This week, the blogosphere buzz has been about Edmund Andrews' article in the New York Times magazine. Andrews writes about how he, an economics reporter, got himself so far in debt that the bank will soon foreclose on his house. At first, the story seemed to be about reporters' pay and easy credit. Andrews abdicates responsibility for his debt because the banks gave him money. And they let these people drive cars and vote.
But Megan correctly steered the conversation in another direction. Andrews' problem wasn't that he made too little money. The problem was that he made too little money to support two families. He couldn't afford to get married again and shouldn't have. Andrews never entertains this notion and, in fact, fails to ever say that child support payments are a good thing and that he had a responsibility to care for his first family.
As I was reading the comments on Megan's blog, I was stunned by the new direction of the discussion in her comment section. Now, it wasn't that Andrews screwed up by getting married again. It was that his wives were bleeding him dry and that his second wife, who was raising the kids, was a leech and idle. One guy called SAHMs, Yoga and Pilates women. Another commenter thought that the husbands probably liked having sex with the yoga moms. Then they all exchanged the usual crap about how women steal all your money. Lovely.
But I expect that nonsense from McArdle's comment section. In fact, they were distressingly predictable. (Sorry, Megan.) What I wasn't expecting was the anti-women remarks from other female bloggers.
At TAPPED, Dana Goldstein wags her finger at SAHMs and says that they put themselves at risk financially by not working. That is true. But Andrews' first wife wasn't getting her house foreclosed on. She thankfully had good lawyers, so when Andrews abdicated their agreement, she was able to keep the house and have her children supported. I'm sure she needed to go back to work, too, but she still has a roof over her head. I find it amazing that a women could read that article and come away with the lesson that the wives were the bad guys and not the man who felt entitled to set up two households.
But that post wasn't terrible. There are risks at staying at home and I've written about them before. Sure, she could have written about the enormous obstacles women face in finding work in a sexist workplace and the difficulties in finding a balance between caring for the kids and their own employment. But she didn't. To find real misogyny, one must turn to Double X. I take back all the good things that I said about Double X.
Dayo Olopade compares SAHMs to mistresses. She calls them "trophy wives" and "arm candy." This is written by a woman? Maybe it's one of McArdle's comment trolls in drag? What kind of misogyny is Slate publishing under the guise of feminism? I'm horrified.