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.
There's always a mix of both contempt and jealousy in these kinds of articles.