5 ms·

You're not even trying to make a point, you're just flat denying these women are being oppressed, without any argument to back that up. Is the oppression of wo

by spcoll 11y ago

You're not even trying to make a point, you're just flat denying these women are being oppressed, without any argument to back that up. Is the oppression of women in America such a sensitive topic that you feel the need to reflexively deny it's happening whenever the subject crops up?

ardit33 11y ago
Not sure you are being sarcastic with this comment or not. These women choose that lifestyle. They choose not to work, but being stay at home moms. This is not the 50s, where women had a lot less opportunities, many were discouraged go to college, etc.... Even the author mention that women make the majority of college grads, and have all kinds of opportunities today. Being a stay at home mom is not a necessity. They got their easy mode on life, by deciding to marry rich, and not bother with working, and the stresses of work as the rest of us have to. No need to feel pity over them. I am sure in case of a divorce, many of them have multi-million dollars prenups, money that the rest of the population will not earn in a lifetime.
beachstartup 11y ago
i can't even tell if you're serious, but there is a limit to how far SJW bullshit can fly, and claiming the kept wives of hedgefund managers are somehow 'oppressed' is pretty obviously beyond that threshold. if you want to retain any credibility for your views, you need to learn when and where to apply your reality-distortion efforts.
orbifold 11y ago
They are definitely not oppressed, it is not like they are forced in this role in any way. Presumably to even be in the position to marry an investment banker you need considerable education of your own, it's just that maybe they chose to study Anthropology or History of Art and so they are not as profitably exploitable as their husbands. To deny the women in question agency and not see their situation as a direct consequence of their actions is in many ways more sexist, than to actually see their situation as the result of a concious choice that is available to them because they are women, highly valued by certain types of men.
Red_Tarsius 11y ago
Are you for real? The OP doesn't involve any kind of abuse. Women who can afford to choose the most powerful and fulfilling partners do so.
involute1344 11y ago
I know of no definition of "oppressed" that applies to these women, and calling them so does a disservice to those who truly are. Even if they were, there is no evidence of fraud or coercion, so we must conclude the exchange (marriage) is, at least, mutually beneficial.

by spcoll 11y ago

ardit33 11y ago

Not sure you are being sarcastic with this comment or not. These women choose that lifestyle. They choose not to work, but being stay at home moms. This is not the 50s, where women had a lot less opportunities, many were discouraged go to college, etc.... Even the author mention that women make the majority of college grads, and have all kinds of opportunities today. Being a stay at home mom is not a necessity. They got their easy mode on life, by deciding to marry rich, and not bother with working, and the stresses of work as the rest of us have to. No need to feel pity over them. I am sure in case of a divorce, many of them have multi-million dollars prenups, money that the rest of the population will not earn in a lifetime.

beachstartup 11y ago

i can't even tell if you're serious, but there is a limit to how far SJW bullshit can fly, and claiming the kept wives of hedgefund managers are somehow 'oppressed' is pretty obviously beyond that threshold. if you want to retain any credibility for your views, you need to learn when and where to apply your reality-distortion efforts.

orbifold 11y ago

They are definitely not oppressed, it is not like they are forced in this role in any way. Presumably to even be in the position to marry an investment banker you need considerable education of your own, it's just that maybe they chose to study Anthropology or History of Art and so they are not as profitably exploitable as their husbands. To deny the women in question agency and not see their situation as a direct consequence of their actions is in many ways more sexist, than to actually see their situation as the result of a concious choice that is available to them because they are women, highly valued by certain types of men.

Red_Tarsius 11y ago

Are you for real? The OP doesn't involve any kind of abuse. Women who can afford to choose the most powerful and fulfilling partners do so.

involute1344 11y ago

I know of no definition of "oppressed" that applies to these women, and calling them so does a disservice to those who truly are. Even if they were, there is no evidence of fraud or coercion, so we must conclude the exchange (marriage) is, at least, mutually beneficial.