Add to Google Subscribe in Bloglines Subscribe in NewsGator Online mr. nice feed Subscribe in Rojo

Wednesday, July 26, 2006

amy sohn responds!

gentle readers. imagine the tremor of terror that flicked down my spine when i opened my e-mail yesterday and saw a missive from a certain amy sohn (seen here in the current new york mag and, well, here on this very blog). i was half-convinced it was a note to let me know that i could expect to wake up with a meat cleaver lodged in my forehead one day soon -- pearl kung-fu grip, monogrammed: AS OWNS THIS BITCH! but no. with grace, poise and charm she let me know that she enjoyed (!) my post. she offered to send me a rebuttal, more thought-through than her blog post, and engage me in a proper debate. normally i don't like playing fair, but i admit to finding this an enticing proposal. so, without further ado ... here we go (with 20 percent less snark, i'm afraid):

Dear Mr. Nice Guy,

After being alerted to your, yes, only sort of funny, response to my post about SAHMs, I wanted to open a dialogue, call it Nice Guy vs. Mean Girl, so that I could explain myself better and respond to some of your readers' responses. I should start by clarifying that since my husband, Jake, an artist, and I have only part-time care, I am a part-time SAHM myself. I wouldn't know what goes on in the playground if I were never there. So everything I said about SAHMs of course could also refer to me. I am neurotic. I worry about whether my child is crawling or walking soon enough, talking enough, eating enough fresh vegetables, whole grains, etc. But on days when I am not feeling neurotic I find that I frequently become neurotic from being around other others. And I wonder whether a broader conversation would lead to more meaningful, or at least, interesting relationships than the constant mommy pong, as a friend calls incessantly baby-centric dialogue. She also calls a Bugaboo a "Universal Sign of Suckerdom," another reason I like her.

"only sort-of-funny?" nice guy vs. mean girl? oh, it's ON. i'm happy to give you space to elaborate, but i'm a little worried that a more nuanced discussion might actually break out. it's a risk i'm willing to take. let's start with "mean girl." i don't think you came across as mean at all. i can't speak for my readers, but to me you came across as a little neurotic, yes, but who isn't a little neurotic about parenting? mostly you just sounded ridiculously inclined to over-generalize, presume, judge and over-generalize some more. let's give you some epaulets and call you Generalissimo Generaliza, Inspector General of Generalia. yeah, i know, still "only sort-of-funny."

In my perhaps naive way, I imagine that women talked about more or at least more interesting things during the '70s when my mother was home with me for the first 3 years of my life. Nixon was being impeached right before I was born so maybe they talked about that. My mother was in a cooperative playgroup (a dying concept) in which 3 or 4 mothers took care of 6 or 7 babies for a few hours so the other mothers could either work part-time or get other things done. I asked her what they talked about when they got together and she said, "Probably how jealous we were of the mothers who weren't there." Your more reactionary readers will probably think this quote indicates that I inherited some sort of cold-blooded meanness from my mother but what I like about that quote is that in those days you were allowed to be jealous of the women who were out doing other things. You could joke on some level about the sheer relentlessness and maybe even the boredom (!) of parenting. I find these days you are not allowed to joke. People are too precious about parenting and this preciousness, I believe, is not good for kids, moms, dads, or marriages. This is what I was ranting about on my website.

i have read enough John Updike to know that you're probably right: a generation or so ago women probably were less baby-centric than the moms of today. they were also more inclined to get drunk in the afternoon and screw their friends' husbands. so, yeah, a return to the '70s could potentially be a good thing. and you're right about something else: the cooperative playgroup is dying, but it ain't dead yet. have you checked out, in our very neighborhood, Roots and Wings? sounds like something that might interest you. frankly, i don't think you are breaking any revolutionary ground or committing some terrible taboo when you say that moms sometimes get bored. lord have mercy, i have had days where my only company was the drone of the radio (ever hear Morning Edition twice in a row? not pretty) and my dreams of infanticide when naps were abandoned. flip through my archives some time. as far as the "preciousness" is concerned, i don't think preciousness itself is a problem. i think it's probably only a real danger when there's a preciousness imbalance in a marriage -- a preciousness gap, if you will. if mom is off-the-hook googie about her kid while dad would rather be throwing back cold ones with his single buddies, then we have a problem.

What I miss on the playground is humor. People approach the task of child care so seriously. Even when the kids are funny a lot of times I'm the only one laughing. In early childhood there is a lot of worry so this will change soon, and I am sure parents worried about their kids in the '70s, but at a certain point you really do have to let your kid fall on his ass or face or whatever. Not from a jungle gym, but from the eight inch-high walking bar on the Tot Lot.

i miss humor too. especially mine. i used to be more than only-sort-of funny. so i offer my wife as a counter-example (counter-examples being all i can provide to poke holes in your theory -- i try to avoid sweeping statements about a given population. except albanians. don't get me started on albanians). mrs nice guy, unlike her husband, is a laff riot. her current favorite photo of the baby is a picture of her mid-fall, with a look of "hoooolllly shit!" flashing across her panicked chubby face. it cracks her up every time she sees it, which cracks me up -- so here in one woman you have humor and a willingness to let her baby eat it ... and LAUGH at her on the way down. but i will concede one thing (dude, you're more fun to respond to when you are talking about your tibetan nanny, i'll be honest. you're too damn rational here): there are indeed some moms who just won't shut up about the precious little things sally said/did/pooped. these moms are boring. avoid them. there are moms who definitely hover and there are moms who are terrified of feeding their 3 month-old, say, a strawberry ("wait, is he allowed to eat that?!"). i think the real sad thing is a tendency i've noticed in parents to be unwilling to trust their instincts; an over-reliance on experts and a need to be omnipresent. still, i bet every generation in herstory has had these moms in it. so to say, as you did in your blog, that these people are bad for society? ninja, please. deliberate provocation is as boring as scoping stroller brands.

I also miss the opportunity to talk about other things besides mothering. I ran into a college acquaintance on the Tot Lot a few months ago and we were talking about working at home versus in an office, Ditmas Park vs. Park Slope, some old friends we had in common, and I realized how refreshing it was NOT to be talking about our babies. It seems interactions like that are very rare. Yes, I knew this woman, but not well, and I felt a kinship in that neither of us felt a need to talk about what our children were up to, even though we were very capable of watching them carefully to make sure they didn't hurt themselves.

word. my favorite neighborhood mom right now is a little older -- has a 12 year old and an 8 year old. on mondays, my day home, we occasionally meet up and drink too much wine on the stoop while her 12-year-old watches my 1-year-old inside. we talk about our kids as little as possible, unless her kid accidentally runs the dishwasher with mine in it. i really and truly don't know many moms who talk exclusively about their progeny. they tend not to be people i'd enjoy hanging out with. i do have momfriends with whom the conversation usually tends towards parenting, but that's because these moms are my peers, going through similar things, with similar questions. it's one thing to get the official line from dr. spock or whatever, but often it's in the trenches that you learn the dirty truth and awesome parenting hacks.

I mentioned on my blog a new book by Linda Hirshman that basically takes SAHMs to task for setting feminism back. She thinks the way to insure that women work is for them to a) marry older or much younger because older men are more settled in their careers and younger men are unsettled enough thatthey can put in time at home, b) have one child, and c) make their husbands do a lot of the housework.

i honestly have no opinion on the state of feminism.

I am not sure I agree with her that SAHMs set back feminism but I do think that choice feminism is a big, whopping failure, the idea that all choices that women make are equally valid. I don't think the choice to sleep your way through New York City is empowering. I know because I did it and at the end I wasn't empowered. I was just tired and maybe a little swollen. I don't think the choice to be a SAHM is empowering, on a personal level, because I get too much empowerment from my work and would never want to give it up completely. I feel sorry for people who don't love their work and I think the solution is to find different work instead of quit to care for a child. I also feel like it's a waste of a college education to become a SAHM. If I sent my 18-year-old daughter to an Ivy and fifteen years later she was taking care of a baby all day, I would feel disappointed and angry, like I threw away $100,000 which is what my college education cost although now it is much more. I think it's good for women to have career ambition, many interests and many kinds of responsibilities. There was one study in the
Science section of the New York Times that found working women in England to be healthier 30 years later than women who just stayed at home.

me? i have no qualms with sleeping my way through nyc -- do you have any idea how awesome it is to be married to a hot slampiece like my wife ... who earns 62 times what i earn? it's like the holy grail of awesome, made out of chocolate and filled with scotch. but really, what's wrong with raising a smart, thoughtful daughter who has weighed all of her options and decides that she'd be most fulfilled raising her children at home? i think we should applaud that. or would you rather have an illiterate, incurious oaf raising your grand-kids?

So feminism has to find some other way to deal with this whole SAHM/WOHM issue than talking about choices. This is the same reason the pro-choice movement has so many problems. And yes, I am pro-choice. Just as there has got to be another way to talk about women's right to abortion besides "choice/no choice," there has got to be another way to talk about working vs. stay-at-home women besides "two equally valid choices."

no one here said they're equally valid choices. that's my whole point. it's all about context and what works for you. parenting is like drinking wine: if it tastes good then it's the right wine for you; who cares what robert parker rated it? i am, probably to a fault, a relativist. you don't want to stay at home all the time? that's totally cool. ferchrissakes, though, don't tell moms who do stay at home that they're destroying the fabric of society. (and don't tell moms who don't stay home the same thing either; i might be looking at you, caitlin flanagan.)

And oh yeah, I think SAHDs make better full-time parents because they are allowed to fail, forget the milk or the play date or shower shield. SAHMs don't allow themselves the luxury of failure and they should because it lets you see firsthand that your kid will be all right anyway.

whoa, dads are allowed to fail? will you please have that statement notarized and sent to my bride? you may not be setting feminism back, but you're sure doing your part for chauvinism. again, Generalissimo, it depends on the dad, right? and, to an extent, the kid and the mom. as it happens, both mrs nice guy and i were a little stunned to discover that i am waaay more uptight and hover-inclined than she is -- a total flip of our personality types. i also know a semi-cliched dad who didn't spend a single day alone with his baby until the kid was a year old! he didn't know what the hell was going on. it was kind of cute, actually, but mostly just sad. i know another dad who's been home for three years. he's a musician who gigs on nights and weekends, but he's home with his boy every minute of every day. i've run into him on days where he just wanted call it quits -- told me he was a little jealous that i had an office to return to. statistically, we all have kids who will turn out just fine. you can't just make sweeping statements about us. of course, that reluctance to generalize is why i will never have a book deal.

oops, was that a generalization? any agents out there interested?

32 Comments:

Anonymous tennessee said...

i'd buy your book.

7/26/2006 3:06 PM  
Anonymous JustLinda said...

Word.

Great intercourse. No, not THAT kind of intercourse. Discourse? Recourse? Main course? What-evah.

I'm riding the mr. nice guy train on this one...

7/26/2006 3:37 PM  
Blogger Dutch said...

this is so typical; a cosmically egotistical cunt writes an uninformed rant that offends almost universally, and "now," once she's seen the light about how and why her breezy ignorance offended everyone, she's suddenly levelheaded and spouting sophomoric tropes about the state of feminism. you fucked up, old lady. your insipid drivel wasn't worth the ink it wasted. learn from it and when you write your next "column" try to summon up a little more humanity.

7/26/2006 4:03 PM  
Blogger mr. nice guy said...

holy c-bomb! let's do this without personal insults. play nice, campers!

7/26/2006 4:14 PM  
Blogger Dutch said...

don't go soft on me mr. nice guy.

7/26/2006 4:18 PM  
Anonymous Matthew Miller said...

Can we see the picture?

7/26/2006 4:47 PM  
Blogger Kiki said...

Okay, lurker coming out of the lurk zone.

Amy Sohn, not impressed at all. I am a stay at home mom, college educated. And I wouldn't want someone who wasn't college educated taking care of my kids full time. Saying that it is a waste of education is juvenile.

To say that taking care of your children full time is not empowering is another generalization. I find it empowering to shape my childrens minds and teach them morals and give them a foundation for life.

7/26/2006 4:49 PM  
Blogger Kara said...

I'm just really impressed that you called your wife a hot slampiece.

7/26/2006 5:19 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

You are my hero. Seriously you are a ridiculously talented writer. Amy Sohn is just ridiculous.

7/26/2006 8:46 PM  
Anonymous monkeyaker said...

SAHM's should just buck up and accept that they are responsible for the fall of feminism. SAHD's are no better. They're responsible for communism, after all.

7/26/2006 10:25 PM  
Anonymous Paris said...

"I also feel like it's a waste of a college education to become a SAHM."

Holy crap, did I get sucked into some cosmic time-warp? I think this was the hot-button issue of 1806.

7/26/2006 11:04 PM  
Blogger Trish said...

Well, I can honestly say that when I read the piece in question, it never once occurred to me that Ms. Sohn was being mean. I just thought she was an idiot. A diatribe that offends virtually every group mentioned and is supported by not one shred of evidence could only be written by an idiot. And therefore, I continue to hold my original opinion.

The way the original piece is written, Ms. Sohn comes across as smug and self-involved, and having no desire to care for her own child in any capacity whatsoever. Her references to the "kid" and "Tibetan nanny" really imply that she didn't want a child in the first place, and considers her daughter to be extremely inconvenient. As she herself says, when the kid is sick, they hire in the nanny for an extra night. Read: These are people who can't be bothered to muck about with their offspring's puke and change their social calendars, so the nanny just cares for their sick child for them. How delightful. What good parenting. Well, at least the nanny is being a good parent to this little girl.

I also think that Ms. Sohn came across as highly bigotted. To say that childcare belongs in the hands of immigrants, and that she would like to have on-site childcare staffed solely by Tibetans can be taken in no other way, really. My reaction to this total crock was something along the lines of "Aren't you late for your KKK meeting, Amy?"

And that's how it reads. Food for thought.

In any event, many people stay at home to raise their children because that is what they want to do. And many return to work because that is what they want to do. And many have financial considerations that help to dictate which approach will work for their households, and they act accordingly. But to say that SAHMs stay at home because they hate their jobs is a sweeping generalization. And to say that they should just find other jobs that they don't hate and continue to work outside of the home is ridiculous. Simply put: just because being a working parent is what works best for Ms. Sohn doesn't mean it works best for everyone else. Some people decide that staying at home and caring for their children full time is the most rewarding and enjoyable job they could imagine. And I see nothing wrong with doing so. Just as I see nothing wrong with returning to the workforce. It's just a matter of what works for the individual.

We aren't all the same. Get used to it, Amy.

7/27/2006 12:12 AM  
Anonymous Agavi said...

You rock. Amy Sohn? Is living under a rock.

Her argument that being a SAHM is not an empowering role shows her agreement with the men of corporate America decades ago who fervently believed that their work was synonomous with superiority. She skyrockets right past the whole point of feminism, the right to make choices that suit the individual woman.

Other women have no more right to pass judgment on what a woman chooses to do with her life or mandate what is the "right" and "wrong" choice. I'm quite sure she would be the first to get all uppity and self-righteous if another woman so fervently slammed her choice to breastfeed or not to breastfeed, her choice to send her pweshus to public/private/home school, etc.

Feminists fought for the ability to make their own choices. University educated SAHMs are exercising that choice, and thankful for the many options that are available to them. The rantings of this egotistical nouveau feminist wannabe are the true threat to feminism, seeking to take the options away.

The arrogance in the presumption that after careful contemplation, in determining what works best for her, she has somehow stumbled on the Universal Only Way It Should Be Done? Oh, if only she were truly so clever.

7/27/2006 9:51 AM  
Anonymous Lisa said...

"If I sent my 18-year-old daughter to an Ivy and fifteen years later she was taking care of a baby all day, I would feel disappointed and angry, like I threw away $100,000 which is what my college education cost although now it is much more."

Ok, so...staying home for a year or so can actually ERASE the knowledge and skills gained from college/grad schoool? Well, shit, I'm about to lose two degrees'+ worth and I can't wait. Though maybe it's worse if you paid for school (or will still be paying for like the next 30 years) yourself... But at least my parents won't have to feel like I'm an expensive failure!

7/27/2006 11:59 AM  
Blogger The other me said...

I SO want to join in, be witty, be clever, state my case in an impressive and intellectual way, I can't, I have been an SAHM for 21 years, have six kids, they ate my brains and sucked out my wit. Try raising 3 teenagers and 3 toddlers and stay sane. I think it is impossible, well I would think that if I could think at all, I tend to stumble from day to say hoping I'm not dribbling or glazing over. Mr nice guy, you are SO nice. I like your wife too....falling over children are most definately the funniest thing.

7/27/2006 4:07 PM  
Anonymous Mole said...

"deliberate provocation is as boring as scoping stroller brands"\

Oh, snap! I think that pretty much sums it up. Mr. Nice Guy, you are funny and your posts make me laugh and feel good about family life in general. Amy Sohn is deliberately trying to make people feel bad so she can get some atttention or a book deal or whatever. That is evil.

I applaud you for defending us against her borishness. Thank you!

7/27/2006 5:42 PM  
Blogger Moo Moo said...

I have been a SAHM for a year, and it's been great. But this Sohn character is full of crap. Really. And I am playing nice. I just don't think she really gives a rat's ass about her kid.

I think this is the problem with Sohn. She thinks the way SHE deals with things is the ONLY WAY, and then SHE preachs and tries to convert the rest of the world to her thinking.

I one day will go back to work, but it's only for me. I don't think that it works in every situation, and I don't think it's any of her business, I hope someone tells her to shove it one day. That's just so evil. She is the one setting feminism back.

7/27/2006 6:44 PM  
Blogger Natalie said...

If my kid went to college and got a degree in Film and then became a pizza guy, I would be disappointed. That is what I consider wasted money. But to educate yourself and then actually be there to raise your own children and teach them right and wrong is not a waste of an education.
Personally, I think she' just too self centered to be bothered by her own kid.
I don't think interests and improving oneself have to go out the door once you decide to be at home with your kids. Sure, when the kids are young they're the main focus, but they SHOULD be.
I laugh a lot (see my blogs).
And frankly, I am rarely bored. If anyone is bored being at home, it is their own fault.
Oh, and I think it's pathetic to need a job to feel empowered.

7/28/2006 12:05 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

What I hope is that Ms. Sohn someday learns is that Life has many seasons in it. There is nothing wrong with having a season that's devoted to raising one's children. There is nothing wrong with having a season devoted to furthering one's career. There is nothing wrong with choosing to make a season in one's life all about someone other than oneself.

There are so many kinds of people in the world, and isn't that what makes the Fabric of Life so beautiful? How can Ms. Sohn say or infer that to live in just one particular manner is The Best & Only Way For People To Live? Why try to gossip & drag down people who happen to be different? Why denigrate women (or men) who choose to or otherwise find fulfillment in making time in their life to stay home and personally raise their child(ren)? How can there be anything wrong with a parent staying home and ensuring that their values & beliefs are passed on to the next generation? How can that scenario destroy the fabric of society?

Our society needs people to work. Our society needs people to have children. Why not fulfill one of the original goals of feminism and allow people to choose (if their circumstances permit) which kind of person they wish to be? What is the harm in having a time in one's life where you are so doggone in love with and besotted by their child(ren) that that's the only thing you want to talk about? Life isn't static, people aren't static, why not allow people the freedom to go crazy for a time and enjoy the happiness and joy that comes along with becoming a parent? What's wrong with wanting to be there to witness when your child takes his or her first step, says that first word, or adeptly drinks from an open cup the very first time? What's wrong with wanting to be there to see how your child reacts the first time he or she tastes a certain food? What's wrong with getting a thrill when your child says please or thank you correctly, without prompting, and knowing that moment happened because you've taught your child good manners? What's wrong with using your God-given and college-educated & inspired intellect to create a daily life WITH your child that is fulfilling for both of you? What's wrong with using your mind to introduce your own children to concepts & ideas you personally hold dear, rather than rely on someone else to do that for you? If that kind of thing is not one's cup of tea, fine, but what is the rationale for attacking or insulting those who do find that kind of endeavor appealing?

How can the example of a woman with a college education choosing to be selfless for a season and stay home with her child(ren) be a bad thing?

Having children isn't about the parents. It's about the children. There's nothing wrong with that. There shouldn't be anything wrong with expanding one's self-identity to include being a Mommy or Daddy. Not just a biological parent, but a genuine Mommy or Daddy.

Whether one goes to work or stays at home with the kid(s) does not have to be an issue. Really, there are much more pressing issues in the world today than going to work or staying home. If Ms. Sohn does not wish to stay home and raise her child, so be it. That's her choice, and she's free to make it. Where she goes wrong is to make nasty, judgemental, sweeping generalizations about all the other women who DO choose to stay home. What an insight that gives us into Ms. Sohn's ego and self-confidence, perhaps?

I hope Ms. Sohn learns that Life ebbs & flows. Things come & go, times change. Maybe, or maybe not, Ms. Sohn would be happier with mothers in general if she learned to embrace changes in life as monumental as having a child. Having a child is supposed to change you on a fundamental level. From what she's written it sounds like she is refusing to take a step outside her comfort zone and broaden her horizons.

Amy, it's okay if other women are different from you. The world will not stop turning, our society will not collapse. Differences as minor as this are good. It's okay to be tolerant of others who are different than you!

Tulip
- SAHM to triplets
- college educated
- homeschooling my kids
- self-employed (which I think is better than "finding a job" where I have to work for someone else) although have put my business on hold for this season of my young children's lives (which is okay, I know I'm still smart, I know I still have talent, it's okay for me to defer my needs for a while)
- happy that we live in a country where we mothers can stay home OR go to work OR do both
- happy that we aren't living somewhere with bombs raining down on us
- happy that we live in a country with functioning electrical grids and good food supply systems
- happy that we live in a country so wonderful that a non-issue such as whether a mother stays home with her kids actually becomes an issue, albeit only for those who don't have much else to think about or devote themselves to

7/28/2006 8:06 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Thank you anonymous (tulip)for putting all of it in such wonderful perspective.

7/29/2006 10:20 AM  
Anonymous bumpershine said...

There's only one way to settle this, a walkoff!

7/29/2006 12:29 PM  
Blogger Clay Kaintock said...

Nice Guy,

Ask Amy to send over the NY Press article about the nurse outfit.

Clay

7/30/2006 12:44 PM  
Blogger tAnYeTTa said...

Did she really say this????-
I also feel like it's a waste of a college education to become a SAHM.

7/31/2006 5:06 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I find it curious that her comparison era for parenting choices is the 70s (which was, of course, the most sane & reasonable time imaginable). One decade vs the entire history of the human race... yeah. That's well-thought-out. What did her grandmother do? Great grams? The hundred generations before, the billions of women around the world? They raised their own kids, for better or for worse. Poor brain-dead darlings, wasting all their potential that way, nurturing the young of the species.

Additionally: I'm a SAHM. I'm smart, funny, happy, educated, non-hovering, well-read, well-rested, honest about the sucktastic aspects of mothering and still grateful to be able to experience them, in love with my husband, and interested in both poop AND the Booker Prize shortlist. I have lots and lots of friends who fit that same description pretty closely. If you, Amy, are having problems finding fun, intellectually engaged SAHMs to hang out with, perhaps you should consider that the reason is that WE don't want to spend time with a grumpy, smug, self-centered, reactionary, judgemental prig who's more concerned with her own hipness than personal growth or lasting emotional bonds.

7/31/2006 11:07 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I find it curious that her comparison era for parenting choices is the 70s (which was, of course, the most sane & reasonable time imaginable). One decade vs the entire history of the human race... yeah. That's well-thought-out. What did her grandmother do? Great grams? The hundred generations before, the billions of women around the world? They raised their own kids, for better or for worse. Poor brain-dead darlings, wasting all their potential that way, nurturing the young of the species.

Additionally: I'm a SAHM. I'm smart, funny, happy, educated, non-hovering, well-read, well-rested, honest about the sucktastic aspects of mothering and still grateful to be able to experience them, in love with my husband, and interested in both poop AND the Booker Prize shortlist. I have lots and lots of friends who fit that same description pretty closely. If you, Amy, are having problems finding fun, intellectually engaged SAHMs to hang out with, perhaps you should consider that the reason is that WE don't want to spend time with a grumpy, smug, self-centered, reactionary, judgemental prig who's more concerned with her own hipness than personal growth or lasting emotional bonds. And it's not because we're cliqueish, it's because we're discriminating.

7/31/2006 11:07 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

as interesing as this discussion is, is a discussion of the priveleged. for MANY of us, working is not a "choice," it is a necessity. MANY parents do not have the significant income to be able to stay home. (&btw Ms. Sohn... it was most likely those expensive college educations, also a measure of privelege, that put people in the financial position to be able to make this choice, not much of a wast there...) There are many mothers and fathers out there who would give anything not to have to leave their little 3 month old with day care, because they HAVE to go back to work... to pay the rent.

So, folks, let's please remember; people who "choose" to stay home GET that choice. Yes, that is a wonderful choice, probably the best thing for your child, but also a matter of luck and privelege.

Amy Sohn and SAHM &Ds of the world,let's see a little gratefulness for the luck we have in having choices to make

8/01/2006 11:56 AM  
Blogger travelladybjh said...

This was really boring compared to the original slugfest between Mr nice and amy. It was like reading an analysis of National Lampoon Vacation instead of seeing the movie.

8/03/2006 9:10 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

she wrote: "...but I do think that choice feminism is a big, whopping failure, the idea that all choices that women make are equally valid. I don't think the choice to sleep your way through New York City is empowering."

since when does feminism = slut? could be mis-reading her as i am sleep-deprived working-full-time mom.

8/08/2006 10:03 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Props to her for sending that follow up email. I think it was a pretty honest stream of conciousness and an unbelievable credit to Mr. Nice Guy's reach that his initial amazing reply not only made it to her, but that she felt the need to respond.

8/12/2006 6:10 PM  
Blogger Mom101 said...

I know I'm a little late to this party, but I've just discovered you and I think I'm in love - literarily speaking. Nice to meet another Brooklyn parentblogger; especially one so clever.

(And however you managed to retrain yourself from ripping on the Soho House bit I will never know.)

9/09/2006 9:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I was with you until "hot slampiece like my wife." Wow. She must be ... a lucky gal?
Ick.

3/10/2007 4:23 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I agree with Moo Moo above...it is Amy who is setting feminism back. What does she do for the women of the world? She presents her own female self as shallow, needy, insecure, status-obsessed and airheaded, and she attacks other women on all kinds of petty and self-indulgent charges, while herself desperate for approval and coolness. Then she grovels pathetically after any man who will have her, getting humped and dumped over and over.

Her writing reveals her husband is no catch and that she is annoyed about having to support him. Despite that he's a stay at home, she still must pay a "Tibetan" nanny (and she's judging parents with a certain brand of stroller as suckers? She wishes she had a Bugaboo, and she knows it)

It's so lame when girls like this try to cite feminism as their cause.

7/14/2007 10:38 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home