Publications
Partners
At the centre of that pit of jealousy sat judgement – of both her and myself. That she’d actually married (for) money (who does that) and that I, the sensible woman, was alone. It’s not that I wanted marriage (I was still nursing third-degree burns from various failed relationships).
But I had been feeding on the feminist diet that made me believe that career women shall inherit the earth and a by-product of that bounty would be the best in the litter of mates.
My friend and I always had clashing courtship rituals. While I was wrestling guys for my share of even the tiniest bill, she was sizing them up based on the car they drove or their salary.
I found her way of doing things hilarious, even charming, but I never thought she was being as considered as I was in my own career choices. I guess she must have thought the same about me.
When she married a wonderful, generous and loving man, as it turned out, it conflicted with my deep-seated beliefs about what a modern, capable woman desires. I assumed that, should a clever woman choose marriage and motherhood, she’d keep working, not stay at home and live off an allowance.
And so it was with interest that I read about the reaction to a book called Primates of Park Avenue, an anthropological look at the lives of the stay-at-home wives of investment bankers and CEOs in New York.
Its author, Wednesday Martin, wrote an op-ed piece two weeks ago in The New York Times on her study of these “Glam SAHMs”, for glamorous stay-at-home moms, who are, in essence, strategic social climbers and run their homes like corporate CEOs. Crafting their children’s lives for success, while sculpting their bodies through excessive exercise and expensive clothes, these are women with various degrees from top-notch institutions.
In other words, they had choices, and this was what they went for.
The book sounds interesting. Firstly, because Martin’s study zeroes in on the lives of rich women with a level of scientific scrutiny that’s usually reserved for poor, black women.
Secondly, what’s raised the eyebrows of many women is its mention of the “wife bonus”, a sort of 13th cheque such women get from their husbands based on how well they have managed the home and kids.
Two friends shared this story with me this week, with one saying she found the idea of a “wife bonus” hilarious.
“But at the same time,” she added, “taking care of three or four kids is a full-time job, so why should they not get a bonus for doing a good job?”
Are they empowered, getting paid for working at home, as middle class women have demanded for years?
Martin believes they are losers in their marriages because women who don’t “hunt and gather” to contribute to the household have diminished power.
Living off a husband is a precarious prospect, especially with no safety net of your own. But these women are not oppressed; they are ultra-elite, likely from privileged upbringings, with prenups and postnups.
As much as I’d like to sympathise, I can’t help but keep thinking back to my own realisation about women who marry rich. We like to think they bag old, fat, verbally abusive men who are bad in bed. But many of them end up like the rest of us – just with more money, even if it’s being doled out to them.
Marriage is a system built on patriarchal values, so are women who marry rich just ahead of the game?
People’s choices don’t make me jealous any more because I’ve let go of the feeling of entitlement my feminist values gave me. But I’m still confused by the choices of modern middle class women – how we often agree on one thing, but when given the choice, pick the opposite.
Follow me on Twitter @joonji
