A wildly unpopular view on why women behave this way was put forward by Esther Vilar's book "The Manipulated Man". It was written, when this kind of gender inequality was the norm, rather than something people in priviledged positions could afford. Arguably today there is noone forcing the women described in the article to behave this way, their actions and choices are their responsibility alone.
That being said, perhaps it's a requirement in order to belong to the rich white boys club to act in this manner. The super-rich are generally connected enough not to need assurances into prestigious universities for their kids, and those poorer can't always afford a non-working mother, or to give out "performance" bonuses.
Not sure you are being sarcastic with this comment or not.
These women choose that lifestyle. They choose not to work, but being stay at home moms. This is not the 50s, where women had a lot less opportunities, many were discouraged go to college, etc.... Even the author mention that women make the majority of college grads, and have all kinds of opportunities today. Being a stay at home mom is not a necessity.
They got their easy mode on life, by deciding to marry rich, and not bother with working, and the stresses of work as the rest of us have to. No need to feel pity over them. I am sure in case of a divorce, many of them have multi-million dollars prenups, money that the rest of the population will not earn in a lifetime.
They are definitely not oppressed, it is not like they are forced in this role in any way. Presumably to even be in the position to marry an investment banker you need considerable education of your own, it's just that maybe they chose to study Anthropology or History of Art and so they are not as profitably exploitable as their husbands.
To deny the women in question agency and not see their situation as a direct consequence of their actions is in many ways more sexist, than to actually see their situation as the result of a concious choice that is available to them because they are women, highly valued by certain types of men.
i can't even tell if you're serious, but there is a limit to how far SJW bullshit can fly, and claiming the kept wives of hedgefund managers are somehow 'oppressed' is pretty obviously beyond that threshold.
if you want to retain any credibility for your views, you need to learn when and where to apply your reality-distortion efforts.
I know of no definition of "oppressed" that applies to these women, and calling them so does a disservice to those who truly are. Even if they were, there is no evidence of fraud or coercion, so we must conclude the exchange (marriage) is, at least, mutually beneficial.
The problem isn't that these women choose to be with men that provide for them economically. They have every right to do so and they shouldn't be shamed for it. Staying at home and raising kids is very hard and respectable work.
The bigger issue is that women are highly unlikely to be in the position that the men are in this story. There are many cultural barriers to entry for women to reach those positions if they so desire, despite their "prestigious post-graduate degrees". The hierarchies described in the stories only perpetuate this narrative.
The bigger issue is that women are highly unlikely to be in the position that the men are in this story.
Sure, there aren't very many wealthy female hedge fund managers or CEOs but there are tons of women who are the sole breadwinners for stay-at-home husbands.
As of 2007, 2.7% of parents are stay-at-home dads[0]! That's up from less than 1% in 1997. I don't know what the numbers are today but I don't think it's unreasonable to believe they're even higher. There are A TON of women graduating from college these days and not nearly so many wealthy male hedge fund managers to marry.
It would be interesting to know how life is structured for upper class in countries with much better gender parity in high-end jobs. Northern Europe maybe?
Maybe we'll find out it behaves more like upper middle class, and income extremes are rare.
That's like saying an apple will never be an orange. These woman are where they are because of the life choices they make. The theory that there are barriers preventing them from doing something else is not at all supported from the evidence given in the article. The article does not even mention any attempts to do something else, nor barriers encountered.
There's the root of censorship, right there. Justified with presumed intentions and subjective feelings instead of the content.
> Staying at home and raising kids is very hard and respectable work.
It is, but it's not enough. The kids also need shelter, food, schooling, healthcare and all those things that cost money. Money that the hard-working stay-at-home mom is not bringing to the household.
> The bigger issue is that women are highly unlikely to be in the position that the men are in this story.
What if they don't want to? They have the education, they have the degrees, they have the connections, but they prefer not to do any remunerated work outside the house. What if this is for them the good life we all dream of in one way or another?
I suspect she started out with the thesis that women who don't work, do unpaid community service, raise children, try to look attractive, etc, are "oppressed", and it has nothing to do with table seating. But they really aren't. She mentions women foraging for tubers as a contrast, but, eh... In some traditional societies, the women do all the work, and the men spend their time in lazy indolence or in fighting with each other. Those are the women who are oppressed. And they don't get to be "empowered" somehow in the bargain.
There's always a mix of both contempt and jealousy in these kinds of articles.
At the very least she lost credibility as an anthropologist when citing a select few tribes and their dealings with women. Surely there are many, many more tribes and situations with different approaches to solving the problems the environment presents to them. As well as birds where the females are not foraging all the time.
It's not about oppression. It's about honor. The author is a bit humiliated that these rich and educated women chose the path of least resistance and are perfectly happy to lead a parasitic life.
It's rather sad to discover that the group who's "liberation" you dedicated your professional life to doesn't really want to be liberated.
Forced?
I'm sure some of those couples are based on love (or whatever you might want to name it), but I would not be the least surprised if most of them are trophy wives, objectified to hell and back, liable to get dumped/have money fountain dialed back when they become "obsolete"
Seems quite plausible, especially in light of effective sex segregation mentioned in the article
In the case described in the article the males are obviously getting something out of the symbiotic relationship, but it's nowhere near what the females are getting. I'm sticking to my figurative use of "parasitism" to describe the imbalance.
Do you know of any other way they could procreate and provide the best environment for their children to grow in, all the while keeping a high social status and level of respectability?
"procreate and provide the best environment for their children to grow in, all the while keeping a high social status and level of respectability"
This is the bargain they've made. It's a rather simple exchange. "Parasitic" is a loaded term here, by applying it you're displaying that you have some sort of political axe to grind.
This was also the sentiment being expressed above, when someone said that what you said sounded "judgmental" -- an accusation that you dismissed by being, or pretending to be, oblivious to it's true intent: "you're attaching pejorative terms to these women, without enough information to make a fair case for it."
It's an obviously imbalanced exchange. We don't take intestinal worms out of the parasites category just because they help us prevent autoimmune diseases.
> you're attaching pejorative terms to these women, without enough information to make a fair case for it
No, I'm just trying to be objective. If I wanted to insult them I could have called them prostitutes with a single, long-term client.
Once again, the words you choose betray antipathy towards women. Each phrase is packed with loaded words; it makes it impossible to have a legitimate discussion.
Sorry for whatever experiences you've had that led to this.
It's better to refrain from attributing and condemning hidden intent and thoughtcrime. Let's stick to what's explicit when we communicate and maybe we'll avoid wasting each other's time.
I remember reading a feminist opinion piece that economic dependency should be equivalent to abuse, and thus should be treated in similar way we handle drug abuse or alcohol abuse. A adult with their health intact should support themselves, and choosing not to do so will put the person at higher risk for unbalanced relationships, lower self-esteem, and increase gender inequality.
Realistically we live in a society where a minority of people can really support themselves; most people actually rely on some sort of subsidy (be it tax breaks, welfare, social security).
Maybe we should instead practice substitution therapy, i.e. basic income?
Yes, please to basic income. Economic dependency is a problem for both women and men. Many people stay in unhappy and unhealthy relationships because of money, and many people stay in jobs that they hate and that are harmful to society because of money.
I spend my time around a lot of feminist circles, and I would say that most feminists don't believe this. They would suggest that economic dependency should be a choice, and if so, there is a viable alternative for them if that choice ends up not working out.
Personally I think the reasonable argument would be that women should be able to reach the same status as men in the article if they choose to do so, without the socioeconomic barriers to entry that they will inevitably face in the process. If women in society have absolutely no choice but to depend on men economically, then that's where the problem is.
"In the book, which I co-edited, 20 of us take on different topics that have become part of the “choice feminism” landscape: from pornography and prostitution, to female genital mutilation, from women’s magazines and marriage, to sexual violence. While coming from a range of different perspectives, we all critique the notion that “choice” should be the ultimate arbiter of women’s freedom."
The TLDR version: there are no real choices for women as they're limited by their status in society, etc. The idea of "choice" is comical to them.
If "most feminists" believe choice is the key freedom, they better speak out or risk being drowned out.
Your own quote shows that this tweet is a fringe attack against a theme in feminism - it is a counter against 'choice feminism'. It's clearly a statement by a edge concept against a central theme.
>If "most feminists" believe choice is the key freedom, they better speak out or risk being drowned out.
Indeed, also in your link is the quote (in only the second paragraph): "Read almost any online article about feminism and the comments will soon devolve into a debate about choice.". It seems that the feminists are already doing what you're demanding, but you're... ahem... choosing to ignore them to make your point.
Anyway, if you read the article, it says the same thing that your quoted section does - that choice itself isn't bad, but that it should stop being used as the 'ultimate arbiter', including examples where the author considers 'but it's her choice' to be undermining feminism. She doesn't say 'choice' is bad, but her argument is to stop having 'choice' used as a trump card.
Simone de Beauvoir, famous feminist thinker, said that no woman should be allowed to stay at home with her children because it would be too easy and comfortable. (quoted from memory, not sure about the exact words).
I highly doubt that this is the kind of economic dependence that they were referring to.
There are many more women who choose to forego their own education or career advancement to stay at home to raise a family, and without the income of their husband would be destitute. If their husband becomes abusive, for example, they can be quite literally trapped in the relationship because they have no other means of supporting themselves or their children.
In contrast, the women in the article seem to be perfectly capable of leaving whenever they choose. Many of them have excellent education and career experience, and many of them also come from wealthy families who could help them. In the event of divorce, many of them would undoubtedly collect sizable settlements from prenups and possibly alimony.
There's nothing wrong with the choice that they've made, but it remains a choice.
The author through her cultural lens is passing some fairly strong judgment. The women are highly educated and highly intelligent. They've decided to play a supporting role in the relationship. Many decisions that would otherwise seem illogical make perfect sense when judged within the context of raising a family. The women in this article understand it very well, I think.
Yes, in public the men and women may be segregated, but behind closed doors, wives and husbands talk and plan. Although not always obvious, it is very likely that their husband's social and economic stature is bolstered by activities of their wives, which according to this article have no value.
His social and economic standing because of her actions is probably much higher than if they were to both have a separate job. Not to mention that they get to raise children who get to spend plenty of time with at least one parent, the value of which is almost never taken into consideration these days.
> Not to mention that they get to raise children who get to spend plenty of time with at least one parent, the value of which is almost never taken into consideration these days.
Nonsense. People don't shut up about 'quality time', and talk more about parenting time with kids than ever before. If anything, the problem is something of the opposite - 'helicopter parents' who are always around and always protecting kids from failure may be making their kids less resilient and less capable of dealing with problems. But the idea that few people consider parental time with children to be valuable is just not true.
> If anything, the problem is something of the opposite [...]
It is certainly possible for society to have both problems of "parents don't spend enough time with their children" and "parents are micromanaging their children" simultaneously when the distribution of parental tendencies bimodal about both sides of whatever is optimal.
What is particularly worrisome, in my opinion, is the slow creep of market values into our daily lives. "Performance bonuses" to spouses? WTF? What happened to the sense of duty that comes from filial piety and love?
Economics has no business inside a household. People oughta leave it in the market place where it belongs.
WTF is one way of looking at it. Another way is - it is between two perfectly consenting, smart people. If they want to write such prenups, why should you and I care?
The other day I was watching a talk by a professor on financial incentives - one of the topics he touched upon was whether we should use financial incentives to encourage kids to read (2 dollars per book, some schools are already trying it). The audience gave reasons for both sides of the debate and it was quite interesting. Point is, we are already using financial incentives for all kinds of things that feel weird (paying kids to read?). I personally don't think this is a great idea but I'm sure many people would disagree. So why not in personal lives too?
>What happened to the sense of duty that comes from filial piety and love?
Probably got mashed up in the potential divorce court paperwork.
What I'm really curious about is how you come to negotiate such terms and how that conversation plays out, but it really wouldn't surprise me if both sides approached the marriage in rational, economic terms and enjoyed that approach.
You may be interested in this article written by a couple that doesn't agree with you. Granted, they seem to be extreme outliers in many other ways, but it's evidence that it works for some people.
Nothing, man. I feel this society is too alien for me. One of these days I'm going to quit it and go live on a farm.
Perhaps I feel this way because I am an immigrant and family culture is very different in my (Asian) country. I just cannot fathom such calculating behavior when it comes to relationships.
If this is oppression, aren't all employee/employer relationships oppressive? After all, just like the men in this article, an employer could choose to not pay you for any reason. It is they who "gather" money from customers, not you.
And it's not even like these women couldn't support themselves (and their kids) if they had to. They are smart, they have degrees. They have enormous and powerful social networks.
No, they are exactly where they want to be - they get all the material benefits of having a successful career, minus the stress, plus the family time. It's a strange life, but to call it oppressive is offensive to women who are truly oppressed. Oppression is not having options, and these women have every option possible in this world.
If you don't want to be in this position then don't marry one of these guys. Find a man that values your career and will take care of the kids. Pretty simple.
I am responding to what apparently is the author's view. I didn't say that men defined these women's lifestyle and the women didn't choose to live this way.
It would seem to me that although on the surface it may seem that there is some sort of repressive sexism going on here, that simple economics can explain it all.
The year-end bonus is a very powerful form of behaviour conditioning and it would seem that the husbands have seen its power in their workplace lives and are simply using it as a tool to maximize their childrens opportunities
And finally, who are we (or anyone) to judge these women's choices? It's not like these were arranged marriages or that they were sold to these men.
In fact, it would seem to me that they were, and still are, competing for them with their advanced degrees and Flywheel exertions
It's just a somewhat unfortunate fact that we live in a world where money pretty much rules all, and these woman understand this and have made the choices necessary to make sure they are on the right side of the pile.
Where can you get an education for sitting on important boards? I'd like to sign up for that.
All the article says is they have an education. It doesn't say in which field - business administration, literature, engineering? I don't think all subjects are equal and the typical "education" certainly doesn't enable you to be an important board member.
Weird. Why would someone give a bonus to his wife? I can't even remotely get behind this way of thinking. Is this plain conditioning or a just playful kind of meme these rich people invented for fun?
It's part of a prenup, a way to level financial inequality in relationships where one partner makes a lot more than the other. It's not really a bonus, more a 'we distribute some income despite a prenup, depending on some objective measures'. I don't find it as weird as the author makes it out to be.
This uncannily describes some of the culture in the Bay Area too. Areas of wealth probably create such environments. For example, mother groups start spiraling cycles of outrageousness in their birthday parties for their infants and toddlers, either trying to impress or avoid boredom --- I haven't figured out which. It would probably help if we had more cultural support for stay-at-home parents, where they could focus their energy on community support, and not just the children.
There was a somewhat recent article about this dynamic on a forum that DC area women post on. It described a lot of type A personalities one-upping each other around how much their husbands make ($400k+ / year at the low end I think it was noted), what they paid for a baby carriage, how many vacations they go on yearly, etc. that all reminded me a lot of what kids do in high school. It was a bit embellished probably, but eating out here and there in Northern Virginia I've overheard a lot of really eye-rolling conversations of similarly shallow topics but also accompanied by a more chilling conversation of such incredible privilege that's so commonplace. I did a short count while I sat in a parking lot once and literally over 50% of the cars being driven were recent model German import luxury vehicles - I literally never saw a Mercedes Benz or even knew what BMW was by the time I was 13. For kids growing up in the suburbs here, you'd statistically expect the average household to have a $45k car.
I think a lot of the disgusting behavior is about the personality types and the values that tend to manifest among those types rather than anything intrinsic to wealth. A family member is extremely wealthy (.01%er) and from what I remember that household has never discusses business unless at a designated place and time. Perhaps this is simply an old money v. new money sort of contrast fundamentally.
It's pretty standard in anthropology circles that whoever can generate the greatest share of prosperity in a group (protein in primitive societies, money and influence in advanced) will have the greatest power.
So when such high power men get married, chances are pretty high that the women they marry will be less powerful, and thus relegated to a subservient position.
I wonder if there have been similar studies done of family structures where the woman is the primary breadwinner?
This is such waste. These women went to prestigious universities to earn degrees that they won't use. They are just parasites on their husbands' wealth, which in turn is generated through parasitic exchanges of companies' wealth valuations. They would do better to stop coddling their children and go back to work; that way, at least they could use their resources to better the world.
Don't you know yet that neurobiology has shown that free will/agency is a myth? (I'm also replying here to all the other comments about a so-called "choice") These women are culturally conditioned to think it's acceptable for them to not contribute back to society by being producers and they perpetuate making gender roles culturally acceptable.
> conditioned to think it's acceptable for them to not contribute back to society by being producers
Maybe you've been conditioned to think that raising children does not contribute to society. I guess having both partners working to death is the new normal. Such widespread belief might explain why employers don't respect paternity leaves.
That has nothing to do with the topic! The last line of my comment even mentioned paternity leave.
Some women gladly leave their career in favor of their children. Some men do it too, despite the stigma that "raising a child does not contribute back to society". Deal with it.
The problem (as someone already mentionned in this thread) being that you can't actually raise children without some prerequisite things that need to be produced. I'm actually arguing against sex-based division of labor. Women & men should echo do doing 50% of the producing and raising not women 100% of raising and men 100% of producing.
I bet a great many women do find complementary marriages, even to rich and powerful men... This social subcircle seems to be quite a curious arrangement.
My question is, if you're rich, why not hire dedicated tutors to help get the kids into college and manage the household, and save money on those 'mommy bonuses'?
I think the answer is because the type of women who do this actually enjoy the process of living a mega-rich lifestyle, "Many ran their homes (plural) like C.E.O.s.".
“It’s easier and more fun,” the women insisted when I asked about the sex segregation that defined their lives.
All we know about their status is that they "graduated". That doesn't imply that they are capable of becoming billionaires. If you think about it, the same is true for men - not every men who graduates in something becomes wealthy and powerful.
Much easier to find somebody who is already rich and powerful and latch on. In fact, it might be the smarter approach.
At first I thought the title was mocking. But I guess it veers more on the genuine side? Anyway, from a more middle-class perspective, it's a mockery to call these women oppressed in any way. They even apparently have some self-irony about their peculiar lifestyle, so it's not like they are psychologically trapped in this particular world. Even after having lived in it so long.
I shouldn't be so sensitive, though. The author is an anthropologist and I guess that's just how they write on these subjects.
