Comments on: Schadenfreudelicious! Bennetts sticks it to the NYT

By: perpetua

perpetua — Fri, 25 Sep 2009 18:15:41 +0000

I know the thread it over, but I wanted to thank you, Historiann, for providing those links. It must have taken Hekker a lot of courage to out herself as completely wrong-headed in her youth. And Flanagan! Zoinks!

There is definitely something to the tone of NYT/Atlantic women writing about “women’s” issues (primarily about the work-family struggle). The only thing worse than the Times’s “high ed” coverage is its coverage of issues pertaining to women. All those affluent privileged Manhattanite women gushing about staying at home or opting out (with their nannies and housecleaners), as though somehow their experiences were in any way connected to the realities of working women in this country. And I have to say, even though I know the connection may not be immediately obvious, I felt many similarities in tone and style between the opt-out authors/ Warner/ Flanagan et al. and Rosin’s piece on breastfeeding, which is one of the reasons why I disliked it, sort of viscerally (an affluent mother of the same milieux and background as the others who may or may not actually believe what she writes, has no connection to the majority of working women, and who has a track record for writing controversial pieces possibly for opportunistic purposes. And the sheer joy of the Atlantic in publishing YET ANOTHER piece on how women can’t “have it all”).

By: Z

Wed, 23 Sep 2009 04:53:10 +0000

Actually one of my grandmothers (born 1892, married 1918) had a best case scenario. She had a good B.F.A. and a career when she got married. Mommy tracked for a while and then went back. But had husband’s income to also rely on all this time and even after he died. She could have gone further in career if she hadn’t mommy tracked for a while, but the key had to do with the business she was in in the place she was in it, plus the fact of a generally upper middle class situation. And yes, she was a bluestocking suffragette and all.

By: Historiann

Historiann — Tue, 22 Sep 2009 14:51:33 +0000

Thanks Mamie and LadyProf--here are the links: Terry Martin Hekker, Paradise Lost (Domestic Division), January 1, 2006. Yeah, baby: in the "fashion" section! The title of her book is Ever Since Adam and Eve. For those of you interested in reading about Caitlin Flanagan, this interview in Elle from 2006 will pretty much cover it. She's a shockingly unserious person who was offered a platform for her views because they were contrarian: "modern woman says feminism ruined everything!" Just another opportunist like Katie Roiphe and Rebecca Walker.

By: LadyProf

LadyProf — Tue, 22 Sep 2009 06:23:40 +0000

Elaine Stritch, the Broadway singer/actress, suggested to Terry Hekker the title of her 2006 opus, “Disregard First Book.”

By: Mamie

Mamie — Tue, 22 Sep 2009 03:02:38 +0000

I just emailed the link to the NYT article to you, Historiann. Her last name is spelled Hekker. Google that. Is she mayor of Nyack? Or is that another Terry Hekker?

By: Historiann

Historiann — Mon, 21 Sep 2009 23:20:14 +0000

Caitlin Flanagan is a piece of work. She has full-time nannies, and 1) yet went on at length about how satisfying and worthwhile it was to devote herself to her children, and (even more outrageously) 2) premier outlets for her “non-fiction” like the Atlantic and the New Yorker clamored after her and published that drek.

The Atlantic and the New Yorker are two magazines with terrible track records of publishing any writing (fiction or non-) by women writers. Yet they found plenty of room to publish Flanagan. And, IIRC, she is wife upgrade 2.0, so her husband would have to be a very elderly rake if he were to dump her for model 3.0.
(I guess choosing an older husband helps make the full-time nannies more affordable!)

Poe and Kathleen (and anyone else): I’m having trouble finding Terry Hecker’s article, or anything other than facebook pages for her. Can you help? Just leave a link in the comments. Thx! (Maybe teh Google is part of the Stepford Wives-like conspiracy to disappear her essay and her renunciation of antifeminism!)

By: Kathleen Lowrey

Kathleen Lowrey — Mon, 21 Sep 2009 23:14:33 +0000

This makes me first in line for a horrible person prize, but I always kind of imagine Caitlin Flanagan someday going through a Terry Hecker volte-face (thanks, Poe, like Historiann I remembered her story but would never have remembered her name!).

By: Another Damned Medievalist

Another Damned Medievalist — Mon, 21 Sep 2009 22:18:02 +0000

Heh. In a not-funny way. I’m reminded of a friend in Germany, where there is (on paper) fairly generous maternity leave with a guarantee of a job back, but a friend who took off time from a high-powered banking career to be a SAHM found out that there were all kinds of ways that she could not re-enter the workforce. Her employer had restructured her old job, so she was forced to take a lower-paying one with fewer responsibilities, she was passed over for promotions that, before the kids, she regularly gained. She finally left and went back to being a SAHM, because trying to get back to her pre-children level was too damned hard, and it was clear that she wasn’t welcome anymore.

By: Poe

Poe — Mon, 21 Sep 2009 21:56:19 +0000

Terry Hecker – I think the column in which she admitted she was wrong ran in the “Modern Love” section of the NYT magazine. I still remember a line about how her ex-husband got to take her replacement (a newer, sleeker model) to Cancun while she sold her engagement ring to pay her mortgage.

Don’t know what to make of this – but didn’t she also compare her (mistaken former) view of marriage to tenure?

By: Historiann

Historiann — Mon, 21 Sep 2009 20:48:52 +0000

thefrogprincess–that wasn’t my post, but it sounds like an interesting problem!

Kathleen, what was the name of the woman who wrote a smug book in the 1970s about how she supported and enjoyed traditional gender roles and family values, and then publicly renounced it after she was dumped by her husband in middle-age and was living in poverty? I can’t think of her name now, and it’s killing me. I’m pretty sure it’s in Bennetts book–but I read a friend’s copy so I can’t check it now! IIRC, she was in the news lately because it was the 30th anniversary of her book (perhaps?), and because she recently had hit the circut to talk about how wrong she was.

Gaaaaah! So frustrating.