Friends'comments on Ms. Wednesday Martin’s op-ed in the New York Times of May 16, 2015. “Poor Little Rich Women”. Yes, wives bonuses are paid on Park Avenue!

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/17/opinion/sunday/poor-little-rich-women.html?_r=0

Blog on The Marquises de Pompadour of Park Avenue is next.

(1) Beatrice, Quant à l'article du NYT auquel se réfère le Figaro -"Poor little rich women"- il est marrant mais facile et je déteste la façondont l'auteur qui se prend pour une anthropologue name drops les femmes autochtones Agta des Philippines, Kung del'Afrique australe ou Dogon du Mali. La comparaison qui tue: "As in the Kalahari desert and rain forest resources are the bottom line in the Upper East Side". A mon avis, elle (qui s'est tout de même rapprochée de Central Park pour être près de ses in-laws et mettre ses fils dans des nurseries) fait partie de la tribu des pestes. Rien de nouveau, on s'en doute de tout ce qu'elle raconte sur les femmes des financiers. Après les trophy apartments les trophy wives...Fabienne.

(2) I am not flabbergasted and it does not seem like Stepford Wives to me at all. If these woman want to act this way, let them. I may not want to do what they are doing, but it is their right to behave however they want, as long as they do not hurt anyone. And the ones engaged in charitable things are helping.Do your other friends agree or disagree with me?  Caryl.

(3) Sad, but I may raise the "bonus" concept with Richard

In some ways this sounds like the lives of many of the ex-pat oil wives and is definitely my sister-in-law. She is a Stanford Univ graduate and, while her children are now grown, she IMs them multiple times every day. They went to the best schools, are skilled musicians and she is pretty much a professional mom.  I have never understood it as I would be screamingly bored out of my mind.  What a waste of talent. Kathleen

(4) All I am saying is each person makes their own decision and though you might not agree with it is their choice and unless they are hurting someone you should not judge them. Yes, I am in agreement with working parents but I feel that everyone should make their own decision. There is nothing wrong with nonworking mothers volunteering at their children's schools. Someone has to do it. And you are wrong if you think that children of working parents, whether they have a nanny or are in child care, do not have many activities planned for them.
One tends to meet people like themselves, so most of my friends were working mothers. But if I had not been working I would have met more parents who did not do so. Of course, there are also cases where the father is the stay at home parent. There is nothing wrong with that although I do not like that a big deal is made when that happens.  Caryl

(5) Hi Caryl, don't get me wrong, people are free to do whatever they want as long that it doesn't hurt the others as you said. But in our organized society, i.e. in Europe, many people decide not to work and take advantage of the social safety net, this choice hurts those who work!!! Income taxes can only be to be raised on working people.

Kids'activites, this is exactly my point: they have too many activities as reported by the son of a friend of mine who studies at the exclusive French lycee in Manhattan.  According to him, many of his friends would like to get their mums off their back!  Beatrice.

(6) Children have thought this way throughout the ages, no matter what kind of mother (or father) they have.  Caryl.

(7) I think this anthropologist was desperately looking for a subject.  I have never came across what she calls <Glam SAHMs> - there may be women who opt for not working for a few years to dedicate time to their families when their children are young - and I see nothing wrong with that if you can afford it and are willing to take the risk to miss the train when you want to go back to work.   While in New York I haven t seen any expensive and exquisite outfits worn by <Glam SAHMs> - true, I was there only for one week, but there were no exquisite outfits in the streets, neither on Upper East Side nor anywhere else.  It was so cold, and all of N.Y. wears black when it is cold. I think sex segregation is not specific to a group but did observe that there is sometimes a tendency that after dinner two separate groups form:  men and women.  Why I don t know, perhaps this is something American?  About what the author calls the year-end wife bonus:  nonsense, this is a Christmas gift from husbands who don t know what else to give.  Marianne.

(8) Hey Beatrice

Thanks very much for sending this.  Very interesting to see it (finally) openly acknowledged and documented. Sorry to say I am not surprised, EXCEPT about the bonuses -- I had not heard of that before and am disgusted by it.  I’ve long resented that so many women go after the very best degrees, including law degrees, only to barely or never use them, taking up space that others would die for.  It’s the lost opportunity for other people that rankles me.  I am delighted to see it out in the open, a good start for an expose.  Donna.

(9) Hi Beatrice,

I know that you said that this is “the end” but you made some comments that I think are so “wrong” that I feel I must write again. Frist of all, are most of your friends mothers? If one is not a mother, one cannot understand the choices that they have. Stay at home mothers get upset at working mothers (such as I was) who think they (the stay at home mothers) are making a mistake. On the other hand, working mothers are not happy when stay at home mothers say that they are not “good” mothers because they work. So I guess this means that each group feels that they are right.  But the following statement that you wrote is just not correct: “These ‘bonuses’ wives remind me that if stay-at-home motherhood is a job, then that means your husband is your employer. He can fire you any time for poor performance (a subjective decision unless performance parameters are set!). It is not a very egalitarian relationship.”  Why is the working husband the employer? In a relationship where the spouses are equal, both staying at home or working should be considered equal.  You write, “Some friends on mine argue that women have choices, and to stay home is one choice.” Yes, this is true if one can afford it. We are lucky enough to be able to make that choice. But the majority of woman cannot afford to do that and have to work at low-level jobs and make arrangements for their children to be taken care of, unless they are married and can split working times with their spouse.

 One of your friends thinks that the “bonus” is nothing more than a large holiday gift. Maybe. I have never heard of such a bonus before and I wonder if it is just figuring out what the expenses for running the house will be for the coming year.  I would be interested in seeing what you (and your friends, if you want to pass this on) think of these additional thoughts. Caryl.

 (10) No time until now to comment on the Little Rich Women op-ed which I read of course.  I see these women at dinner in Upper East Side restaurants all the time.  Just by looking at them you can tell they are part of this phenomenon because they are roughly the same age as the husband, chicly dressed, not a hair out of place, etc. usually out with one or two other couples whose wives look the same.  The other class of women who look like them are trophy wives, but they are the much younger wives of older successful men (saw Tony Bennett with his at the theatre a couple of weeks ago) and frankly there’s not much difference in the way they lead their lives, though I would suspect that they have less choice because they are probably far less educated.  Working women look stressed, not as well groomed, etc,  understandable, they don’t have the time.  We’re back to the old story of women not being able “to have it all”.  Don’t we all personally know many cases among the daughters of friends who went to law school or got MBA s and now stay home tending their children.   Wonder what Sheryl Sandberg says about all of this with her lean-in theories.  She was able to lean in because no one ever knew how many nannies and household help she had and now she is dealing with another problem, being a single parent.  Anyway, all of this is endlessly fascinating, but whenever I see a married women with children and a successful career, I wonder which part of her equation had to “give” to enable her to “have it all”.  No one can have it all.  Linda S.

(11) Hi, Yes I read about the women who get bonuses from their husbands – and get it written in a pre nup. I just think how sad they are and how little they value themselves as people. Barbara.

 (12) I did want to chime in, Beatrice, but have been busy with family (still in Portland).  I read the NYT article when it first came out, and, at first, was appalled.  Bonuses?  allowances pegged to performance?  it all does seem to be a little extreme.  What would really be interesting would be to see the details of those pre- or post-nuptials.  My guess is that it is all more nuanced.  Aside from that, though, it did call to mind the earlier years of the Feminist movement when there was a demand for women's work in the home to be given a monetary value, ideally with actual pay (including benefits such as social security). The arrangement described in the article comes close to this.  It does at least acknowledge that what these women do has a monetary value.  Of course, there are also significant flaws. The most glaring one, I think, is that -- as you said and I agree -- it does put the husband in the position of an employer, and this completely upsets the notion of their being equal partners or of having equal power. Another is the notion of tying pay to performance, if, in fact, it is really the children's performance that may be measured.  But again, the whole system may be far more nuanced and equal than it appears. I would not try to compare these women to anyone else of a different class (and maybe not even a different geography!).  We know that the rich, esp the Wall Street nouveau riche, live differently from the rest of us. Mary Pat.

(13) Although I live just across the park from this particular tribe, I must say I do not know any of them, let alone their mores. Even our wealthier friends fall into the two-income category and have generally chosen to live on the more down-to-earth Upper West Side. (Any neighborhood where it's hard to get a cab is a no-go for me!) The idea of a "bonus" for being a "successful" wife seems especially odd. I have heard of non-working women of that class express concern over being left by their husbands, but this world is as foreign to me as it must be to you. That said, I thought anthropologists were supposed to be objective; this one seems to have an axe to grind. After all, what she dismisses as "free work" for charitable and educational causes is an essential part of life in all our cities. What would Central Park be like without the Central Park Conservancy? Perhaps she should have stayed in the West Village, which, like the UWS, has too much diversity for comfort for the Upper East Side animals she now associates with. (Donna’s friend).

(14) This is a question to which there is no correct answer - I agree with your friend's discussion (Caryl) of the never ending disagreements between working mothers and non-working mothers. That argument seems to bring out a defensiveness on both sides of the table and will probably never be resolved.  The bonus issue however is - to me - very troubling and demeaning. Household costs should clearly be paid by the income earning spouse and can be accomplished by a household budget, not a "bonus". I worked my entire adult life until Richard and I came into this gypsy lifestyle with the State Dept. I found it demeaning to have to ask Richard for money to buy groceries, pay the maid and so on. So we decided instead to set up a system whereby he wrote a monthly check for household costs as determined by me. I might have had to remind him about timing but that was it. It ceased to be my allowance, bonus or whatever and was instead characterized for what it was.  Maybe these other ladies, who have never worked, don't find the bonus offensive but I certainly would. nuf said!  Kathleen 

24 May, 

(15) Dear Linda, I love your belated comments which I will pass around as L.C. They make lots of good sense. My blog is hard to write because the subject is so emotional and women have strong views on the subject.  Our personal experience shapes our opinion. What bothers me is that too many women still “think inside the box”, the patriarchal box. Women have more options now, some can stay home if they wish (although often a short term-option) because other women (feminists mostly) spoke loud and clear and pushed the economic & social boundaries for all.  Women crave for more equality, they all have to fight for it either from the home or from the office. Of course, from the home is more difficult and it looks less credible.  Can one imagine Ann Romney going to Washington D.C. to request paid maternal leave? Beatrice.

(16) Dear Beatrice, I was so interested to read all the comments about the article.  I went back and read it again--I hadn't really focused on the bonus issue.  It's appalling!  I certainly don't know anyone in NY who does that.  It's treating your wife like an employee--shows a complete lack of trust on both sides.  Tom and I both put our money into our joint account--or as Tom calls it "the black hole,"  and then take out what we need, no questions asked.  It's interesting--everyone handles money differently, and no-one really talks about it--it's as taboo as sex.  As for working/not working, as you know I chose to stay home with my children, and I'm very ambivalent about it.  On the one hand, I absolutely loved having that much time with them, and was never bored--although I know that's not true with many women; on the other hand I did give up autonomy and leverage in the marriage (although ideally one would not need leverage--but life is not ideal). When I quit, Tom was on Wall St. and making lots of money, so my small salary from my publishing job didn't seem important, but when he left Wall St. and started his own business we certainly could have used the money from a second income.   I'll tell you one thing--I've told Biss never to give up her job!  I really don't see it as a viable option going forward.  Someone (I think it was L. S.) said that one always gives up something, and that's certainly true.  So those are my final thoughts on the issue! Linda C.

May 25,

(17) Hi Beatrice, Did you read the letters to the editor about this in today’s Times. Most of them seem to agree with me, not you. I think the author is not believed because no one knows anything about the bonuses and think she made it up from something she heard incorrectly.  Caryl

(18) I am pretty sure that no one wants to admit receiving a bonus to his wife, it is too shocking!  I have read a pre-nup on line and won't be surprised that bonuses in fact exist. Anyway my blog is nearly finished and won't change what I wrote as it is the way I think.  People's views reflect their own experience, which should be respected. In case Martin made up the whole thing it is a scientific fraud. Beatrice.

May 26,

(19) Beatrice, Tom sent me the same article!  She (W.M.) exaggerates for effect, but a lot of it rings true.  The private school admissions game is particularly frightful.  Can't wait to read the book.  Also can't wait to read Tom's comments on all this!  Dear Marianne,  I was very interested to read your response.  The bottom line is all mothers feel guilty one way or another.  I certainly feel guilty about not working...though I do enjoy it!  A thought:  you are obviously very close to your daughter, and you worked, and I am very close to my children, and I didn't--I think they sense the quality and constancy of your love either way, and that's what makes the difference. Linda C.

May 27,

Well, in this article you tapped into the secrets of the Upper East Side! We have a mafia pledge of Omerta to never discuss these things, except in cigar filled rooms with like-minded male plutocrats. These secret meetings are in obscure rooms of exclusive members only clubs, protected by secret handshakes. I understand that Boko Haram (definitely not to be confused with the 60s rock band Poco Harem) has similar clubs.
All of this is entrapment by aspirational social climbing.  It seems that this is the inverse of progress. Kind of like longing for the forgotten world of a 1950s awful meal. Sometimes you smell something in the air that takes you to a forgotten paradise of lousy food. Deja vu.
With progress comes un-progress. The problem is that women today have it easy because of the hard fights your generation had. So you have alpha women who stay at home dreaming up metrics for their lives: more kids, better schools, Harvard, etc. Ask Linda she’s been there, seen that in Ct and NYC.
Hope that contributes! Tom.