How to conduct a hard-hitting interview: a primer for the lady journalist
Observe this NYT Magazine interview with editor Bonnie Fuller. Apparently Fuller has written book titled “The Joys of Much Too Much.” She is pitching it as a defense of women who want to have both a great family and a great job. She’s going to reassure us that it’s okay to want it all, and get it too. That might sound pretty good to you. But a hard-hitting female journalist can’t be taken in so easily. Instead, watch what Deborah Solomon says:
But we can’t have everything. We’re in a moment of postfeminist Realpolitik, when women are realizing that juggling a job and family life requires some sacrifices. It’s impossible to do everything well all the time.
It’s important to remember a woman can’t expect to be happy in both her career and her family. Some women might think this is possible, but that’s because they think they are men. Don’t let them get away with it.
Fuller responds by suggesting that women can make sacrifices in the area of housewifery. For instance, don’t worry about keeping a clean house. Again, sounds pretty good. But watch Solomon cut right through Fuller’s complacency:
What philosophy is this? The philosophy of Dishevelism?
Whenever another woman says something nice and relaxed, it’s good policy to make fun of her. She probably thinks she is doing an okay job with her life, and it’s your job to show her how wrong she is.
Also, if she takes pride in being the main breadwinner for her family of five, you should probably ask,
But how does your husband feel about that? You never even say what he does.
Then you should ask to see his balls, because Fuller obviously has them in her pocket. Or, in this case, perhaps behind her back.
March 28th, 2006 at 7:57 am | Promoted
We’re in a moment of postfeminist Realpolitik
That so does not mean anything.
It is, however, make the awesome name ever for the awesomest Le Tigre cover band that I just made up now cause I’m so awesome.
PoSTF3MiNiST R3ALP0LIT1K 4-EVA!!!
March 28th, 2006 at 7:59 am
We’re in a moment of postfeminist Realpolitik
That so does not mean anything.
It is, however, the awesomest name ever for the awesomest Le Tigre cover band that I just made up now cause I’m so awesome.
PoSTF3MiNiST R3ALP0LIT1K 4-EVA!!!
March 31st, 2006 at 3:50 am | Promoted
The problem with the outlook that that women can have it all, is that they in fact aren’t men. That is the crux. It’s not a sexist comment. If anything it’s sexist in favor of women. As men, we find it easy to detach emotionally from such things as the cleaniless of one’s room, or the children or a significant other, I find that it is difficult for women to do so. Of course there is no scientific basis for my statement; only personal experience. But rather than find this as a weakness of women, I find this a strength.
As such, the man doesn’t really “have it all” either, because while he may have a successful career, his “home life” tends to suffer. In fact, I think we may be biologically wired to be bad at home life, or have to work significantly harder for an emotional attachment and emotional health.
That is not to say that “Women belong at home”. On the contrary, I think it’s very important for gender equality that we men evolve (see biological connection) beyond those limitations of emotional self, and this may allow women to detach from it a bit. How? If she can be confident that she’s not abandoning the home (i.e. leave it in capable hands), then maybe she _can_ have it all. She just needs him to get off his ass and actually do some work.
Hmm do I sound feminist enough, blaming it on men?