Comments on: Matriarchy, patriarchy and the masters of the universe Sun, 28 Jul 2013 14:34:09 +0000 hourly 1 By: Barni1 Sat, 06 Jul 2013 02:08:57 +0000 To become one of the ‘masters of the universe’ one must have a predatory virtually 24/7 focus on beating your opponents and creating and profiting from manipulated advantage. Being distracted by any non monetary issues like family puts one at a serious disadvantage when one’s competitors are no so distracted.
Men in this mode make lousy fathers and it is inconceiveable that all women could somehow be excellent mothers and capitalists at the same time while being limited to a 24 hour day!
I have never seen or heard of any man or women who can successfully be their best at both activities while multi tasking. The one minute manager mode is the epitome of the attempt to multi task at these two disparate activities and it will eventually fail at one or the other or in the majority of cases – both.
That is why the most successful at doing this are partners who specialize in one or the other.
The masters of the universe know this fact, which you seem to reject, and therefore they require that any person male or female either do business or parenting but not both simultaneously. The fact is that ‘multi tasking’ in any event should never be a constant effort; it should only be attempted for short duration if one has absolutely no other alternative, not as a modus operandi when 100% success is required and expected.

By: JL4 Thu, 06 Jun 2013 14:18:42 +0000 My husband said one day “If men had the babies, we’d sit around wearing crowns for nine months.” It isn’t children that keep women from the big money in business, it’s men.

By: Watever Mon, 03 Jun 2013 19:19:40 +0000 I don’t think the writer’s stats say what she wants them to say. 4 in 10 households have a woman as the primary bread winner. Doesn’t that really just indicate the increase in the divorce rate?

By: yooper Sun, 02 Jun 2013 17:03:44 +0000 Have what it takes to do what? If what it takes is to game the political system so that there is a plutocracy ruling over a bunch of serfs, we are doomed. As several commenters on a right wing blog noted, it is because men haven’t taken the resposibility for fatherhood seriously. They haven’t taken responsibilty because good paying jobs have been outsourced and insourced to cheaper foreign labor and the vampire capitalists have destroyed manufacturing. The other problem is that a significant number of men are or have been incarcerated during their employable years, thus limited their ability to support a family.

By: XRayD Sun, 02 Jun 2013 04:17:53 +0000 I thought this had been settled –

Fox Business host Lou Dobbs asserted women earning more than their husbands was an indication of the dissolution of American society. Fox News political analyst Juan Williams agreed, describing it as a sign of the disintegration of marriage that would have negative consequences for generations to come.

Fox News contributor Erick Erickson went one step further, saying nature itself commanded that women be subservient to men.

“I’m so used to liberals telling conservatives that they’re anti-science,” Erickson explained. “But liberals who defend this and say it is not a bad thing are very anti-science. When you look at biology, when you look at the natural world, the roles of a male and a female in society and in other animals, the male typically is the dominant role. The female, it’s not antithesis, or it’s not competing, it’s a complementary role.”

By: roboticowl Sun, 02 Jun 2013 00:37:56 +0000 What if oxytocin actually is a relevant factor? It can reasonably be argued that its effects and forming a bond with one’s newborn would make a person more empathetic.
For a middle class mother, whose work actually provides a benefit to society, increased empathy is unlikely to affect her career aspirations. She can also see herself being a good role model to the child and improving the world the child will inherit through her work.
For an up and coming plutocrat however, whose work focuses on personal gain at the expense of others, increased empathy really is anathema to her career aspirations.

By: OneOfTheSheep Sun, 02 Jun 2013 00:37:13 +0000 @Christina,

I already know you will delay posting my comment until long after anyone would still be interested in reading or commenting on it, since that’s what has happened to my responses to your previous two columns. But you need to hear this.

There is a rather significant difference between the ability of middle-class mothers to “…bring home the family bacon…” and the ability to rise to the top of “…the summits of high finance, where many of the greatest fortunes in this new Gilded Age are being amassed”. Separate goals. Separate challenges. Different rewards.

You infer this difference is due entirely to gender discrimination. Nothing could be further from the truth. Mr. Jones’ point is quite different and quite valid. You either do not perceive it or refuse to honestly consider it.

He believes there to be differences in “results” between personal priorities of a female associate who is a MOTHER, first and foremost, employed as a professional and another associate, male or female, who gives absolute and unceasing priority to their personal climb up the greasy pole of success…whatever it takes.

He chooses to point to that difference as the reason why there are no women “at the top”. His logic makes much more sense to me than yours, and does NOT preclude the inevitability that a woman with the experience, ability and perseverance will someday reach that lofty perch.

For what it’s worth, men who go out of their way to put family before business typically don’t make it to the top either. Religion, family, success…there can be only ONE “top priority”.

Whether or not the “price” of one’s choice is appropriate is for another discussion and another day. (Disclosure: happily married 49+ years to the same wonderful woman (who worked), childless by choice, now 72, quite content, NO regrets whatsoever.)

By: ptiffany Sat, 01 Jun 2013 17:23:50 +0000 As is common, the comments on Chrystia Freeland’s articles do not appear…

By: ptiffany Sat, 01 Jun 2013 17:22:09 +0000 Magical Myth exposed for all to see the foibles of the One Percenters, the Masters of the Plutocracy. Their common disdain for the Pee-Ons was obvious. (“I like firing people! Don’t you?”) The interesting aspect was how successful the Plutocracy was at manipulating the Idiocracy, encouraging the Pee-Ons to vote against their own self-interest by using a variety of deceptive and distracting issues.

By: Juillet14 Sat, 01 Jun 2013 14:50:21 +0000 ‘Masters of the Universe’ in the Tom Wolfe “Bonfires of the Vanities” context was a pejorative referring to the hubris of Wall Street high fliers.
Today it is a simple fact of life. The interlocking axis of military, corporate and financial interests control the media and the government through ownership, funding, revolving doors, co-option and intimidation.
Democracy is dead.
Long live the ‘Masters of the Universe’.