Letters to the Editor
-
This was unreadable
For God's sake, couldn't you have found someone who could even manage to get a word in edgewise, or make something readable out of this mishmash?
Not Traister's finer moment...
-
It must be easy to be right...
when all you argue with are strawmen. Seriously, couldn't Ms. O'Beirne discussed any of the various flavors of feminism besides the hetero, white, middle class feminism of the late 70s and early 80s? Over and over I kept getting the feeling that this was a personal vendetta against some campus feminists of her past who called her a 'weak-minded tool of the patriarchy', and that her entire punditry career is an attempt to get back at them. Ms. O'Beirne, the world is not all about you. It does not end and begin with your perceptions of the world. Talk to some people outside of your little bubble of experience and you'll see that.
Oh, and learn how to listen, for god's sake! No wonder you fight against strawmen. I can't imagine you've ever really listened to anyone in your entire life.
-
I DO agree with some of what this woman has to say
And part of me, as I'm reading this, is saying "does anybody really CARE?"
And another part of me is saying, well, yeah, of COURSE I'd like to stay home! I have female friends with no kids who don't work. Part of me would like to do the same. However, I have no choice in the matter.
But I do have to take issue with this:
Because there's tons kids learn from their fathers! Look what happens to boys who don't have fathers! They become hyper-male; they don't have male role models, they're joining gangs. They bristle against the matriarchy they're in. The data is incredible about fatherless boys.
This is just anecdotal, but my boyfriend's father died in an industrial accident when he was 9 years old, and he isn't described by the quote above AT ALL. I think it's got more to do with poverty and poor education than lack of a father.
-
Desperate House-husbands
Kate O'Beirne's argument for men in the workplace and women at home is absolutely correct. Traister says, "You're accepting that society won't ever validate a man who stays home! That's a big trade-off!" to which O'Beirne replies, "But it's not my opinion! Find me one. Find me one in the history of recorded mankind."
Although I am sure we could find one man who has been validated for staying home - at least one in the history of recorded mankind - the January 15 episode of "Desperate Housewives" reinforces O'Beirne's point. Lynette Scavo asks Tom to have a vasectomy, which he is unable to do, saying he feels "emasculated." She shrugs off his concern, only to have him remind her that he no longer brings money home - thus is financially impotent-, and a vasectomy would render him physically impotent. When she tells him there is nothing wrong with him staying home (enter Traister's opinion--e.g. the feminist's plug), he tells her he is not happy.
Interesting that such a highly rated show, typically so risque, is reinforcing traditional family values, especially a mother staying home with her children.
-
On marriage at least, O'Beirne hits it
Rebecca Traister asks, "Is your take that people in unhappy marriages should stay in those marriages?"
Kate O'Beirne's answer was absolutely on the mark.
People who report being unhappy in their marriages are typically not happier after getting divorced. Women included. Look it up.
Greg
-
Oh SALON
Salon, Salon, Salon...
When are you going to hire some real working mothers to take on these antifeminist Whack-o's? I'm not talking about freelance writers at their computers while their kids gamboll around their feet. I'm talking about women who have to drop their toddlers off at a daycare and get into an office EVERY day. Rebecca Traitser is smart and I think she's coming from the right place politically, but she has no clue about the challenges and rewards of being a working parent.
Yes, most working moms I know want to work part time, but there is a genuine lack of serious professional opportunities that allow a woman to work part time. Traitser is so clueless about the challenges parents face when it comes to daycare and work.
Please PLEASE hire some more working parents to write about this schism. It's just not meaningful coming from somebody who isn't living through it.
-
Why not present O'Brien's words without a butt kissing intro?
It's no wonder Rebecca Traister got bulldozed by Kate O'Beirne. Her work is generally myopic, with little depth of knowledge beyond her own experience and few buzzwords. With gender politics, where she seems to have no view beyond her own position as single New York working in media.
Consider "Attack of the Listless Lads", based on her own dating history and quasi-crush on Kunkel, and written as if indicisive men had never existed in recorded culture before.
Traister may have a wide ranging curiosity in real life, but she doesn't bring it to her writing. Thus she was caught out by the usual talking points and deceptive rhetoric (including the "all sex is rape" canard"). Traister also seems to equate aggression with merit, and thus fell for O'Beirne's glib belligerence as if this is the same as someone who is truly confident their arguments are valid.
Traister also exhibits the usual moderate left groveling which occurs whenever a right winger turns out to be more sane and articulate than whatever fantasy nutbag they expected. Without the ass kissing intro implying O'Beirne "won" some debate, the interview itself would appear more neutral and Kate's words more self-incriminating.
-
Why Salon sent Trainster and not Faludi
all the people whining about salon's choice of reporter:
1) O'Beirne would never agree to go to lunch with Susan Faludi. Salon must send someone who doesn't threaten O'Beirne, because this isn't meet the press, this is done to promote her book, and O'Beirne is not going to interview with anyone who would make her look bad.
2) But, Traister made her look bad anyway, so, kudos.
3) "Staying together for the kids" being beneficial is partly a myth. Both my boyfriend and I come from divorced families, and believe it or not, kids pick up on the fact that all is not well in ther family much earlier and much younger than people suspect. IF you stay together resenting each other, you will be setting that as an example for your children, and that's not necessarily good. Both by bf and i think that it would have been better if our parents had divorced earlier than they did (both sets of parents stayed together for the kids and divorced when we were in our late teens).