Let's see:

The night she complains about is pretty much the way everyone lived before the 17th century

Because starting in 1600 everybody had sport cars and giant flat-screen TVs?

I haven't turned mine [TV] on since New Year's Eve

Speaking of left-wing cliches ...

And if buying alcohol is a luxury (Paul ends up brewing his own), why not make your own soap?

Because, you know, it's more important to be clean than drunk, at least in my blue-state elitist household ...

"But if, as she says, Europeans' "life satisfaction is higher," why are non-immigrant Europeans not even reproducing at replacement level?"

No comment.

The whole thing is a joke, right?

How people spend there time is probably the most under=reported story of our, well, our time!

The typical low to middle class person wakes up at 6 or 7 and works until 5 or 6 and actually gets home around six or seven.

So right off the bat people spend at least nine hours at work ding stuff they generally don't want to do. Then they, typically, spend another 45mins driving back home. And if we factor in the 45min average drive to work --- we now have the average American spending close to 12 hrs of a 24 hour day doing nothng they enjoy (sitting in traffic, suffling papers, loading and unloading cargo with a forklft, ect)

Most people, I think we can all agree, are tired after work: emotionally and for the blue collar physically.

Most people go to bed at 10 or 11pm -- giving them on average only 4hrs of free time five days a week!

That's it, folks.

Now factor in cleaning the house, making dinner, helping th kids with their homework (or arguing with them) and the average American citizens has exactly how much "free" time totally to themselves and totally free to do what they want?

Maybe a few hours a day.

Of course we're bored!

Remember that old cliche about vacations being stressful? Because we have to have fun NOW dammit because if we don't have 100% fun RIGHT NOW then we won't be able to have any fun until next year when we get nother week off from work.

Is it really any wonder that most people have no lives? Have no goals? Have no sense of purpose, of fun, or know what the hell to do with themselves if they have a large amount of free time?

Most Americans spend their entire lives driving to work, working, driving home from work and then doing chores for a few hours at home and then going to bed -- only to wake up and repeate the cylce.

It's hard to have any sense of self or even know what the hell you WANT out of life we you spend 99% of your waking exsistence with no "free" time. Of course shopping seems like a goal, an amusement and an answer.

Forgot to insert an in my original posting. The line "Speaking of left-wing cliches..." is not part of the citation; it's a comment. FWIW.

Ms. Marlowe said:

"But if, as she says, Europeans' 'life satisfaction is higher,' why are non-immigrant Europeans not even reproducing at replacement level?"

How does this follow? Maybe a high life satisfaction results in lower desire to reproduce. Maybe not reproducing leads to a higher life satisfaction. Maybe having children is a desperate attempt to feel satisfied in an otherwise miserable life. The assumption that reproducing is obviously the goal is patently absurd, as is the implication that children are required for "life satisfaction".

I am a woman and feminist, and I am so grateful that there are books being published that address women and their often complex relationships with money.

A few years ago, I worked for a female financial planner and was amazed at the number of her female clients (overwhelmingly upper-middle class professionals in great jobs) who had no clue about saving money and had nothing whatsoever put away for retirement. (I recall one client who was a lawyer who said that the very thought of financial planning brought on panic attacks.) Working at that company forced me to come to terms with my own fears over money. Even though I eschewed a lot of my mother and grandmother's ideas about women-namely, that a woman's place was in the home and women with children should not work, yet in the back of mind, I always believed that one day I would find a rich man who would take care of me. I am ashamed to admit that, but I honestly think that there are a lot of women out there that think the same until reality comes crashing down on them.

"But if, as she says, Europeans' "life satisfaction is higher," why are non-immigrant Europeans not even reproducing at replacement level?"

that word always bugs me when used in the context of gender issues...

and I don't get why Marlowe criticizes books like "Nickel and Dimed" for not doing an about-face in its "political" or "ideological" point of view. Is that the purpose of Ehrenreich's book? If not, I don't think it is the place of a book-reviewer to hold it accountable to such. I am a big fan of Ehrenreich's book because it examined the consequences of "liberal" policies (like Clinton's "ending welfare as we know it"). Ehrenreich's book is hardly a "left-wing cliche."

I hope I'm not being unfair to Ann Marlowe when I say that her use of "left-wing" as an epithet and a disparaging adjective seems ludicrous from a writer who used heroin for years and admits she got away with it because she was white and middle-class. Is heroin use "right-wing?" Limbaugh aside, I would think it is neither.

Marlowe has told Salon readers that they should be hauled into mandatory national service. Now she disaparages a woman for writing a book about how women are not realistic about money, after she herself realizes that she does not manage money well.

Marlowe seems to have come out of her years of drug use with no knowledge of herself (she certainly had no financial understanding in her book on heroin -- her spending was laughable) and worse, she does no research to back her her assertion that books by women advising other women are ridiculous, or indeed any economic research to back her her wild flailing statements.

Ms. Marlowe had one book in her. It was a very good memoir of criminal wrongdoing allowed by the gender gap and consumerism. But she has nothing else to say, and her avalanche of rage at other women or indeed anyone is actually quite weird, almost deranged. I don't know why Salon would think she has any expertise in the area of gender differences. I am a woman, I manage my money well and I have great sympathy for women who haven't learned how to yet. Men and women are very different in their attitudes to many things. They spend differently and save differently. I'm sick of Marlowe's recurring fits of misogyny in Salon and I don't know why Salon allows it. Her rants are very South Dakotan.

Heather Mallick

Toronto, Canada