The fruits of the feminist revolution: eight hours a day in a cubicle.

http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200807/working-moms

by asciilifeform • 17 years ago

32 56 17 years ago

erlanger2• 17 years ago

It's never been easy to have your cake and eat it too.

pj8• 17 years ago

I had a single mother and she loathed the feminist revolution. She said it was because of the feminists going back to work and creating dual income families that it was financially more difficult on single parents.

Before the feminist revolution, most families survived just fine on a single income, that of the father.

mahmud5• 17 years ago

Well, that's just a single anecdote isn't it? I am a fucking Arab and I can tell you this; our economies are paralyzed because Arab nations are operating at half speed since women are pretty much outside the work force (or if they're working, they're underpaid, under utilized, or most bloody likely, worked to exhaustion but uncredited.)

The fact that here we have a group of men discussing the "problems" of feminism doesn't mean feminism is bad. It just means you guys don't like it; which is fine, you're not supposed to like an ideology that's out to make your social model of a benevolent-patriarch-at-the-helm obsolete. I come from a place where men's judgment and leadership has consistently failed.

calambrac• 17 years ago

I've never crunched the numbers myself or seen any formal studies, but the perception that the second income in dual-income families usually goes right into costs that would have been avoided had someone stayed at home is pretty widespread. I don't mean to be rude by asking, but did your mother have the kind of help that married couples can take for granted (say, from extended family), or did she have to do it all herself?

mahmud5• 17 years ago

Feminism gives women the right to choose their destiny in life. If they want grueling 8 hours in a cubicle over the "comfort" of being "taken care of" by a loving, all-providing Man, so be it.

Men constantly choose to have their cake and eat it too. They have careers, but they also have families. Men's right to choose the life they want is never questioned, so why are the life choices of women under such scrutiny?

wensing2• 17 years ago

"Men constantly choose to have their cake and eat it too. They have careers, but they also have families."

There's not much special about have-ing a family. Almost anyone can create children and/or get married. The question for both men and women is: what are we missing by allowing ourselves to be taken out of the home and sent our separate ways?

I (a man) ended up leaving my cube job fully convinced that a startup run from or very close to home is the next step towards my goal of a family business.

erlanger2• 17 years ago

> Men constantly choose to have their cake and eat it too.

The point of that expression is that it's impossible. Neither men nor women can stay home with their kids while working a full day at the office.

ilyak4• 17 years ago

In Russia, this problem was solved maybe in 1960s: A thick network of kindergardens will take care of children during workdays, while both parents work full-time.

You can also hang your children on their babushka, if she lives somewhere near.

danteembermage• 17 years ago

I don't think having children really fits well with the feminist paradigm. While tricky, it's certainly possible to change the world and raise children at the same time, I just get the sense that a personification of the women's movement might say something like "Well you certainly can do that, and more power to you if you can!". It seems like child-rearing is relegated to a hobby that distracts from the real work, like gardening or going to the symphony. I don't think there are many people actively hostile toward mothering, but it just doesn't seem all that valued in society.

For example, suppose an individual took child development and nutrition classes because it would help make them a better parent. Would that garner the same lever of respect as, say, studying for the bar or going to french club.

If parenting isn't valued, but a lot of it still has to go on, the result isn't a happy contented society.

blurry2• 17 years ago

Feminism: a paradigm that advocates equal rights for men and women.

How exactly does having children contradict the above? Which rights should I have lost last month when I gave birth to my baby?

jerf2• 17 years ago

People play endless games with the word "right" here, to the point that the word is meaningless. Do you have the "right" to be as dedicated to work as a childless 21-year-old whose primary goal in life is to climb a corporate ladder? Then, perhaps, "feminism" says "no children for you!" Or perhaps it demands free child care, then demands that your relationship to the child not suffer when you're not the primary caregiver.

Note how I scarequoted the word "feminism" since it would only be one particular variant of an itself-poorly-defined word. (That variant definitely does exist, though.) Such a variant would argue that you have lost a multitude of such "rights", which you may not agree with.

Nobody (or close enough it doesn't matter) is saying that you've lost anything like "the right to free speech" or any such "natural right" because you have a baby. (I personally would say you have a responsibility to it, but that goes equally for the father too. I say this as a father, but then, "parents have responsibility to their children" shouldn't be too controversial to most people.)

arebop• 17 years ago

It is relatively easy to measure the outcome of studying for the bar or going to French club. Clear benefits seem like a good explanation for society's willingness to ascribe high value to these activities, compared to activities with less measurable results.

lionhearted2• 17 years ago

I learned a lot about parenting from an amazing man I met in Barcelona. His son and he were staying in the same hotel as me, they were traveling Europe together after he just graduated college.

His son met a really cute Czech girl in Spain, so Dad rightfully gave him space. But the father and I really hit it off, so we'd sit at a Spanish bar and eat tortilla sandwiches and drink coffee and we had some really interesting chats. He's a very successful real estate developer from Los Angeles, even post-crash. He converts rental properties into vacation properties, which is a lot more work but can generate 3x-7x stable rents. (Of course, you've got to rent/clean/maintain/etc - definitely more active and risky money than standard landlording).

He told me about his family. After having his second son was born about 15 years ago, his wife got depressed and wanted to get out of the marriage and family life ASAP. She was breaking down mentally, basically, and wanted to run - fast.

So the man says, "I understand, that's fine, but you can't support yourself right now, and you'll need to be able to do that before we can get divorced. Even if I take the kids, they'll still spend a lot of time with you and you need to have a clean, nice place and income so they can have a nice life with you and be proud." She got into a nursing program, and got either a certificate or a degree in nursing. By the time she finished 2-4 years later, she's cleared up. They had another child and went on to both be very happy and successful. She pulls down $80k/year now as a nurse, and they've done very well investing too. His son seems like a hell of a guy, thoughtful, mature, intelligent, cultured, poised. The Dad's a very cool guy too. A good family.

One thing he told that made a lot of sense - "Sebastian, you've got to understand, kids are the most selfish, ungrateful creatures in the world when they're young. All they do is demand, demand, demand things, and they're not grateful at all. Later they realize and appreciate what you've done for them, but a woman who just raises kids pours in so much effort for so little gratitude and appreciation and respect...." He goes on to explain how the regular praise, promotions, and the steady paycheck are instant rewards and validations from work, and help a person's self esteem. He thinks any woman would do well to have at least some part time work or project that she gets respect, appreciation, and validation from - because kids won't provide that until they're 20+, and you need to not go crazy in the meantime.

Maybe now in the West, society doesn't value parenting as much as traditionally, so women get even less respect for being a good parent now. Not sure about that myself - if that's true, then it's even harder to raise children than historically. But his points really resonated with me - I've talked about it with all the girls I've dated. I personally date two types of women - hyper-driven, top of the game, ambitious high performance girls, and quite traditional, feminine, nurturing girls - and usually not much in between. But all of them, with some talking to, come to agree about keeping a part time project to help women stay sane. If I make my life with a traditional woman who is happy to be just a good mother and keep a good household, it'll still be good for her to do a little bit of work for the validation that comes from that. Even something small like teaching a one hour class twice a week, or doing some flower arranging for a couple local small businesses. Same with driven women - they'd go crazy if they completely hung up their spurs and only raised kids.

I'm probably a bit more traditional than most American men from the international cities - I place a lot of respect and value on having a woman who is very in tune with my emotions after a long day, can cook well, can clean and mend clothing well, and has mastered the other domestic skills, which I consider quite invaluable. It's less important to have hyper-intellectual conversations with my girl or play Chess with her - I get plenty of that with my male friends anyway. But even if I take the most traditional, old world European or Japanese girl to make a life with, I still think something that provides her that instant positive feedback is very good for happiness.

JimmyL• 17 years ago

This gut got lucky, specifically at this stage:

>> So the man says, "I understand, that's fine, but you can't support yourself right now, and you'll need to be able to do that before we can get divorced..."

The wife was well within her rights to say "screw you" to the guy, file for divorce with a contingency lawyer, and get a bunch in child support and income equalization from the guy - and probably custody too if she put a bit of effort in.

arithmetic• 17 years ago

What an insanely long, winding article. Get to the point already!

bkovitz• 17 years ago

In these post-Lisa-Belkin-New-York-Times-Magazine-“Opt-Out” years, we’ve now learned the worst: even female Harvard graduates are fleeing high-powered careers for a kinder, gentler Martha Stewart Living. Not only does the Problem Have a Name, it has its own line of Fiestaware!

What? Huh? This article is written in such überhip language, I can't tell what it says.

nickpp• 17 years ago

Same here - after trying hard to read each long, pointless paragraph I was wondering: what is she saying? I gave up after the first third of the article.

wyw• 17 years ago

Upvoted for the title. The article not so much.

alex_c• 17 years ago

What an incredibly succinct way to sum up how the decline in quality on social news sites occurs. Thank you, I'll have to remember that phrase.

mynameishere• 17 years ago

So much naval-gazing. Feminism is on Darwin's chopping block. Simple as that. Unfortunately, the cleaver is mighty slow.

nico• 17 years ago

Men are not better than women or the other way around. But we are different, that's just a fact. We have to behave accordingly then, instead of trying to ignore those differences.

likpok• 17 years ago

http://www.psy.fsu.edu/~baumeistertice/goodaboutmen.htm

Interesting article talking about gender differences.

whimsy2• 17 years ago

This was also on HN a while back: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=589346

I find the version linked on HN, from dennisdutton.com, much more readable.

EDIT: Your link could be considered "closer to the source," though, seeing as it's the author's webpage rather than Dutton's.

jimbokun• 17 years ago

"it does not take well-developed political skills to rule over creatures smaller than you are, weaker than you are, and completely dependent upon you for survival or thriving."

Truly spoken as someone who has not spent much time caring for children. At least, I hope not. The implication that being smaller than you gives you more power, only makes sense if you are going to consistently use physical force to ensure compliance. The fact they are completely dependent on you only gives you power if you are willing to keep basic necessities from them to coerce them into compliance.

Otherwise, political skills are going to be pretty darn handy at times.

Tichy• 17 years ago

Isn't the talk about feminism mostly useless? I think technology is what really drives things forward. Frozen food, washing machines, dishwashers, industrially produced cheap clothes and stuff like that is what "frees" women, not some philosophical discussions.

In former times it was not just evil, suppressive men that constructed society as it was. The role models were necessary for survival.

sielskr• 17 years ago

Let's not forget that the OP does not reveal what women think, it reveals what women who went to Harvard and live in Manhattan think.

The fruits of the feminist revolution: eight hours a day in a cubicle.

Related Stories