From a NYT op-ed about the Glam SAHMs (glamorous stay-at-home-moms) of the Upper East Side of Manhattan, written by Wednesday Martin, who is identified as a writer and "social researcher." She has a memoir coming out called "Primates of Park Avenue."
4 stray thoughts:
1. The illustration at the link is really good.
2. Don't confuse this topic with the more general subject of stay-at-home mothers (a topic I prefer to call single-earner household). This is about how very rich people structure things.
3. It made me think of that excellent Woody Allen movie "Alice."
4. The book title "Primates of Park Avenue" made me think of another title that it took me a long time to drag out of the 1980s canyon of my mind: "Slaves of New York." Remember that? Tama Janowitz. That was a big deal back in the days of "Bright Lights, Big City" and "Less Than Zero." Here's the NYT review of it from 1986, by Jay McInerney (the author of "Bright Lights, Big City"):
Eleanor longs for the good old verities of marriage, the kind of legal bondage under which she'd have a few enforceable rights... Heroically passive, Eleanor has half a mind to think about doing... something. ''If I ever get some kind of job security and/or marital security, I'm going to join the feminist movement.''
When a friend calls from Boston to say she's thinking of moving back to New York and living with her old boyfriend, Eleanor advises her not to do it. She'll be a slave. ''Your only solution is to get rich, so you can get an apartment and then you can have your own slave.''
पोस्ट्स
३८ टिप्पण्या:
"Your only solution is to get rich, so you can get an apartment and then you can have your own slave.''
Was Umm a Glam SAHM?
You look "Wednesday Martin" up and you discover she's a real piece of work. Divorced with two kids of her own at 35; meets and falls in love with a divorced father of two girls who's 42. Marries him.
As far as the new stepdaughters were concerned, Wednesday was "fun" when she was Daddy's girlfriend, but became a Stepmonster. Making lemonade out of lemons. Ms. Wednesday wrote and published a book "Stepmonster".
I dunno--she's one of those too precious people in New York City. The woes of Manhattanites are beyond me--not that I care all that much. I'm sort of a one marriage, one wife guy--I can relate to that. I may be in a minority, but I'm not too concerned about it.
No Things Not Believed tag?
Reminds me of the term "'Gorillas in the Mist' Journalism, if anyone remembers that.
I've had some fun parodying that idea over the years!
The minute I read "Wednesday Martin" I thought of "Tuesday Weld"
The House of Mirth is the real Slaves of New York.
The House of Mirth is the real Slaves of New York.
Generally, I think, the "wife bonus" is, in fact, a percentage of the husband's bonus, which is a perfectly rational method of managing household income. The part about a wifely performance component (sexual or otherwise) is kind of a joke.
@Althouse, your loyal readers want to know. Do you pay Meade a husband bonus for his work around the house?
Nothing in my experience compares to this sort of thing. Surgeons' wives do entertain but the e=rest is a mystery. It must be a New York thing.
Wednesday came across to me as a two-faced superficial bitch. These women welcome you into their club and you turn around and write a judgmental anthropological article on them. Othering them because they turned their marriage into a business transaction.
"If you don’t bring home tubers and roots, your power is diminished in your marriage. And in the world." Does Ms. Martin really believe that the gathering/farming women of polygamous African tribes actually enjoy more relative power in their marriages than these Upper East Side stay-at-home moms? Anthropology has obviously metastasized into a mere outgrowth of Feminist/Ethnic Studies, where all observations are contorted into evidence demonstrating the feminist/racialist pieties of 1974.
Clearly these wives need to organize as a union. Living wage, paid vacation, dental - what am I missing?
Last decade the mini-series Starter Wife with Debra Messing covered the issue comprehensively with humor.
Aren't most of these wives the daughters of rich men with trust funds of their own? One learns to chair charity events at one's mother's knee, after all.
She gave them some disclosure but not full disclosure.
A real anthropologist would have gotten into serious research-on-human-subjects trouble.
The illustration was clever, but I don't think it was especially apt.
It was better than the story, though.
Or maybe I should ask Meade ...
The writer has laid too much hope and store in money. Also, positions on boards.
You have to consider the context in which this article is being published. In the New York Times. Whose primary audience is probably comprised -- in good part -- of exactly the kind of women who are the subjects of the article.
Viewed in that context, the article is -- whatever the pretensions of its author -- best understood as flattery of its subjects. Something that reinforces their sense of distinctiveness and importance. And perhaps offers them the chance to enjoy a brief frisson of condescension at the poor rube who has come among them to write such twaddle.
No one remembers that you were on a board. If they do remember, it will only be in brainstorming candidates for other boards. Someday there may be a wall with your name printed on it that no one looks at. Some boards are worthwhile, lots aren't. It's only the actual work and its results that matter. Simply being on a board doesn't matter.
When I worked for a law firm, I noticed that mostly women did the pro boner work.
Blogger Freeman Hunt said...
No one remembers that you were on a board.
Bored w/ boards!
I do, in fact, remember many things.
I did, in fact, choose some things among many things at various different points in time.
I agree with Freeman Hunt that no one will remember when *you* were on board. I am one of *those* people. I'd prefer to do well by my son, and, if it can work out, well enough by folks from 10-12-14 years ago.
She herself is the wife of a much more wealthy, accomplished and powerful man:
https://sipa.columbia.edu/faculty/joel-moser
I rather doubt that her earnings could pay for her lifestyle in Manhattan let alone afford her the pleasures of a second home in Sag Harbor. Her playacting at being a strong, independent woman is hilarious when one considers the privilege that she married into.
To be clear: Freeman Hunt gave me good advice, indirectly, and that it is what underpinned this:
I agree with Freeman Hunt that no one will remember when *you* were on board. I am one of *those* people. I'd prefer to do well by my son, and, if it can work out, well enough by folks from 10-12-14 years ago.
That said, I was learning some stuff well before Freeman Hunt was. (Sorry, just sayin'.)
Hell, I was even learning some stuff along-side when Althouse herself was, way back when, only she got the benefit of being born a decade-ish earlier that I was, right?
(Sorry: I am NOT sorry for just sayin' that.)
What is it about women who insist on starting and re-starting start-times on timelines?
nudge, nudge.
This economic arrangement seems based on the idea that women are still in an earning position (getting paid to take care of the household and children), as though that is important and gives them a sense of power and control.
The best part of a good marriage though, IMO, is the ability to relinquish control to someone that you trust completely.
Reminds me of Unbreakable Kimmy Scmidt, but I highly doubt every single male character in this story is bisexual or flaming gay like in the Netflix bigoted, racist program.
Having the child "Buckley" bash black queers is edgy I guess.
Betty Draper died for your sins.
Big Mike said...
"Or maybe I should ask Meade ..."
Show me your anthropologist credentials.
I wonder to what degree such a "contractual" view of marriage represents a jewish perspective.
Yeah, since we're discussing NY financiers.
I can't share details of my tribal life with just anyone. Without the proper training, you could become "thunderstruck" upon learning of all my bonuses.
"No Things Not Believed tag?"
Indeed. I found myself becoming highly skeptical at this ("wife bonuses!") point, wondering if we had entered Stephen Glass territory, or alternatively the author took some throwaway inside joke term and turned it into a Real Thing.
@Meade, it's 10:30 Eastern, and so far this Blue Monday has been much worse than most. Then I read your response to my impertinent, tongue-in-cheek comment, and the day has brightened. Much obliged.
Oh my God this article is so fake.
Seriously if you believe this nonsense you should talk to a doctor.
"Aren't most of these wives the daughters of rich men with trust funds of their own? One learns to chair charity events at one's mother's knee, after all.
Some likely are. Others may be women who married their college sweetheart who just happens to have become a great fund manager. This isn't really an old money thing - many of the big funds are pretty new (at least in NY terms) - all you have to do to get in the club is be very smart, obsessively hard-working and damned lucky - it's easy! :)
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा