"I spend my hours doing what I want and have time to look after my body, cook nice meals and spend quality time with friends."
Says Emily de Rean, 37, who "previously worked as a financial analyst, but now lives off her boyfriend’s money after realizing she was unhappy climbing the corporate ladder," quoted in "I quit my job to be a full-time girlfriend: Get fit, cook and you can too" (NY Post).
She had already quit her finance job — and switched to being a nanny — when she met this rich boyfriend who "encouraged me to stop working and become a stay-at-home girlfriend, so I could have time to do something more productive."
More productive?! Did he mean that staying home and become a beautiful "angel in the house" for him is productive? No. Read further into the article. She "hopes to become an author." She's not just looking after her body, cooking nice meals, and enjoying her friends. She's writing. You need a lot of good mental space to write. Devoting your mind to finance is — I should think — likely to blot out the freely buzzing mind you need for writing. Being a nanny is surely better: You're constantly observing children. And yet the mind may tire observing the same things all the time, always at the child level.
But I clipped off the end of that hope. She hopes "to become an author and is now giving advice to other women looking to leave the workforce." Did she move into "full-time girlfriend" mode because she believed she had a novel worth writing, or did she genuinely want to be a "full-time girlfriend" and then imagined herself an the author of a self-help book advising other women to aspire to the full-time girlfriend life?
I clicked on this article from this post by Sarah Hoyt at Instapundit:
THE TRADITIONAL TITLES FOR THIS ARE “KEPT WOMAN”, “PECULIAR,” “CONVENIENT:” I quit my job to be a full-time girlfriend: Get fit, cook and you can too.
Listen to the advice of someone who has read a lot of historical biographies: before you give up the day job, make sure you have a ring and a license. Or at least a contract. Not only didn’t you invent this, your reinvention of the wheel is square.
That makes sense up to a point. It's certainly a caution to the readers of the self-help book de Rean might write. But de Rean herself does have a ring — displayed conspicuously in the silly photographs of her at the link. Her real theme is not so much "full-time girlfriend" as it is find a rich husband. I do think it makes sense to say that if your mate is really rich, your contribution to the household is not going to be your income, and if you have a job taking up much of your waking hours, you may have less to offer than a woman who devotes herself full time to looking great and cooking extensively. You might have more if your paying job is very interesting and energizing, but is that your job?
Now, I think the key point de Rean is making is that you don't have to have children. You can offer a great and worthy partnership to a working spouse without expanding the household position into the demanding field of parenthood. You can be a childless wife who does not work outside the home. That is a good way to live, and if you want it, maybe you can get it. Of course there are risks! But are these risks greater than the risks you take as a stay-at-home married mother? I don't think they are, but if they are, you're allowed to choose risks.
Let's turn around and look at it from the perspective of the partner who is out there earning the income, an income that is plenty to live on. What would he (or she) most like from a partner? It might be: Someone who has plenty of time and is happy and not frazzled or distracted. Somebody who pursues interesting things during the day — friends, art, reading — and can make good conversation at the end of the day. Someone who makes home life pleasant and beautiful and comfortable for you. Great food. Great sex. Everything lovely and in order in your home. What is the problem? What is this woman (or man) doing wrong?
Posts
74 comments:
Just wait until she gets older, loses her looks and he dumps her for a younger woman to have children with.
I was going to rant about how selfish it is to brag that other people's children will take care of her in her old age because she was too selfish to have children of her own, but she's already sponging off her husband, so she has already made it known that she has no shame.
As others have pointed out--she's doing it in the wrong order. Get the ring first. She's on the wrong side of 30 and every day brings a new risk that he will move onto the next bimbo before she has her alimony nailed down.
SugarDaddyism.
in the olden days, didn't they have a word for these women?
You know, when a rich man kept a woman; They had some word to describe it.. I remember! a Kept Woman!
There You GO, girls! Something to aspire to! Find yourself a Sugar Daddy, and become a Kept Woman!
After all, your goal in life wasn't to be a Whore... It was to be a HIGH PRICED WHORE!!!
You GO Girl!!!
"What would he (or she) most like from a partner?"
Sex. That's all well and good for the woman when she's young and dewy. What happens, honey, when you get old and saggy, because it comes for us all?
This is horrible. A homemaker -- someone who has no outside income -- risks much. As does a man who agrees to champion a woman who will remain home. The bond of marriage protects trust and vulnerability for both partners. The entire arrangement becomes dicey without an attempt at children, but that's another topic.
turn around and look at it from the perspective of the partner who is out there earning the income, and income that is plenty to live on. What would he (or she) most like from a partner?
Partner?
Well Obviously; if he earns enough, he'll want Partners, you know: Kept WOMEN
Once you start your Harem.. You'd be stupid (or poor) if you stopped at one.
The key to treating women as Objects; is to realize that women and Objects are both PLURAL
and when the BF drops her? stay tuned.
Without a ring and a license or at least a contract, the author has no financial security out of the relationship. The boyfriend can cast her aside whenever someone younger and prettier comes along. If she had children with him, castor no her aside becomes less easy. He would also owe her child support until any child turned 18. As it is, their arrangement sounds an awful lot like the clause in the vows from the 1989’s Flash Gordon movie, “. . . or until such time as you grow weary of her.”
In reality, just like people flocking to Hollywood to become actors and very few succeed, very few people become successful enough writers to be financially secure. If Emily de Rean’s boyfriend breaks up with her, unless she has a good deal of money in the bank, she is SOL as legally he doesn’t have to support her without that marriage license (even more so today with inflation running rampant and the price of gasoline going through the roof). Emily is just another entitled and lazy Millennial…
"The beauty says culinary skills are an important part of being a stay-at-home girlfriend ..."
Made me laugh. Plenty of cleavage in the photos, but alas, no pics of her home cooked meals.
>Stay at home girlfriend
>Don't have to get married
>Boyfriend with money
>37 years old
How old is her boyfriend? I'm just saying that there's something missing from this picture.
This is not a new attitude, but every generation reinvents the wheel. The ghost of Hugh Hefner has arisen.
Japan has long had an open concubine/mistress career path. Women sometimes choose this upon finishing high school. Older businessmen appear publicly with their <30 year old girlfriends, as their wives stay home with the children. And the wives know. And they don't seem to care as long as their finances and status remains secure.
Crushing women's sports by admitting transgender athletes and denigrating recent "feminist" women as TERFs pretty much guaranteed the next cultural step would be a return to traditional gender roles and economic differences. Don't deny gravity, you'll die. Don't deny engrained biology, you'll very likely die or go extinct.
You can definitely be a happy stay-at-home wife, but being a stay-at-home girlfriend is a terrible idea. She should go ahead and say wife
Women even in technical jobs will head towards more social opportunities owing to that being what interests them.
"What is this woman (or man) doing wrong?"
Perhaps nothing. But I doubt many people could do it. It's asking a lot from both the male (high income) and female (be interesting but not uppity) in the relationship.
A writer! That’s what we all need. Another “writer.” Look, I’ve got nothing against scribes but they did kill Jesus and Trump. And they are, as a class, arrogant, artificial, and appalling. They’re writerly, worrisome, and weak. They are, for the most part, midwits, nitwits, and half-writs. They try to spin gold out of their flatulence but merely produce fartulence.
Writers? I know them. I am them. And we need no more of me.
The End
Productivity at an historic low of -49% for Q1 of this year. And this is what the elite choose to write and recommend. Brilliant!
Can we say "privilege"? These days, it's a pretty high privilege to have the luxury of one spouse (or boy/girl friend, I suppose) not working. This is not advice that can be followed by any but the well-off. This is advice by a privileged liberal woman attached to a wealthy man, and it has zero relevance beyond her set of people. It's a very traditional role, dressed up as female freedom and empowerment.
Who knew? It turns out Homemaker could be a valued and rewarding profession all along.
Dump her.
What is this woman doing wrong?
Advancing the patriarchy and setting women's rights backwards 60 years. And, giving aid and comfort to the enemy, namely conservative Christians.
These people hate humanity. They are pushing Hedonistic comfort garbage to women. We are heading for demographic disaster because they are convincing as many women as possible to not have kids until they are 40 and they realize their life has no meaning.
If she were a guy, we would all call her a "bum."
"Childless housewife" seems like a fairly banal career. If that suits her, fine. Advising strangers to follow the same path seems sort of narcissistic to me. What makes her think this is the right choice for anyone other than her? At least wait 25-30 years, see how it goes, and THEN share your experience with the next generation of young women.
"Let's turn around and look at it from the perspective of the partner who is out there earning the income"
All of your justifications that follow are valid. This is a classic win-win for the lucky few, I guess.
Aspire to be child-free? Normalize (i.e. promote, celebrate), tolerate, or reject?
Life is not so short that you can't set priorities. Reconcile.
I suspect there will be a LOT of comments to this post. It's interesting, because I don't think women understand how much they've devalued partners' earnings potential by joining the workforce (rather than homemaking).
The simple law of supply and demand suggests that once women entered the workplace permanently after WWII, this essentially halved the value of the men who returned to the workforce after the war. That is to say that the pressure on companies to pay men more each year was significantly reduced by the explosion of new workers into the workforce. Women and men were now competing for the same size pie, reducing the size of all pie pieces.
On the whole, I don't think women got the better end of this deal. Before, they had choices. Now, they really don't. They must work. The supply of insanely rich men is very limited.
What would be the value result if half the workforce today simply decided to stop working? I suspect we'd initially lose productivity, but eventually, companies would be forced to increase wages to attract workers. Or they'd do what they're doing now: replacing the population with immigrants.
Seems like dual income is best when both partners make mid-level income. If a couple is at lower income levels with no kids, both may as well work. Add kids and child care likely offsets one income so one parent may as well stay home. At higher income levels marginal tax rates really start to impact joint income for married couples. If one partner has a lower income - federal, state, local income taxes can eat more than half of the lower income. Really need to decide if it is worth the effort. Probably not being married could be an advantage. I am not a tax advisor - just seem to pay a lot of taxes.
The "girlfriend experience" ...
"What is this woman (or man) doing wrong?"
Nothing. She's a true feminist. In fact, pissing off phony feminists is another thing she does right.
But as advice her strategy only works for a small segment on the hot-crazy matrix, so women: beware.
Plus after she's gotten fit, learned to cook, and talked to friends over and over, she is likely to find actual kids a bit more fulfilling. Or does boyfriend prefer sex without procreation?
Perhaps the Parkland shooter prospective juror, the woman who couldn't serve because she's married AND has a sugar daddy she needs to see every day who gives her $8K a month, maybe she's got it figured out correctly. I don't think she has a job either, well not in the traditional sense. But a working girl nonetheless.
The women's movement really is dead, though, seriously dead dead dead.
So she is a modern day concubine.
"What is this woman (or man) doing wrong? "
My parents are 93 this year. Fortunately, I have three siblings. It requires all four of us to care for our parents at this age, even though their financial resources are sufficient. Their ability to cope with the world has declined markedly, even though they are free of dementia.
This man and woman are going to find very old age to be very problematic.
"The stunner"? "The blond beauty"? Yeah, not so much.
Sort of an average, kinda cute gal...in need of a boob lift. Mr. Moneybags isn't getting his money's worth.
i have no idea why a man would marry a woman who didn't want to work or have kids, but whatever. To each his own. I knew someone like that in real life. And the man wasn't rich. They got divorced after 10 years.
I wonder if the "boyfriend" will stay engaged when she is old.
Sure, you can not have children, by choice, and help hasten the population collapse.
She's making the right choice for herself and for that very lucky child she won't have.
If she is happy and the boyfriend is happy, then more power to them both.
Let me guess.......she wasn't a very good financial planner either.
Work is generally not about you - it's about your clients. Coming home to someone who clearly gives a shit about YOU - is amazing. How do I know? I live this in reverse. My boyfriend owns commercial property. Most of the time doesn't have too much to do. When I was doing the long commute, it was very energizing to come home to a home cooked meal. No WONDER men did not want their wives to enter the workforce.
“Child-free” is nice. It tells you what the priorities are.
She must give amazing blowjobs, with regularity.
"empty cupboard, man's job; empty plate, women's job" has led to a lot of happy marriages.
It’s a free country so she can do what she wants so long as she is not harming anyone. Why would you even think of the question: “What is she doing wrong?” That’s a question an authoritarian asks, or someone posing as living in the radical middle.
The benefit of marriage is that is she stays home she is covered from future issues. If a girlfriend stays home and loses her career, and they break up, she is out of luck. Sounds like this girl just wants to be carefree (a kid).
"What is this woman doing wrong?"
Everything. The purpose of a woman, their biological and social imperative, is to bear and raise children. No children, no future.
---Let's turn around and look at it from the perspective of the partner who is out there earning the income,
Advice to Emily -- a ring and a license are great. There can be financial reverses, though. If the rich fiance who is earning the income is a Wall Streeter, for example, the cycles can be especially severe. I would say Be prepared, but it's easier said than done to prepare for the unimaginable -- a drastic reversal in one's fortunes. Prepared or not, they happen periodically. I hope your Richie Rich is a good guy all the way through.
I mean, she's cute but not a stunner.
Her problem is that rich men are looking for hot 22-40 women, and her due date is approaching...
Ad she'll be a few years older with no money of her own, and will have given up her prime earning years.
It would test Emily's devotion, too. Especially having to go back to work. As a nanny?
The comments at the NY Post are cruel but spot-on.
"What is the problem? What is this woman (or man) doing wrong?"
*************************
I'm reminded of Yossarian's reply in "Catch-22" when challenged about his outrageous behavior:
"Yossarian, what if everyone did that?"
"Then I'd be crazy not to."
*******************************************
But seriously, women have been doing this forever. Being a "kept woman" is not a compliment. (Even worse is being a "kept man".)
And such rich lay-abouts have often lorded over those who had to work, and been despised for that reason.
Think Marie Antoinette.
"But de Rean herself does have a ring — displayed conspicuously in the silly photographs of her at the link. Her real theme is not so much "full-time girlfriend" as it is find a rich husband."
Are you sure it's a wedding ring, and not just a friendship gift?
Same story in The Daily Mail: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-10889423/Texas-womam-37-quits-corporate-job-stay-home-girlfriend-pursue-passions.html
Two words for anyone, in any sort of life partnership, where one person earns the income: Life Insurance. And make certain that it stays paid up, and that you, the life partner, are the beneficiary. Surely the sorrow of a lost partner in life is burden enough without spending that time in penury.
There's something to be said for making sexual relationships transactional. If you accept the money then you've given consent. Consent only comes up when the sex is free.
The Sarah Hoyt reference to this from Instapundit:
THE TRADITIONAL TITLES FOR THIS ARE “KEPT WOMAN”, “PECULIAR,” “CONVENIENT:” I quit my job to be a full-time girlfriend: Get fit, cook and you can too.
Listen to the advice of someone who has read a lot of historical biographies: before you give up the day job, make sure you have a ring and a license. Or at least a contract. Not only didn’t you invent this, your reinvention of the wheel is square.
And a comment from the thread:
Don’t forget that “mistress” is another applicable term.
Her story is an old one, not new at all.
"You might have more if your paying job is very interesting and energizing, but is that your job?"
It is if you are Gloria Steinem. Or Sheryl Sandberg. Or Ann Althouse. That's why they are "feminists". Normal women, not so much. The deal they make with the economy is, "I'll work for half of what you were going to pay my husband".
I guess that might be a good deal if she can't or doesn't want to have a husband. Plus, a woman can always just marry the State. Although the State is not a very good husband. Better than some, I suppose.
"The key to treating women as Objects; is to realize that women and Objects are both PLURAL."
I recall reading an article in Reason, arguing that legalized polygamy would make it easier for women to find husbands. Which is likely true, but it also seemed to me that it would make it harder for women to find monogamous husbands. This was when I first realized the problem with Libertarianism. The State cannot be a disinterested enforcer of private contracts, because it makes a huge difference what sorts of contracts the State will enforce. If the State will enforce any contract two individuals are willing to enter, the State is going to need slave-catchers.
This used to be called making a commitment and getting married. Both parties agreed to fulfill certain aspects of their commitment and they all lived happily ever after!
When her partner gets tired of her and wants to trade her in for a newer model, out the door she goes, with nothing to show for her time invested in the relationship. How foolish!
...you can aspire to be a young child-free woman and not work.
Aspiring to be a young anything is at best a short-term goal. You'd better have a plan for when that youth, and any potential partners not already locked down,abandon you
So, she's aspiring to be a kept woman / mistress / sugar baby.
IOW, she's engaging in the world's oldest profession, with, currently, a single client.
Good "NY Post" material
She "hopes to become an author."
To become an author, you have to write. Is she writing, or just "hoping"?
She's writing. You need a lot of good mental space to write. Devoting your mind to finance is — I should think — likely to blot out the freely buzzing mind you need for writing.
Not at all true. Dickens wrote because he was paid by the word. As a more general rule: lots of people because writers, and thought up their best ideas, while working other jobs.
So, how long has she been doing this? More than a year? Then she ought to have a book by now, if she was actually working as a writer
Now, I think the key point de Rean is making is that you don't have to have children. You can offer a great and worthy partnership to a working spouse without expanding the household position into the demanding field of parenthood. ...
Let's turn around and look at it from the perspective of the partner who is out there earning the income, an income that is plenty to live on. What would he (or she) most like from a partner?
What he wants is someone who's young and cute and perky and focused on him.
So, when she's no longer YCP, why shouldn't he divorce her? They don't have kids to tie them together, so as long as he got a good pre-nup, what's his attraction to stay?
Sure, maybe he has some major league idiosyncracies, and it's hard for him to get someone who can deal with them. But, other than that, what's her value proposition 10 - 20 years from now?
Leave it to feminists to demand an end to traditional relationships so that they can choose whatever they want to do, only to then choose a traditional relationship and spike the football like they just solved world hunger.
darn IT!
correction to my correction! She is NOT married.. Just Engaged
So, she's in the Dairy Futures business
I'm betting that the ring is the only milk sale she'll make, but who knows
i'm confused... Going Fishing
My wife's niece has done this in reverse.
She married a guy 20+ years ago, and he has never had a full time job. He has a degree, and passed his EMT training and internship, but never took the job. But, He's available for sex, and lifting heavy stuff, and of course, a vacation buddy. Oh, No kids. She made that decision when she hit puberty, that's a story for another time.
I rarely think to look at the NYP-- do subjects of their articles often engage with commenters in the comments threads?
"You don’t have to just be a stay-at-home mom, you can aspire to be a young child-free woman and not work."
No wonder men are cutting off their penises.
Critter said...
It’s a free country so she can do what she wants so long as she is not harming anyone. Why would you even think of the question: “What is she doing wrong?”
If she were living a nice private life, that might be true.
But she's bragging about her choices in public, and encouraging others to do the same.
And THAT quite justifiably opens her up to questioning and criticism.
Because if she's encouraging people to make sub-optimal choices then she IS "harming" others
fishing update
here in NorthEast Iowa, the is a significant mayfly hatch (or spinner fall?) in the late afternoon.. They were about the size of tiny blue-winged Olives (the state bird of NE iowa), except they were Much lighter. An Adams dry worked for the stupider trouts; a light Cahill (size 18ish) worked for the more worldly trouts.
About 6ish, the summer Caddis flies (A summer caddis flies?) were descending on on the streams, doing their skittering egg laying (or, is it hatching?) stuff.
Elk Hair Caddis sorta work, but you have to dance them across the top (or, be ready to set the hook The Exact Second they hit the water; and realize that the rest of your drift is useless).
The Secret Secret is; of Course, Partridge and Yellow soft hackle wet flies..
Of course, there is a trick to their presentation too. You just need to
She's slightly attractive and her body is NOT in the top 20% of women with time to work out frequently as part of their job.
Plus 37? How old is the dude?
The career choice seems limited to me.
Of course the facts presented make her way outside of the 'Women I admire" part of the Venn diagram.
Post a Comment