Letters to the Editor
-
mmefiori, you seem obsessed!
You seem absolutely obsessed with your hatred of mothers. Almost all your posts revolve around the theme that mothers are lazy (!) subhuman creatures not fit for polite society. Putting aside your arguments about child care and the wage gap -- reasonable people can have honest differences on those questions -- you seem to believe that raising a child is an ignoble and dishonorable thing to do. Do you hate mothers of adopted children, too? Do you hate fathers? After all, fathers love their children and actually -- gasp! -- participate in their upbringing. Do you hate your own mother, or were you somehow born without a mother?
-
Whether to weather or not to weather
A personal note: I was struck by O'Beirne's treatment of the question of fundamental personal satisfaction in marriage, in particular her refererence to "Seething sorts of resentment that people can weather...."
Man, there's a universe in that verb "weather," particularly when used in the same sentence with "seething resentment." I think most practicing psychological clinicians would have a word or two to say about that. The implications for families--composed, as they are, of human beings--are many and significant, AND seem to be given short shrift here by O'Beirne.
-
data? what data?
Somebody please do this for me- call me lazy, call me busy. Whenever O'Beirne quotes "data" that overwhelmingly support her claims, there is nothing in what she sais other than "data" to back them up. Perhaps the numbers are in the book, but my money is not going to her. Will anyone, ever, take up on such "data" and see whether it is legitimate or, why would I think that, bogus?
Interesting retort for Salon, wouldn't it be?
-
O'Beirne Should Stay-At-Home
Since Mrs. O'Beirne rejects the objectives and accomplishments of feminism, she should relinquish each and every one of the benefits she has derived from them.
Clearly, if we were all living in 1957 along with Mrs.O'Beirne, an old gal such as herself would be at home - baking pies, tending the grandbabies, polishing the Old Man's shoes. Instead, this lady is out in the business world, writing a book, going on the T.V., and imposing her retarded world views on others.
Mrs. O'Beirne's career would not have been an option in the pre-feminist Stepford she advocates.
-
Kate O'Beirne is the Sean Colmes of the Right...
Kate O'Beirne isn't a real right-wing anti-feminist. If she were, she wouldn't be a laywer. She did not spend her life barefoot and pregnant, nor did she spend it taking Valium in Stepford.
Now, she is challenging some of the recent political issues taken up in the name of 'feminism.' Stuff like legally enforced equal pay, subsidized day-care, etc. But these things should not be considered close to the heart of feminism, at least as I understand it.
Once upon a time, women were not allowed to vote, and were discouraged from holding property. Things changed at the turn of the century, and still more during WWII, then the 50's came along, and reaction set in.
What Kate O'Beirne is, is a conservative feminist. She
* expects to be able to go to an elite school.
* expects to be able to hold down a job as a high-powered lawyer, (or as an author.)
* has significant wealth in her own name, not her husband's.
* is perfectly willing to vote for women, so long as they are not liberal.
* expects to be respected if she does conform to a traditional role.
None of these things are in opposition to feminism as I understand it.
What she opposes are on the traditional divide between conservatives and liberals: the tension between economic egalitarianism and economic libertianism. Surely there's plenty of room for common ground here; she's a lot closer to Betty Friedman than she is to Pat Robertson.
-
It's the econonmy, stupid!
Could we, just for a moment get in touch with reality? After all the nebulous 'data' references, I'd like to see one woman, just one, who decided to go out and get a job because Gloria Steinam told her she should have one.
Wake up and smell the WSJ. It's called Capitalism.
The nuclear family is the the most prominent small business in the United States and the simple fact is that competition of other families who have resorted to dual incomes to get the standard of living they desire, children or not, has made it a necessity over the past thirty years for both adult members of the nuclear family to work. The fact that financial independence for women is a by-product of this free-market economy of the home has of course affected women's choices for sticking around when they are fiscally solvent on their own. So they are outsourcing their men! Big deal! Men have been doing it for eons, when production of offspring meant more capital gains for themselves, they'd get another wife! Feminism, pundits and patriarchy have nothing to do with it. It's the economy, stupid!
-
The need to work is deeply engrained in our DNA
I've seen a lot of articles and books in the last 20 years that revised the understanding of primitive and ancient women. For one thing, women hunted. They stayed closer to camp, and they used nets and clubs, but they definitely hunted. And they didn't do that inside their huts, as a household chore. They went out to the nearby fields and forests and netted and clubbed small animals.
Now that counts as working outside the home. And someone had to watch the kids while they did it.
Early humans could not survive without the full energy output of all adults involved in the labor of food gathering and shelter and clothing creating.
I think that's why so many modern women have revolted against this new modern idea that women should sit home and play with small children all day.
I think our basic survival instinct gets triggered by the modern stay at home life because our primitive ancestors would have starved to death if women had decided to stay home all day back then.
-
neither is the "best" option
>>I think that's why so many modern women have revolted against this new modern idea that women should sit home and play with small children all day.>>
Or watch soap operas. While it's true that the rich pundits don't take into account that there are many women who economically don't have the choice to stay at home, That fails to acknowledge that many women like to work regardless of family economics.
I'm sure a good deal of my friends could have survived on their husband's income and stayed home, but they get so much fulfillment and self-esteem from working that they chose to work. Staying at home is not only an economic luxury, but it's one of many options, and not exclusively the best.
That's what I balk at, that the only reason a woman would work is because of economic desperation, that she doesn't get any deep fulfillment and definition from it. It's also untrue that working, is the "worse" choice for the child. Being in daycare or at home with mommy has not be proven to have any overall effect on the child's development. My observation has been that kids who go to daycare learn social skills earlier and are better at making friends and dealing with social situations. But it all evens out in the end.