Letters to the Editor
-
Stop with the pointless and inane talking head videos!
There is absolutely NO REASON to make a video of this writer reading her column.
None. It only makes it more difficult for her to get her message across.
Especially to get the message to people like me, who are not willing to sit through amateur-hour talking heads, and therefore never hear the message.
Everyone would be better served by having this in text version. Except, I guess, those people who think pointless video is "neato," kind of like Bush in his safety goggles a couple of years back.
Also we could avoid the commercials with Pfizer bragging about how they are helping Americans spend more on health care.
-
Anyone interested in the underlying issue should pick up a copy of The Second Sex
Beauvoir asserts that the two things that have led to women's emancipation are (1) women no longer being hampered by inferior physical strength vis-a-vis productivity thanks to the industrial revolution, and (2) ability to control their own reproduction.
It doesn't take a genius to figure out what that has to do with educated women dropping out of the workforce to raise their child/children.
More points Beauvoir makes that are relevant:
(1) A woman who is married and supported by her husband is wholly dependent on him for her survival and is therefore controlled by him at least to some extent.
(2) Women who do not work often resist being forced to earn their own living, and any social movements urging others to earn their own living, because it would require them to give up all the benefits conferred upon them by their SAHM status. They therefore are hindering other women's moves towards independence because they fear for their lifestyles.
(3) Being treated like a princess absolves women of responsibility for their lives and their actions, and therefore hinders women's emancipation, by playing into stereotypes of inferior, irresponsible, silly women.
(4) The temptation of becoming a SAHM, thereby absolving oneself of responsibility for one's life beyond housework and child-rearing, is one of the most dangerous obstacles to women's emancipation. "As long as the temptations of convenience exist [convenience being becoming a SAHM instead of supporting yourself through gainful employment], she will need to make a greater moral effort than would a man in choosing the road of independence."
(5) Housework is "a narrow round of uncreative and repetitious duties," and is therefore inferior to many other pursuits, "it is in contrast to the freedom to engage in projects of ever widening scope that marks the untrammeled existent."
This book is 56 years old, y'all, and much of is just as current as it was when it was published.
All I can say is, WTF?!?!?!?!
-
The "Mommy Wars" only rage because it sells
The point is that we are bombarded by this "Mommy Wars" stuff, is because it sells. The issue is sufficiently polarizing, because some significant verbiage has been expended on making it a polarizing issue in the first place.
I thought Feminism was about women having choices. Or, at least that is what the Women's Movement keeps telling us. Except, some of the most toxic voices in the Women's Movement get their positions showcased as having a validity that basically negates the choice to stay at home, because women who do have somehow betrayed the cause.
I am not a Feminist, and I am glad of it, because I don't live stewing in anxiety obecause I don't live up to whatever ideals that the Talking Heads of the Women's Movement think I should be.
Whether the book is good or not becomes irrelevant when it becomes the vehicle to push the whole "Mommy Wars" concept as a legitimate face of the movement for equality between the sexes. Indeed, between the"Mommy Wars" and the idea that equality is measured by the kind of job you hold and how much money you make is offensive because it is women continuing to buy into the stereotype that the traditional roles of women don't matter, because they don't draw a paycheck.
I actually doubt the author was pushing that point of view. In fact, she says it was not her aim. Thus, it was the interviewer who drew that inference.
-
"women continuing to buy into the stereotype that the traditional roles of women don't matter, because they don't draw a paycheck."
You know, we gave this "traditional roles of women" thing a 3,000-year chance to make things good, and it didn't work. Give it up.
-
I agree with farnsworth - why is this a video?
Lately, videos of writers talking seem to plague the internet. I'm curious about what you have to say on this issue, but not so curious that I want to sit through a few minutes of you reading your thoughts to me on video.
With text, I can skim and quickly get the point -- or I might decide to read it more carefully -- but either way it will go a lot faster than watching a video.
It's okay to be a writer. Not everyone is a TV star. Without a conversation between two people, without pictures or effects, without some element of performance in the reading -- the video adds nothing but slowness.
I guess some people like the videos. But maybe when you make videos, you could include a link to the text for those of us who still enjoy reading?
-
Rebecca Traister is forcing this into the "Mommy Wars" frame
Argh. Rebecca Traister is forcing this into the frame of the so-called "Mommy Wars." I really don't think that Meg Wolitzer was doing so. I am still thinking over my response to the Ten-Year Nap before I write it up on my own blog, but it is feeling like more of a Rorschach test capturing reflections of readers' personal projections, rather than a polemic.
And I totally agree that these video clips are unnecessary. I am visiting Salon to read, not to watch TV, and I resent the inability to skim a piece! Much of the info I glean from Salon is for professional purposes rather than just entertainment, so when a relevant video comes up like this one, I can't just skip it even though video is annoying and time-consuming.
-
zzzzzzzzzzzz
The Mommy Wars ... boring
-
@farnsworth
I'm afraid the justification for the video is the Pfizer ad you (rightly) despise. I'm looking at three ads right now just typing into a simple text box. One ad is for the Air Force for chrissake. And I thought Salon was a bastion of liberal group think. I wonder how many Salon readers are going to click that and decide to join up. There is still enough good writing to be found that I stick around; but I must say that I don't think Joan Walsh has really done a very good job with the place. It's sort of what's it's always been, but with a lot more annoying ads of every kind. Maybe to get a few more dollars Salon should start spamming everybody.