A Career Woman Responds
Forbes has reposted the column I referenced here, but only with a "career woman" responding. Note her defensive tone -- and her absolute inability to concede, even in theory, that there may be something to what her male counterpart is saying.
Whether or not one agrees with Noer’s points (and contrary to his female counterpart, he actually does rely on something other than his own opinions and warmed-over feminist jargon), Elizabeth Corcoran’s response is disappointing -- so laced with defensiveness and self-righteous grievance that it suggests that, in her heart of hearts, she may suspect that Noer has a point. Certainly women are entitled to have careers if they want them, but they do their own credibility and that of their cause great harm when they simply refuse to concede that there can be certain downsides (particularly for children) for two career families. Surely "career women" like Corcoran can’t get away with simply ignoring facts in the workplace, can they?
Ultimately, the point is that "career women" shouldn’t marry -- and shouldn’t want to marry -- men who, like Noer, don’t want to marry a "career woman." But they should be secure enough in their choices to restrain themselves from throwing a fit and taking to their fainting couches when a man criticizes them. After all, he’s entitled to voice the opinions that shape his life choices, just as they are -- even if he chooses to do so with a certain lack of gallantry.
Whether or not one agrees with Noer’s points (and contrary to his female counterpart, he actually does rely on something other than his own opinions and warmed-over feminist jargon), Elizabeth Corcoran’s response is disappointing -- so laced with defensiveness and self-righteous grievance that it suggests that, in her heart of hearts, she may suspect that Noer has a point. Certainly women are entitled to have careers if they want them, but they do their own credibility and that of their cause great harm when they simply refuse to concede that there can be certain downsides (particularly for children) for two career families. Surely "career women" like Corcoran can’t get away with simply ignoring facts in the workplace, can they?
Ultimately, the point is that "career women" shouldn’t marry -- and shouldn’t want to marry -- men who, like Noer, don’t want to marry a "career woman." But they should be secure enough in their choices to restrain themselves from throwing a fit and taking to their fainting couches when a man criticizes them. After all, he’s entitled to voice the opinions that shape his life choices, just as they are -- even if he chooses to do so with a certain lack of gallantry.
posted by LadybugUSA at 7:48 AM
3 Comments:
Tsk, tsk, tsk. Taking quotes out of context is a time worn method used to impune.
The complete quote from Mr. Noer's piece is:
"Wife or whore?
The choice is that simple. At least according to economists Lena Edlund and Evelyn Korn, it is. (emphasis added)
The two well-respected economists created a minor stir in academic circles a few years back when they published "A Theory of Prostitution" in the Journal of Political Economy. The paper was remarkable not only for being accepted by a major journal but also because it considered wives and whores as economic "goods" that can be substituted for each other. Men buy, women sell."
He then goes on to report later in his piece that, according to the authors of the book he is reviewing, "...Edlund and Korn admit that spouses and streetwalkers aren't exactly alike. Wives, in truth, are superior to whores in the economist's sense of being a good whose consumption increases as income rises--like fine wine. This may explain why prostitution is less common in wealthier countries. But the implication remains that wives and whores are--if not exactly like Coke and Pepsi--something akin to champagne and beer. The same sort of thing. (emphasis added)
Nowhere in this piece does Mr. Noer state or imply that he agrees with Edlund and Korn, nor with any of the others' quotes and ideas he cites. He may be sexist, but that allegation can't be proven from this article.
Tsk, tsk, tsk.
For a moment I was tempted. But since eddy didn't actually provide a hyperlink, I decided not to. That's OK. I'm not good with the linking stuff either. But I recalled all the times he inferred that which didn't exist in the comments of others, that I feel sure that Bachbone supplied all I need to know, and that to go through the trouble of reading it myself, I'd only be pissed off for eddy having wasted my time yet again.
I see a decent compromise on this issue. So here goes:
I have been happily married to a career housewife for some time. Here and there, she gets subtle cues from others that being a mere housewife is beneath her and a waste of time, especially since she is college-degreed.
If it's anyone's business, we determined that the amount of money she would take in would be almost entirely consumed by the cost of hiring help that would be involved. (We never considered hiring illegales.)
Moreover, professional help, professional though they may be, can't possibly trump Mom, especially as she is the best mother imaginable.
So here is my cease-fire proposal: Forbes and others completely lay off career women. Once and for all. Your journey is yours, and good luck. In exchange, the American left and in particular the Democratic party quits stigmatizing women who choose to be housewives. Contributors of this blog may not be among them, but they know who they are.
We lay off career women, and everyone else lays off of housewives. Deal, or No Deal?
Post a Comment
<< Home