James Lileks has a great take on a Newsweek article that apparently takes the point that because its stressful trying to be a supermom, we need to tax the rich more. Seriously, this appears to be the leap the author takes. Lileks takes apart the article in his typically irreverent way. Normally I'd say to skip past Lilek's initial rundown of his day, but I think he's especially descriptive in this article in order to make his point more thoroughly.
A sample:
I don't dispute that women are stressed, face a variety of conflicting expectations, etc. Welcome to the world. But I cannot take the article seriously when it puts forth a specious thesis like this:
Women today mother in the excessive, control-freakish way that they do in part because they are psychologically conditioned to do so. But they also do it because, to a large extent, they have to. Because they are unsupported, because their children are not taken care of, in any meaningful way, by society at large. Because there is right now no widespread feeling of social responsibility—for children, for families, for anyone, really—and so they must take everything onto themselves.
Imagine that. You have to take the responsibility of your children on yourselves. The day I expect "society" to take care of my child in a meaningful way is the day I give society the right to take her away and do a better job if I don't schedule daily flash-card phonics sessions.
Now, go read the rest. It's not near as anti-woman as it may sound, and his larger point is that the patronizing "oh the tragedy of being a woman" attitude of the article is actually what is anti-woman.
Comments