, and still do. We constantly review where we are going, what labour we're doing. We've had to adjust years and years and lifetimes of indoctrination and still fight it. That's not 'lucky'.
So no, it doesn't surprise me in the slightest that in rich households this gets incentivised and enshrined in contracts. Hell, that feels slightly more honest than 'oh it just worked out this way' and acting like cleaning is emotionally fulfilling.
posted by geek anachronism at 4:39 PM on May 17, 2015 [43 favorites]
I'm technically the primary carer - doing a fulltime PhD, a small teaching load, and freelance work, while my partner has a (mostly) 8-5 m-f office job. It still doesn't convince most of the people in our lives to take my time seriously. I'm always the 'hey you're home anyway' or 'it's fine to leave the kids with you' and the cook. It's fine to insist that I shouldn't expect anything more from my husband on the home front, he works, I should just cut back on sleep and somehow magically parenting, to fulfil my economic obligations which obviously don't actually require significant investment of time or labour. Or my sister-in-law, who volunteers and manages the house and a demanding health schedule for one of her kids, who gets shit from people saying a part-time job while the kids are in school 'would be a help'. Nah, son, it wouldn't be because half the shit she does you rely on and a job would mean she'd end up doing it anyway because you don't value it at all. Oh, you mean it would help her husband since they would end up with more money and he'd still get the expected amount of household and emotional labour anyway....
I'm 'lucky' (god I loathe that phrase) that my partner sees through this for the shittiness it is. He sees that my work - academic, paid, household - is actual work. That he has the opportunities he has because I do the work I do. That without me his life is infinitely harder, just like without him mine is infinitely harder. I loathe the phrase 'lucky' because we fucking worked at this, and still do. We constantly review where we are going, what labour we're doing. We've had to adjust years and years and lifetimes of indoctrination and still fight it. That's not 'lucky'.
So no, it doesn't surprise me in the slightest that in rich households this gets incentivised and enshrined in contracts. Hell, that feels slightly more honest than 'oh it just worked out this way' and acting like cleaning is emotionally fulfilling.
posted by geek anachronism at 4:39 PM on May 17, 2015 [43 favorites]
Guys, these women weren't just plucked off the rich housewife marriage ranch, they went to Harvard and Yale and Oxford and stuff. They've probably taken Gender Studies 101. They're not just unwitting tools of the patriarchy.
I would be very interested to learn the details of the courtships that lead to these marriages. They don't, I am sure, "just meet and fall in love." There is almost certainly a great deal of background that is assumed and the mutual vetting is probably far more intense than most of us can imagine. It's like Goldman Sachs level selectiveness for the right person. There is a certain kind of rich person who somehow seem to absorb these very nuanced expectations/entitlements about choosing the proper spouse, careers, jobs, pursuits, from their upbringing, that is very fascinating to me.
A really in depth study of the backgrounds, meeting, courting, and marital history would be a good read.
posted by jayder at 5:10 PM on May 17, 2015 [7 favorites]
I would be very interested to learn the details of the courtships that lead to these marriages. They don't, I am sure, "just meet and fall in love." There is almost certainly a great deal of background that is assumed and the mutual vetting is probably far more intense than most of us can imagine. It's like Goldman Sachs level selectiveness for the right person. There is a certain kind of rich person who somehow seem to absorb these very nuanced expectations/entitlements about choosing the proper spouse, careers, jobs, pursuits, from their upbringing, that is very fascinating to me.
A really in depth study of the backgrounds, meeting, courting, and marital history would be a good read.
posted by jayder at 5:10 PM on May 17, 2015 [7 favorites]
My mother was a SAHM in the 70s-80s and the money she got to spend for herself was whatever she got to save from the weekly grocery budget via coupons and sales. So, a few bucks a week. I bet she'd have loved the idea of a wife bonus.
posted by kimberussell at 6:21 PM on May 17, 2015 [6 favorites]
posted by kimberussell at 6:21 PM on May 17, 2015 [6 favorites]
The family's marginal tax rate on that income is about 60% (state, federal, and local income tax, plus payroll tax), making $240,000 a year into $96,000, and a full-time nanny who'll deal with a $240,000 a year woman's overtime costs about $900 a week, with 25% tax costs on top of that, or $60,000 a year with a Christmas bonus.
That's really not how a marginal tax rate works? Even if the top tax rate is 60 % (which I don't really buy) it would only be applied to the portion of the income that is in the top tax bracket not the entire income. There's just no way that $240,000 turns into $96,000, no matter how you spin it. Here's an example tax calculation which puts the figure at a much more reasonable 37.4% (without local city taxes but that's hardly going to turn 38% into 60%).
posted by peacheater at 6:32 PM on May 17, 2015 [12 favorites]
That's really not how a marginal tax rate works? Even if the top tax rate is 60 % (which I don't really buy) it would only be applied to the portion of the income that is in the top tax bracket not the entire income. There's just no way that $240,000 turns into $96,000, no matter how you spin it. Here's an example tax calculation which puts the figure at a much more reasonable 37.4% (without local city taxes but that's hardly going to turn 38% into 60%).
posted by peacheater at 6:32 PM on May 17, 2015 [12 favorites]
fist bumps and love to the other housewives/support spouses in the thread.
posted by nadawi at 6:49 PM on May 17, 2015 [5 favorites]
posted by nadawi at 6:49 PM on May 17, 2015 [5 favorites]
Shining hair and shining skin, smiling as she reeled him in, and telling him like she did today what he can do with Harry's house, and Harry's take home pay.
Joni Mitchell
posted by Oyéah at 6:53 PM on May 17, 2015 [1 favorite]
Joni Mitchell
posted by Oyéah at 6:53 PM on May 17, 2015 [1 favorite]
jayder: "They don't, I am sure, "just meet and fall in love." There is almost certainly a great deal of background that is assumed and the mutual vetting is probably far more intense than most of us can imagine. ... A really in depth study of the backgrounds, meeting, courting, and marital history would be a good read."
People have done studies on this (both on upper-class American mating in general and on the NYT weddings section in particular) and for the most part very high-earning and/or high-achieving professionals meet their spouses in college or grad/professional school. (I cannot cite any of them but OH I NEVER SKIP THE ARTICLES ABOUT THEM when they show up on my newsfeeds; probably someone can find a couple.) Basically, Harvard is the filter (or Stanford. Or Princeton.), and that is a lot of what selective colleges are selling, and it's embedded in how they market student social life and how they market their student body to prospective students. Sociologists have done studies on how elite colleges go about signaling "marriage market" in their brochures and so on.
Sometimes schools are totally overt about it, bragging about how many of their alumni marry other alumni, in a "rah rah, school spirit, yay community!" way, but they're also signaling loud and clear, "If your kid is smart enough to get into Yale, chances are good they will marry someone else smart enough to get into Yale!" I mean there's a reason alumni magazines put marriage announcements in the back ... but never divorce announcements.
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 8:00 PM on May 17, 2015 [7 favorites]
People have done studies on this (both on upper-class American mating in general and on the NYT weddings section in particular) and for the most part very high-earning and/or high-achieving professionals meet their spouses in college or grad/professional school. (I cannot cite any of them but OH I NEVER SKIP THE ARTICLES ABOUT THEM when they show up on my newsfeeds; probably someone can find a couple.) Basically, Harvard is the filter (or Stanford. Or Princeton.), and that is a lot of what selective colleges are selling, and it's embedded in how they market student social life and how they market their student body to prospective students. Sociologists have done studies on how elite colleges go about signaling "marriage market" in their brochures and so on.
Sometimes schools are totally overt about it, bragging about how many of their alumni marry other alumni, in a "rah rah, school spirit, yay community!" way, but they're also signaling loud and clear, "If your kid is smart enough to get into Yale, chances are good they will marry someone else smart enough to get into Yale!" I mean there's a reason alumni magazines put marriage announcements in the back ... but never divorce announcements.
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 8:00 PM on May 17, 2015 [7 favorites]
WHILE their husbands make millions, the privileged women with kids who I met tend to give away the skills they honed in graduate school and their professions — organizing galas, editing newsletters, running the library and bake sales — free of charge.
Reading about how well educated these women are, and how they're channelling that into home keeping and unpaid work
So switch the situation. I am a SAHD who does the same thing--gives away my free time and resources (and (minimal) expertise) to my daughter's public school.
I'm supposed to feel bad about that? Or weaker for it? Or they are supposed to feel bad about it just because they are women?!
That's pretty fucked up.
Access to your husband’s money might feel good. But it can’t buy you the power you get by being the one who earns, hunts or gathers it.
Actually, in my situation, access to my wife's money does feel good (she earns pretty good). And with access to my wife's money, I have more power than she does, just because I am a man.
Think about that one.
There's a lot to think about here, but this Op-Ed doesn't do much of a job delivering a message, other than gender roles are fucked up (duh).
i am a feminist housewife and i'm not ashamed, no matter how people might want to make me feel about it.
amen.
Also I don't see a lot of stay-at-home moms volunteering at classrooms in the poor neighborhoods or serving on the board of Meals On Wheels.
And you know everything. Right.
posted by mrgrimm at 8:17 PM on May 17, 2015 [2 favorites]
Reading about how well educated these women are, and how they're channelling that into home keeping and unpaid work
So switch the situation. I am a SAHD who does the same thing--gives away my free time and resources (and (minimal) expertise) to my daughter's public school.
I'm supposed to feel bad about that? Or weaker for it? Or they are supposed to feel bad about it just because they are women?!
That's pretty fucked up.
Access to your husband’s money might feel good. But it can’t buy you the power you get by being the one who earns, hunts or gathers it.
Actually, in my situation, access to my wife's money does feel good (she earns pretty good). And with access to my wife's money, I have more power than she does, just because I am a man.
Think about that one.
There's a lot to think about here, but this Op-Ed doesn't do much of a job delivering a message, other than gender roles are fucked up (duh).
i am a feminist housewife and i'm not ashamed, no matter how people might want to make me feel about it.
amen.
Also I don't see a lot of stay-at-home moms volunteering at classrooms in the poor neighborhoods or serving on the board of Meals On Wheels.
And you know everything. Right.
posted by mrgrimm at 8:17 PM on May 17, 2015 [2 favorites]
Peacheater, there's a difference between effective tax rate and marginal tax rate. If the first earner is already earning in the millions, all of the 240k earned by the second earner will be at the highest possible marginal rate.
Or you can calculate an effective tax rate of 37.5%, but now that doesn't apply to just the second earner's 240k, the difference between the new etr sand the old etr (say 32.5% was the old etr) has to be applied to the entire first earner's salary of a couple million. You end up in the same place- 60% of the second earner's salary is just gone.
Check this out: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage_penalty.
posted by susiswimmer at 8:42 PM on May 17, 2015 [4 favorites]
Or you can calculate an effective tax rate of 37.5%, but now that doesn't apply to just the second earner's 240k, the difference between the new etr sand the old etr (say 32.5% was the old etr) has to be applied to the entire first earner's salary of a couple million. You end up in the same place- 60% of the second earner's salary is just gone.
Check this out: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage_penalty.
posted by susiswimmer at 8:42 PM on May 17, 2015 [4 favorites]
My mom was a stay at home mom to me because that's how things went for middle class women at the time (she was a teacher and when she got pregnant her job was gone).
Lucky me, though. Everything from food quality (grown in the garden, cooked from scratch) to homework support to just being there when i needed to talk after school is something my son doesn't get from me, at least not in the same way.
But this article is creepy. The thing that gets me most is the meals apart and segregated stuff... My experience growing up was simply that my parents were a team, and that the point of family was to, well, have a family and enjoy eachother.
Interesting that my mom's sister went back to teaching when her kids got older. Their marriage also feels like a team to me. I never thought my mom or aunt had it better then the other.
Is it the extreme wealth that makes these marriages seem creepy and cold? Or is it the way the article sets the families up to be othered?
posted by chapps at 8:59 PM on May 17, 2015 [3 favorites]
Lucky me, though. Everything from food quality (grown in the garden, cooked from scratch) to homework support to just being there when i needed to talk after school is something my son doesn't get from me, at least not in the same way.
But this article is creepy. The thing that gets me most is the meals apart and segregated stuff... My experience growing up was simply that my parents were a team, and that the point of family was to, well, have a family and enjoy eachother.
Interesting that my mom's sister went back to teaching when her kids got older. Their marriage also feels like a team to me. I never thought my mom or aunt had it better then the other.
Is it the extreme wealth that makes these marriages seem creepy and cold? Or is it the way the article sets the families up to be othered?
posted by chapps at 8:59 PM on May 17, 2015 [3 favorites]
> those positions should be compensated accordingly. Part of the reason they are not, I think, is that rich idle women have done them for free, leading to their undervaluation
Damn those rich idle women, coming here and stealing our jobs!
I volunteered 574.25 hours last year including, yes, in a classroom in a Title 1 school, so I know volunteering. It would be awesome if there was a way for me to get paid for what I did. But until the revolution, or whatever it's going to take to get our schools and libraries and other good things funded properly, we need people like me to fill in the gaps that tax dollars don't go to.
To blame volunteers for the funding priorities of society is just plain weird.
posted by The corpse in the library at 9:03 PM on May 17, 2015 [9 favorites]
Damn those rich idle women, coming here and stealing our jobs!
I volunteered 574.25 hours last year including, yes, in a classroom in a Title 1 school, so I know volunteering. It would be awesome if there was a way for me to get paid for what I did. But until the revolution, or whatever it's going to take to get our schools and libraries and other good things funded properly, we need people like me to fill in the gaps that tax dollars don't go to.
To blame volunteers for the funding priorities of society is just plain weird.
posted by The corpse in the library at 9:03 PM on May 17, 2015 [9 favorites]
> I don't see a lot of stay-at-home moms volunteering at classrooms in the poor neighborhoods
I do! All the time! In fact, I am one! So I guess my anecdote cancels out your anecdote.
posted by The corpse in the library at 9:08 PM on May 17, 2015 [7 favorites]
I do! All the time! In fact, I am one! So I guess my anecdote cancels out your anecdote.
posted by The corpse in the library at 9:08 PM on May 17, 2015 [7 favorites]
I've been trying to come up with a good turn of phrase that describes why this bothers me so much. It's some combination of the tragedy of the commons and the actual economics of the deal.
Ask the economic question first: how much would the husbands in these stories be making if they had to do all this "background work" throughout their careers? What do you want to bet they'd be a high level analyst but not a principal? So a very satisfying $300k, but no several million. That difference of at least $1.7 million is the wife's money. That's what she made possible with her "background work". So she should get it, and if she takes anything less, she's selling herself short.
The tragedy of the commons piece is that these husbands then toddle off into the world with unwritten expectations that this is just the way the world should work, and that there is probably something wrong with women who make other choices. So the women that make this deal are having an indirect but extremely deleterious effect on all the women that her husband works with.
It makes the glass ceiling between high level analyst and principal nigh unbreakable for women and really difficult for anyone who doesn't have a trailing spouse. (And oh god, don't even get me started on how these men treat women with trailing spouses, or even worse, the male trailing spouse himself. Awful.)
posted by susiswimmer at 9:13 PM on May 17, 2015 [12 favorites]
Ask the economic question first: how much would the husbands in these stories be making if they had to do all this "background work" throughout their careers? What do you want to bet they'd be a high level analyst but not a principal? So a very satisfying $300k, but no several million. That difference of at least $1.7 million is the wife's money. That's what she made possible with her "background work". So she should get it, and if she takes anything less, she's selling herself short.
The tragedy of the commons piece is that these husbands then toddle off into the world with unwritten expectations that this is just the way the world should work, and that there is probably something wrong with women who make other choices. So the women that make this deal are having an indirect but extremely deleterious effect on all the women that her husband works with.
It makes the glass ceiling between high level analyst and principal nigh unbreakable for women and really difficult for anyone who doesn't have a trailing spouse. (And oh god, don't even get me started on how these men treat women with trailing spouses, or even worse, the male trailing spouse himself. Awful.)
posted by susiswimmer at 9:13 PM on May 17, 2015 [12 favorites]
I'm honestly surprised this is the first I've heard of "wife bonuses". I imagine most of these women were high earners in their own right before they became stay at home moms. They grew accustomed to being able to spend whatever they pleased on luxury items without feeling accountable to anyone, and have likely never really needed to budget. I'm sure that for many of them, one of the scariest things about leaving the workplace was knowing that they didn't feel the same claim to their bank accounts that they used to, because they can't tell themselves, "Whatever, I made this money myself and I know we have enough to make ends meet, so I can spend it on what makes me happy and nobody is going to question me." Yes, I realize that because they've sacrificed to get their husbands to where they are the money is by rights theirs too, but that doesn't change the fact that most people just feel a little different about a paycheck if their name isn't on the to: line.
It was smart to find a way to fill that gap by coming up with a set of metrics and incentives with their spouses whereby they still end up with a bonus they can spend guilt-free on whatever they want. It also gives them a set of clear goals for which they feel responsible, something I gather a lot of high-achievers miss when they leave the world of working for a paycheck. "Bring up awesome kids" is a great goal, but "Get Emmett into Ivy League State" is an objective with a clear due date, desired result, and milestones you can try to hit along the way.
I mean, I know it's a symptom of all the creeping horrors of the patriarchy and capitalism and what have you, but the fact remains that it's a smart idea and I'm glad they thought of it. Arguing about money is a marriage-killer and if you can litigate away the arguments in advance, why not.
posted by town of cats at 9:45 PM on May 17, 2015 [7 favorites]
It was smart to find a way to fill that gap by coming up with a set of metrics and incentives with their spouses whereby they still end up with a bonus they can spend guilt-free on whatever they want. It also gives them a set of clear goals for which they feel responsible, something I gather a lot of high-achievers miss when they leave the world of working for a paycheck. "Bring up awesome kids" is a great goal, but "Get Emmett into Ivy League State" is an objective with a clear due date, desired result, and milestones you can try to hit along the way.
I mean, I know it's a symptom of all the creeping horrors of the patriarchy and capitalism and what have you, but the fact remains that it's a smart idea and I'm glad they thought of it. Arguing about money is a marriage-killer and if you can litigate away the arguments in advance, why not.
posted by town of cats at 9:45 PM on May 17, 2015 [7 favorites]
It makes the glass ceiling between high level analyst and principal nigh unbreakable for women and really difficult for anyone who doesn't have a trailing spouse. (And oh god, don't even get me started on how these men treat women with trailing spouses, or even worse, the male trailing spouse himself. Awful.)
Yes. And where I lived in the Netherlands it was so common that it took away the choice from the woman who actually wants a career. (A good article from the Economist on part time work in the Netherlands) It was simply expected that it would be the woman who only worked part-time while it would be the man who drove his career. I was able to build my career anyhow because as an American I was kind of an honorary male. My Dutch female colleagues had *horrific* experiences. This article plays it down, but one of my friends there had written in a performance review that while she did very well on the job, perhaps she might want to consider working less hours and being a better mother!
I'm coming around to a feeling that what works best for all families is making a conscious choice-- but the patriarchal norms are so insidious that it becomes very difficult to understand what "choice" really means. Most of my Dutch friends would tell you that they choose to work part-time, and that the hideously high cost and poor services associated with day care had nothing to do with it. But really?
When I was still married, my poor ex got all kinds of jokes at work about being a house husband and it literally wasn't even true for him. He worked full-time at a good job. It was simply the fact I had an executive position which caused his colleagues to look askance at him.
This is why I'm pretty sympathetic to the women in this article. Sometimes choice is conscious-- and sometimes it literally is just the easiest route.
posted by frumiousb at 11:17 PM on May 17, 2015 [7 favorites]
Yes. And where I lived in the Netherlands it was so common that it took away the choice from the woman who actually wants a career. (A good article from the Economist on part time work in the Netherlands) It was simply expected that it would be the woman who only worked part-time while it would be the man who drove his career. I was able to build my career anyhow because as an American I was kind of an honorary male. My Dutch female colleagues had *horrific* experiences. This article plays it down, but one of my friends there had written in a performance review that while she did very well on the job, perhaps she might want to consider working less hours and being a better mother!
I'm coming around to a feeling that what works best for all families is making a conscious choice-- but the patriarchal norms are so insidious that it becomes very difficult to understand what "choice" really means. Most of my Dutch friends would tell you that they choose to work part-time, and that the hideously high cost and poor services associated with day care had nothing to do with it. But really?
When I was still married, my poor ex got all kinds of jokes at work about being a house husband and it literally wasn't even true for him. He worked full-time at a good job. It was simply the fact I had an executive position which caused his colleagues to look askance at him.
This is why I'm pretty sympathetic to the women in this article. Sometimes choice is conscious-- and sometimes it literally is just the easiest route.
posted by frumiousb at 11:17 PM on May 17, 2015 [7 favorites]
I got to thinking more about the bonuses. Not in the specific context presented by the article, but in the general context of a marriage. Or any household, really.
Imagine if both partners sat down at the beginning of the year and identified some specific, measurable, achievable goals they had for the year. And agreed on the amount of money they'd be willing to reward themselves with if they met those goals. At the end of a successful year, each would be free to buy things the other person might find frivolous, without getting into money arguments, which are one of the leading causes of relationship issues.
It's the kind of thing I think people would even feel comfortable letting their kids know about. "First, we set some goals for ourselves and work hard to achieve them. With our goals accomplished, we enjoy the fruits of our labor before getting back at it with another round of goals." Maybe even let the kids in on the fun, rather than behavior-control with the traditional "be good or Santa will leave you a lump of coal."
Refreshing in an era where it is so easy to gorge on cheap junk food and even cheaper entertainment, and find yourself not having any time left over for things that will bring greater long-term satisfaction.
The key is for both partners to be equal participants in all aspects, from goal-setting, to achievement-evaluating, to agreeing on the size(s) of the bonuses.
posted by mantecol at 2:58 AM on May 18, 2015 [2 favorites]
Imagine if both partners sat down at the beginning of the year and identified some specific, measurable, achievable goals they had for the year. And agreed on the amount of money they'd be willing to reward themselves with if they met those goals. At the end of a successful year, each would be free to buy things the other person might find frivolous, without getting into money arguments, which are one of the leading causes of relationship issues.
It's the kind of thing I think people would even feel comfortable letting their kids know about. "First, we set some goals for ourselves and work hard to achieve them. With our goals accomplished, we enjoy the fruits of our labor before getting back at it with another round of goals." Maybe even let the kids in on the fun, rather than behavior-control with the traditional "be good or Santa will leave you a lump of coal."
Refreshing in an era where it is so easy to gorge on cheap junk food and even cheaper entertainment, and find yourself not having any time left over for things that will bring greater long-term satisfaction.
The key is for both partners to be equal participants in all aspects, from goal-setting, to achievement-evaluating, to agreeing on the size(s) of the bonuses.
posted by mantecol at 2:58 AM on May 18, 2015 [2 favorites]
Eh, the article is tongue in cheek ("primates of New York, come on) and sensationalist. The "wife bonuses" are probably an inside joke, or a joke she "got" but didn't convey to the reader because of the satirical tone of the piece. Does the wife get extra money at bonus time? I'm sure! Anyone have a problem with that? My husband and I both work outside the home, but we've also decided to keep our finances somewhat separate and we allocate a certain amount of our monthly budget to "fun money" that we can each spend however we want to (even if we choose to spend it on extra charitable giving not entertainment). We get more "fun money" when either one of us gets a bonus. I don't see how this "wife bonus" if there is such a thing is all that different.
The "segregation" described was clearly articulated as something these people prefer. All the social stuff is probably "segregated" because most of the men are at work and aren't even available for ladies only coffee dates. The dinner parties are a bit different since they're all there, but I question how often they really have segregated dinner parties. Otherwise, this sounds a lot like my life - I really enjoy my girls dinners and girls weekends. They're different sort of experiences than co ed parties and dinners and trips. The conversations are different and I enjoy them.
I'm convinced these women think they scored big time. They don't have to work at a job with nasty bosses and rigid schedules and they're still rich. They get to work out for hours each day, be present in their kids lives, volunteer, and do lots of social things. I feel sorry for the men who have to support them. Now, do some of them regret their choices? I'm sure. Will some of them regret their choices in the future? I'm sure. But she is describing highly capable, educated, beautiful women - they have more choices in their lives than almost anyone. They weren't tricked into these roles - they landed these roles and to dismiss their agency in this is patronizing. Would I trade places? Hell no. Would I like to be able to afford to work part time so I could spend more time with my kid, more time at the gym, and more time volunteering? Absolutely.
Finally, about volunteering. I give a lot of time to my kid's preschool board. It is in no way prestigious but I think it's very important the board is staffed by volunteers versus people paid in some capacity because we view the work there very differently than if we were compensated. We're there solely because we think it's the right thing to do even though we're all exhausted juggling work and kids. More than half of the board is male. Our fearless leader is a (female) high-powered law firm partner. My husband took the last shift - he volunteered on the daycare board. To me, this scenario is more representative of highly educated urban East Coast society than this rarefied world described in this quasi satirical piece promoting a forthcoming book about the Upper East Side.
posted by semacd at 3:04 AM on May 18, 2015 [1 favorite]
The "segregation" described was clearly articulated as something these people prefer. All the social stuff is probably "segregated" because most of the men are at work and aren't even available for ladies only coffee dates. The dinner parties are a bit different since they're all there, but I question how often they really have segregated dinner parties. Otherwise, this sounds a lot like my life - I really enjoy my girls dinners and girls weekends. They're different sort of experiences than co ed parties and dinners and trips. The conversations are different and I enjoy them.
I'm convinced these women think they scored big time. They don't have to work at a job with nasty bosses and rigid schedules and they're still rich. They get to work out for hours each day, be present in their kids lives, volunteer, and do lots of social things. I feel sorry for the men who have to support them. Now, do some of them regret their choices? I'm sure. Will some of them regret their choices in the future? I'm sure. But she is describing highly capable, educated, beautiful women - they have more choices in their lives than almost anyone. They weren't tricked into these roles - they landed these roles and to dismiss their agency in this is patronizing. Would I trade places? Hell no. Would I like to be able to afford to work part time so I could spend more time with my kid, more time at the gym, and more time volunteering? Absolutely.
Finally, about volunteering. I give a lot of time to my kid's preschool board. It is in no way prestigious but I think it's very important the board is staffed by volunteers versus people paid in some capacity because we view the work there very differently than if we were compensated. We're there solely because we think it's the right thing to do even though we're all exhausted juggling work and kids. More than half of the board is male. Our fearless leader is a (female) high-powered law firm partner. My husband took the last shift - he volunteered on the daycare board. To me, this scenario is more representative of highly educated urban East Coast society than this rarefied world described in this quasi satirical piece promoting a forthcoming book about the Upper East Side.
posted by semacd at 3:04 AM on May 18, 2015 [1 favorite]
but that doesn't change the fact that most people just feel a little different about a paycheck if their name isn't on the to: line.
I would say that this clause is a little more accurate if we say "most women". In my experience, men who are supporting a working spouse expect their work to be respected as work, and fully expect that the extra money brought in by the working spouse due to their at home labor is something they are entirely entitled to spend.
So while I completely agree that pre-litigating what can be the stickiest of issues in a marriage - the management of finances - is an excellent idea, their choices are still being guided by and stem out of a system in which they are not equal, and which is designed to keep them that way.
I'm convinced these women think they scored big time.
I'm sure they do too. Congratulations to them, they have won the patriarchy. But their choices reinforce the structure of the patriarchy and therefore mean a lot of the rest of us are stuck playing a game where no matter how hard we work, our equality is eternally in another castle.
posted by susiswimmer at 8:02 AM on May 18, 2015 [2 favorites]
I would say that this clause is a little more accurate if we say "most women". In my experience, men who are supporting a working spouse expect their work to be respected as work, and fully expect that the extra money brought in by the working spouse due to their at home labor is something they are entirely entitled to spend.
So while I completely agree that pre-litigating what can be the stickiest of issues in a marriage - the management of finances - is an excellent idea, their choices are still being guided by and stem out of a system in which they are not equal, and which is designed to keep them that way.
I'm convinced these women think they scored big time.
I'm sure they do too. Congratulations to them, they have won the patriarchy. But their choices reinforce the structure of the patriarchy and therefore mean a lot of the rest of us are stuck playing a game where no matter how hard we work, our equality is eternally in another castle.
posted by susiswimmer at 8:02 AM on May 18, 2015 [2 favorites]
This game does not seem like fun, and the prizes appears to be cynical, if not potentially Pyrrhic.
posted by dglynn at 8:22 AM on May 18, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by dglynn at 8:22 AM on May 18, 2015 [1 favorite]
I feel like I should clarify what I said, as I fear I've inadvertently mis-spoken. But I think we're talking about something really, really subtle, in my defense.
There have been a lot of women in here who have come forward to say that "well, hell, I volunteer for my kid's school because I want to, and I share in my husband's bonus because why not", and yeah, it absolutely makes 100% total sense that someone could indeed volunteer at their kids' school or be on a board of directors of a non-profit or what have you without that being a weird thing. It also makes 100% total sense that someone with a degree or a high-powered career could say "you know what, fuck it, this isn't making me happy any more, I wanna downshift" or whatever.
I think there's a difference between that and the sort of Betty Draper/Stepford Wife over-zealous forcedness I sometimes get from some articles like this, and some "Mommy blogs". Again, I'm not categorizing all Mom blogs this way, or all volunteers at non-profits this way (shit, I was on a non-profit board for 10 years myself), or all SAHM's this way or all couples where the husband is the chief breadwinner this way. But...there's a difference, albeit a very subtle one, between a woman who just happens to say that yeah, she gave up law to take care of the kids and she has this other thing going on now and is way happier, and she wants to volunteer with this other thing which is exciting, and a woman who seems just a tiny bit strident about how, well, of course she volunteers for her kids' school because who would be so awful as to not, y'know, and of course she gave up her law career to take care of the kids because who would be so selfish as to not, and...
....you know? It's a really subtle difference between the people who just say that that's their jam and they're happy with it, and the people who are kind of subtly implying that everyone should be like that; it kind of makes me wonder if they're trying to convince themselves that that's what they want.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 8:50 AM on May 18, 2015 [5 favorites]
There have been a lot of women in here who have come forward to say that "well, hell, I volunteer for my kid's school because I want to, and I share in my husband's bonus because why not", and yeah, it absolutely makes 100% total sense that someone could indeed volunteer at their kids' school or be on a board of directors of a non-profit or what have you without that being a weird thing. It also makes 100% total sense that someone with a degree or a high-powered career could say "you know what, fuck it, this isn't making me happy any more, I wanna downshift" or whatever.
I think there's a difference between that and the sort of Betty Draper/Stepford Wife over-zealous forcedness I sometimes get from some articles like this, and some "Mommy blogs". Again, I'm not categorizing all Mom blogs this way, or all volunteers at non-profits this way (shit, I was on a non-profit board for 10 years myself), or all SAHM's this way or all couples where the husband is the chief breadwinner this way. But...there's a difference, albeit a very subtle one, between a woman who just happens to say that yeah, she gave up law to take care of the kids and she has this other thing going on now and is way happier, and she wants to volunteer with this other thing which is exciting, and a woman who seems just a tiny bit strident about how, well, of course she volunteers for her kids' school because who would be so awful as to not, y'know, and of course she gave up her law career to take care of the kids because who would be so selfish as to not, and...
....you know? It's a really subtle difference between the people who just say that that's their jam and they're happy with it, and the people who are kind of subtly implying that everyone should be like that; it kind of makes me wonder if they're trying to convince themselves that that's what they want.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 8:50 AM on May 18, 2015 [5 favorites]
I refer to my earlier fpp: This propensity for tone-deaf stories about people of vast wealth
posted by the man of twists and turns at 9:42 AM on May 18, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by the man of twists and turns at 9:42 AM on May 18, 2015 [1 favorite]
I hear you, snickerdoodle, but do you understand my larger point that there's a difference between someone who chose a kind of life, and even though some of the details sometimes suck, they accept that and are still satisfied overall (or at least accepts it's the lesser of a few evils), and someone who isn't satisfied deep down with their life but is trying to suppress that by talking out loud about how much they LOVE THEIR LIFE and how EVERYONE should do it this way?
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 9:42 AM on May 18, 2015
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 9:42 AM on May 18, 2015
But that's true for everyone, EmpressCallpygos. Wealthy stay-at-home moms, lawyers, cashiers, teachers... everyone has times when they feel good about the choices they made, and times when they feel that maybe they were subtly forced into those decisions but too late now.
I feel women without paying employment get questioned about our real motivation much more than say, male middle-management office workers.
posted by The corpse in the library at 10:27 AM on May 18, 2015 [4 favorites]
I feel women without paying employment get questioned about our real motivation much more than say, male middle-management office workers.
posted by The corpse in the library at 10:27 AM on May 18, 2015 [4 favorites]
Ah, I think we're talking from two different perspectives on the same thing; I think we're all agreed that we're talking about something that is a character trait found in a smaller subset of a given group.
I was raising my point only to reinforce the distinction between the SAHM's with this character trait and the ones without that trait, only because I've seen a number of SAHM's without that trait come in here and say "but I'm not like that" and I wanted to acknowledge that.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 10:36 AM on May 18, 2015 [2 favorites]
I was raising my point only to reinforce the distinction between the SAHM's with this character trait and the ones without that trait, only because I've seen a number of SAHM's without that trait come in here and say "but I'm not like that" and I wanted to acknowledge that.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 10:36 AM on May 18, 2015 [2 favorites]
Peacheater, there's a difference between effective tax rate and marginal tax rate. If the first earner is already earning in the millions, all of the 240k earned by the second earner will be at the highest possible marginal rate.
You're absolutely right! For some reason I missed that we were talking about the second earner. It was late last night and I needed to sleep, in my defense. I do apologize.
posted by peacheater at 10:44 AM on May 18, 2015 [2 favorites]
You're absolutely right! For some reason I missed that we were talking about the second earner. It was late last night and I needed to sleep, in my defense. I do apologize.
posted by peacheater at 10:44 AM on May 18, 2015 [2 favorites]
I'm strongly reminded of a conversation I had with a woman who has been in a local fiber arts guild for over 40 years., who described the founders as women who, born as men, would have been "CEOs. Or Genghis Khan."
I'd be curious to have more information about why these women choose that path. Class rage aside, it may seem an easier, more stable, better-paying job than anything else requiring a Master's.
posted by tchemgrrl at 1:24 PM on May 18, 2015 [1 favorite]
I'd be curious to have more information about why these women choose that path. Class rage aside, it may seem an easier, more stable, better-paying job than anything else requiring a Master's.
posted by tchemgrrl at 1:24 PM on May 18, 2015 [1 favorite]
I remember a week where every SAHM I knew's marriage was in trouble. Some of them ended and some of them didn't. I was especially worried about my best friend, who writes books and does independent publishing, but hasn't held down a real job in I forget how long and I think it was being a dishwasher or something? At the time she told me she'd have to move to Oklahoma and move in with her first ex-husband because she had nowhere else to go to be well...supported. I am delighted to report that the marriage didn't end (her husband is awesome, but there were kid issues stressing them out), and she went back to school, and...well, then the recession happened and getting a job once again could never happen.
It just scares me to think of deliberately (or accidentally) putting myself in a situation where I'm this dependent on a man to take care of me. Even if he doesn't turn bad on me, but gets sick or dies--if I lose my ability to get a job, I'm fucked--possibly forever. And it happens a lot.
posted by jenfullmoon at 7:31 AM on May 19, 2015 [7 favorites]
It just scares me to think of deliberately (or accidentally) putting myself in a situation where I'm this dependent on a man to take care of me. Even if he doesn't turn bad on me, but gets sick or dies--if I lose my ability to get a job, I'm fucked--possibly forever. And it happens a lot.
posted by jenfullmoon at 7:31 AM on May 19, 2015 [7 favorites]
The biggest issue is that high level careers are MUCH easier and more obtainable with a stay at home spouse. Dual income couples have a lot of challenges finding childcare to cover long hours, and that childcare is expensive and stressful.
This is exactly the reason why I quit my job. My wife and I both worked full-time, full-demand (salaried tech) jobs for the first 4 years of my first daughter's life. And it sucked. Not just school drop-offs, childcare, and illness, but doctor's appointments, holidays, playdates, making lunch, making dinner, blah, blah, blah.
I'm sure that some couples can manage two careers but we could not. We made a conscious decision to cut expenses and try to finance a budget on one career, hoping that my wife's career would advance (based on the fact she's no longer getting in at 10am after school dropoff and can travel whenever she wants, say overseas.)
I know it's not the main thrust of the article (or maybe it is), but why don't more men take the opportunity to say screw the boss and take care of the kids for 5-10 years? It really is a pretty sweet gig, in a lot of ways. I just wish there were more men to hang out with. Women are great, but I get sick of them after a while. I mean, really, dudes, show up to your kid's school every now and then, please?
It just scares me to think of deliberately (or accidentally) putting myself in a situation where I'm this dependent on a man to take care of me. Even if he doesn't turn bad on me, but gets sick or dies--if I lose my ability to get a job, I'm fucked--possibly forever.
That's what marriage is. And that's what life insurance is for. It's a big risk to depend on someone. But it feels good when it works. Also, now, in a lot of places, you can marry a woman instead. They seem more dependable. ;)
posted by mrgrimm at 10:30 AM on May 20, 2015 [5 favorites]
This is exactly the reason why I quit my job. My wife and I both worked full-time, full-demand (salaried tech) jobs for the first 4 years of my first daughter's life. And it sucked. Not just school drop-offs, childcare, and illness, but doctor's appointments, holidays, playdates, making lunch, making dinner, blah, blah, blah.
I'm sure that some couples can manage two careers but we could not. We made a conscious decision to cut expenses and try to finance a budget on one career, hoping that my wife's career would advance (based on the fact she's no longer getting in at 10am after school dropoff and can travel whenever she wants, say overseas.)
I know it's not the main thrust of the article (or maybe it is), but why don't more men take the opportunity to say screw the boss and take care of the kids for 5-10 years? It really is a pretty sweet gig, in a lot of ways. I just wish there were more men to hang out with. Women are great, but I get sick of them after a while. I mean, really, dudes, show up to your kid's school every now and then, please?
It just scares me to think of deliberately (or accidentally) putting myself in a situation where I'm this dependent on a man to take care of me. Even if he doesn't turn bad on me, but gets sick or dies--if I lose my ability to get a job, I'm fucked--possibly forever.
That's what marriage is. And that's what life insurance is for. It's a big risk to depend on someone. But it feels good when it works. Also, now, in a lot of places, you can marry a woman instead. They seem more dependable. ;)
posted by mrgrimm at 10:30 AM on May 20, 2015 [5 favorites]
Bonus-receiving wife responds.
posted by save alive nothing that breatheth at 9:49 AM on May 29, 2015 [2 favorites]
posted by save alive nothing that breatheth at 9:49 AM on May 29, 2015 [2 favorites]
I know it's not the main thrust of the article (or maybe it is), but why don't more men take the opportunity to say screw the boss and take care of the kids for 5-10 years?
Because patriarchy
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 9:56 AM on May 29, 2015 [1 favorite]
Because patriarchy
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 9:56 AM on May 29, 2015 [1 favorite]
You know, there are many, many things about that woman and her husband that are horrible and gross, but I don't think the "wife bonus" is necessarily one of them. Earning your money by destroying the environment and then spending thousands and thousands of dollars on useless luxury items while other people can't afford basic necessities? Yuck. Wife bonus? How you organize your family finances is not really any of my business.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 10:50 AM on May 29, 2015 [3 favorites]
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 10:50 AM on May 29, 2015 [3 favorites]
I agree, ArbitraryAndCapricious. She sounds rather unpleasant, but I appreciate these points:
The wife bonus gives me not only financial freedom, but freedom from guilt too. We have a joint account, and before we started the system, I was reluctant to spend our money on myself, even though my husband insisted he was happy for me to. Now that I have a quantifiable amount to treat myself with, I don’t feel guilty doing so... Somehow being given an expensive gift by your husband for your birthday or your anniversary is seen as socially acceptable, but receiving a share of his annual bonus isn’t.
Many of my friends who are housewives, or who earn significantly less than their husbands, find it difficult to spend money on themselves. With my friends it's more likely to be denying themselves new sneakers -- or sports bras, for some reason they won't buy themselves proper bras -- not choosing between Louboutin or Chanel, but the basic idea is the same.
posted by The corpse in the library at 11:08 AM on May 29, 2015 [1 favorite]
The wife bonus gives me not only financial freedom, but freedom from guilt too. We have a joint account, and before we started the system, I was reluctant to spend our money on myself, even though my husband insisted he was happy for me to. Now that I have a quantifiable amount to treat myself with, I don’t feel guilty doing so... Somehow being given an expensive gift by your husband for your birthday or your anniversary is seen as socially acceptable, but receiving a share of his annual bonus isn’t.
Many of my friends who are housewives, or who earn significantly less than their husbands, find it difficult to spend money on themselves. With my friends it's more likely to be denying themselves new sneakers -- or sports bras, for some reason they won't buy themselves proper bras -- not choosing between Louboutin or Chanel, but the basic idea is the same.
posted by The corpse in the library at 11:08 AM on May 29, 2015 [1 favorite]
Ugh, is that a real person? There's no way that is a real person.
posted by Anonymous at 9:41 PM on May 29, 2015
posted by Anonymous at 9:41 PM on May 29, 2015
I suspect it's a real person whose interview was edited to make her look as annoying, and thus lead to the most pageviews, as possible.
posted by The corpse in the library at 10:27 AM on May 30, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by The corpse in the library at 10:27 AM on May 30, 2015 [1 favorite]
« Older Police Bodycams Hit Toronto | YouTube Musicians Are Doing It For Themselves Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by escabeche at 9:45 AM on May 17, 2015 [12 favorites]