I think Katie hit the nail on the head when she said these women have Real Housewives energy. I don’t know any of these people, but the whole story felt like pro wrestling. None of it seems real, it’s just grift all the way down.
Which to be clear is absolutely a bad thing, but at least griftiness is an idea I can sort of understand. It still somehow bothers me less than the bleak dystopian energy of holding an “accountability session” for dating a cop.
Is anyone? There seems to be this assumption that these women represent a median MAGA, as opposed to being vaguely conservative-themed entertainment properties. I’m sure the number of people taking them seriously is not literally zero, but I can’t imagine it’s huge.
“Real Housewives” is right… but no one treats the Real Housewives as being representive of a median progressive, despite most of them having left leaning politics.
That's pretty different because their politics, even if they were to the left, don't have to do with how they got their money or their fame. I also seriously doubt that a group of women famous for being greedy, vapid, and inclined towards ostentatious displays of wealth are sitting up at night worrying about how to further Medicare for all, make housing a human right, or stop funneling taxpayer dollars to Blackwater. Like, they don't want to throw stones at gay people, think that they themselves should retain the right to vote, and don't want their domestic staff getting deported, but that's about the median level of leftism for these broads. Generally though, US conservatives haven't the foggiest idea what constitutes a leftist position. Is a smoothie with kale in it a leftist position? How about interacting amiably with a woman who has visible body hair without even grimacing once?
Yea. It’s wild to pretend the materialistic, vapid Real Housewives are left-coded. If they vote at all, it’s for whoever promises to tax rich people less.
I think a lot of the people buying into the grift are dissatisfied men. I have a couple of friends who don’t have a significant other who find pearl entertaining.
Oh ffs Katie (and apparently/maybe Jesse in the future), flying from New York to Boston is such a bitch move: usually not cheaper, burns a metric fuckton of jet fuel to go a frivolously short distance, absolutely *always* much much less pleasant (spacious seating on the train + no airports, for starters), and generally quite reliable. I love the incredulous discussion of delays and equipment problems as though that’s a thing that only happens with railroads and certainly never with domestic air travel, lol. Oh and besides, the NYC-BOS route is very pretty; it hugs the coastline basically the whole time until you get to Rhode Island.
And yes it was very important that I write this dumb comment about this tedious subject because in this case it’s one of my pet things to care a bit too much about. So I’m sorry/you’re welcome, everyone. I will say though, flying to Boston is at least fractionally more justifiable than flying to DC, which I’m still astonished anyone ever does. (Not sure why you wouldn’t just drive though since I know Jesse has/had a car, especially since you’ve gotta get to the Cape and not just Boston.)
Flying from Boston to DC is infinitely more justifiable than flying from Boston to NYC. The fastest Amtrak from Boston to DC is ~7 hours. Once transit time gets above 5 hrs flying is the more rational choice to save time.
Yeah I meant flying from NYC -> BOS is more sensible than NYC -> DC. I agree with you: I used to live in central Mass. and in order to go to DC the best option was to fly (from Hartford in my case).
That said, sometimes I enjoy a long train trip. It’s the only pleasant way to go on a long land-based journey where you can take in the surroundings—buses are almost always somewhat miserable—so I have done BOS -> DC on the train a couple times. It’s nice to be able to zone out and stare out the window rather than sitting in traffic and swearing at my windshield.
Had a friend who was on one when it caught on fire on the highway once lol (everyone was fine but my friend was a bit shaken up) and I gotta say, while I know that’s highly abnormal and just really poor luck, it did sorta put me off the Chinatown buses a little bit. I’ve only done it once though and I agree it was perfectly fine, especially for the shockingly cheap price.
My aunt told me about one that got in an accident, I think with fatalities, that made the news. Idk if there are good stats available, and I wouldn’t be surprised if theirs looked worse than other services. You get what you pay for, etc… But I’ve had acceptable experiences so far. I also use it just about every time I go back and forth from Albany, which is near me, to NYC.
I take the train from DC to slightly past Boston (Springfield) regularly. It's cheaper, less of a hassle, and more comfortable. And I'm a frequent flyer (with status so in the good seats).
Last time I encountered a train delay, I just went to the window and got a free change to the next train going to my destination. About a 30 minute delay. Ask next time, Jesse!
Also, they switch from an electric engine to a diesel engine in New Haven. Less than 15 minutes!
Also, it is *maddening* that they haven’t managed to electrify the entire line from New York to Boston. Just madness that the only semi-modernized, non-freight-owned train line in America STILL has to switch to diesel halfway between its midway point and end point.
I’m confused by this: Springfield isn’t really “past Boston”, it’s way west of Boston (I used to live in central Mass., so I know that part of the state very well). There are NE Regional trains that go from DC to Springfield but they don’t go to Boston, of course; they head north after New Haven and go through Hartford and Windsor Locks directly to Springfield. The best train from DC to Springfield is the Vermonter though; gets you there a good 45 min faster since it skips some intermediate stops (Metropark, New Rochelle, multiple small-town stops in CT between New Haven and the Mass. border)—unfortunately there’s only one of them a day in each direction and the one from DC leaves at like 8am, sooo… plus I’d be tempted to stay onboard and just go to Vermont instead, lol.
I'm taking the train a ways and it's comfortable and convenient is my point.
The Vermonter is fine. The last time I tried to take it, it was delayed by several hours so I got on a different train, a NE regional. Or maybe it was the other way around?
I live and work in Boston and once a quarter I have to travel to Manhattan for a 90 minute meeting. I would rather fly than take the train. Also I have taken the Amtrak many times and I have had more delays on the train than on the plane. Would rather drive than take the train.
I mean these days I usually end up driving when I go to Boston because we’ve got a dog and it’s always preferable to be able to bring him with us, so that rules out the train. But if it’s just me going and the lady is staying home with the dog, train every time for me. It’s just so much more pleasant an experience, and I won’t pretend I’m not a bit of a train nerd too, so that is a factor for me as well. But yeah usually I drive these days, especially if I’m staying at a friend’s place who has a place for me to park. Love a nice cruise on the Merritt Parkway, one of the prettiest roads in the Northeast imo, or certainly one of the most well-designed roads of that sort I’ve driven on anywhere.
Just noticed this because I’m terrible at checking my notifications on the six million platforms I use, but I might take you up on this! We’re actually coming up there a week from tomorrow but we’re taking the train for once (staying downtown for some conference the lady is attending, plus our friend volunteered to take the dog). But yeah, I’ll try to remember this the next time we drive up for sure!
Just made a reservation for Thursday night after our train gets in (and I got the last decent time too!), so thanks for the rec! Looks like a cool place; she'll definitely love it if we can sit on that patio but I suspect she'll love it regardless (it's Italian food after all)
Also it's really easy to just drive, even if Jesse is too committed to his urban bohemian lifestyle to have a car you can get a rental or use Zipcar etc.
Lol it seems extra weird/out-of-character since she’s Ms. Take Three Ferries to a Tram to a Bus to a Packmule to Reach the Airport rather than just taking an Uber (and I sympathize with her on that! I would probably choose her route too if I had the time!)
I still feel bummed that the one time I had the chance to take the Acela from Boston to NYC, it was right before Hurricane Sandy and I ended up having to take a Chinatown bus instead.
I mean to be fair I live in New York and go to Boston a lot and love trains—and I’ve *still* never been on the damn Acela! The thing is so expensive compared to the Northeast Regional, which is only like 30-40 minutes slower. I just always end up choosing the time over the money.
The counterpoint is that Amtrak has sucked for a long time and continues to suck. If it were more consistent, fine. I often take it from NYC to Albany and usually it's good but on some occasions they have had to "replace the engine" or "restart the computer system" etc. NYC to BOS isn't bad and neither is NYC to DC but flying is way better though I think in terms of NYC to BOS when you factor in getting to the airport it all kind of evens out.
Of course what this boils down to is how Amtrak still sucks after years of sucking and it doesn't seem like they are improving at all. Japan has had high speed rail for many years. Trains in most of Western Europe (and not bad in Eastern Europe save Croatia where they are garbage) are amazing. Trains in Canada (from my recent experience) are not great, but better than Amtrak. I don't think it will get better, unless there was actual competition with Amtrak but that will never happen since most Americans prefer to drive.
I mean… calling the Acela “high speed rail” has been dubious for 2 decades now. I’ve driven from Boston to NYC faster than that train, that shouldn’t be the norm.
Nah, they’re wrong/talking about different things. I imagine they’re talking about crime, which is a real problem, but New Haven (the city and the surrounding area) has a ton to offer: beautiful natural/parkland areas like East Rock Park and others that are easily walkable from the city, or you can just catch the bus; lovely architecture in, for instance, Prospect Hill Historic District; the coastline is very pretty (Lighthouse Point Park, East Haven Town Beach, etc.); and the pizza, my god the pizza. I’m a diehard loyal New Yorker so I can’t quite bring myself to say it’s the best pizza around… but it’s fucking good pizza, as good as you’ll get anywhere, in my estimation.
And this is a bit niche but there’s a lovely place called The Owl Shop that you simply must visit if you enjoy pipes and/or cigars—or just enjoy an interesting atmosphere and interesting people, as long as you don’t mind smoke too much. (They have coffee too, for the non-smokers.) It’s a really unique little spot; I never miss it when I’m in New Haven.
Not sure I’d say it’s a must-visit if you’re over from the Weat Coast or something but if you make it to the Northeast with any regularity you oughta check out New Haven imo. Yale has a pretty campus too, lots of collegiate gothic architecture. Not as pretty as Harvard imo, but that’s a matter of taste.
This whole situation is cringe as fuck. And I have to admit, as someone who absolutely loathes the left wing cancel mob culture and dog piles, (so much so I voted Trump), this did seem more low brow and just dirty. Like the libtards seem to at least have some kind of warped end goal to their bullshit. This just looks like a bitchy cat fight for no reason and it’s a bad vibe. Really gross.
One minor problem I had with the commentary was the idea that a sizeable portion of the “conservative movement” suggest women SHOULD NOT work. It’s more the idea of, do what you want, but society would be better off if more women had the choice not to, cuz the rents too damn high. It’s the pretty basic, women would be GENERALLY happier as home makers. That’s what I see much more of. Obviously not everyone is the same blah blah blah.
Anyone actually saying women should not work, or be able to vote, is a retarded fringe freak.
I think it’s either very naive or very disingenuous to suggest that the conservatives who peddle this rhetoric are just frustrated by economic conditions that mean families require two full time incomes. Many of the loudest conservative voices in this space are evangelical Christians who actively advocate for an end to women’s suffrage.
I know you’re deliberately equivocating by saying “many of the loudest voices”, but do you have any evidence that “women’s suffrage should be repealed” or “women should not be allowed to work” are anything like mainstream Evangelical opinions?
I mean I have not seen this. As a personal preference there are many who like the traditional family dynamic. And it is true that many of those are more likely to be of the Christian variety.
But to say many MAINSTREAM Christians want an end to women’s suffrage or rights (beyond abortion on demand) is outrageous.
Wishing for a society that pushes for and allows women to stay at home is very different from preventing women from working. That’s beyond traditional and is, as I said, a fringe idea.
Can you name some of those people? I've only seen weirdos on the Internet saying stuff like that, most likely for clicks and engagement. Who is out there trying to push policy like that? I wouldn't be surprised if some psycho guy in the Missouri state legislature has tried to sponsor a bonkers bill that never made it out of committee - but can you give some more examples because I truly have neve seen this be discussed seriously at a policy level.
Pete Hegseth is advocating for repealing your right to vote, PNWGirl. According to the presidential order of succession, he is the 6th most important person in American government. What will it take for you to take the threat of Christo-fascism seriously? https://www.instagram.com/p/DNN7lyiS2qL/
????? Which beliefs are you referring to? I know Pete Hegseth is a piece of shit, I already said that in this thread. The only new thing you've convinced me of, is that you're a fucking douchebag too. That's all you've accomplished here. Nice work!
It’s the way you sound exactly like every lib when I tried to tell them that insane ideas were increasingly prevalent in online trans communities and would eventually be reflected in the mainstream. I assume you live in the PNW, but I am from TX and live here. I have been told by real life men (at my job at the state Capitol) I should only be wearing skirts. These conservatives may be grifters, but many of them genuinely subscribe to very fringe beliefs.
yep. I will never forget how many people denied that Roe v Wade could ever possibly be overturned in the US and denied that it was even on the R's radar for years, making fun of anyone who raised an alarm, until literally exactly that happened. Zero people learned from that, they all just do the exact same thing with the next issue.
In the most recent Social Q’s column in the NYT, there was a letter that kind of got to heart of this issue.
The writer says she is married to a man and they have a child ( maybe two kids?). She says she told her friends that the cost of daycare is more than her annual salary. Her friends seemed stunned/put off by this. She wondered if maybe she had committed a gaffe.
A small number of commenters pointed out that the LW’s family would be financially better off if the LW didn’t work, and took care of the kids herself. You would think by the reaction of the other commenters that they had advocated for child rape.
Most people on this planet cannot afford to have a job that actually costs them money.
It does depend on the job. I knew a person who stopped working as a lawyer to raise her children. Then when they were teenagers she had a really nasty divorce. However after all those years off she could no longer really work as a lawyer.
A lot of the problems with this issue is women are taking a risk by not working, not having a resume, not saving for retirement, being dependent on someone who can leave her at any moment.
The societal remedy for that would be to reinstall the true and original purpose of marriage. I guess it’s old fashioned now but when you get married, come hell or high water, you stay together. Make sure your partner is really marriage material, and don’t be a piece of shit. Everyone involved should have the same expectation that you are binding yourself to the other person and you will live your life together from there.
But marriage doesn’t seem like the bond it used to be. Sure some people stuck through some fucked up partnerships. People change. Or they become who they always were hiding. But I think society was still better when the fucking divorce rate wasn’t 50%. Every relationship goes through lows but you can’t just cut and run. You made your vows and you signed that contract, whether it’s with God or the government, and you have a responsibility to your spouse, kids, family, and society to hold on.
But nah, these days everyone just fucks around and nobody cares anymore. Everyone wants more freedom than they know what to do with. They just dip out at the marital equivalent of a stubbed toe.
I think this is a very uncharitable view of divorce. While there's definitely a case to be made that some people are too resistant to proper conflict resolution and sticking things out, some marital problems are genuinely irreconcilable. Nobody gets married thinking they will someday have a costly, emotionally taxing divorce.
Also, the divorce rate is a bit of an unreliable statistic, because the lion's share of divorces involve either boomers who got ill-advisedly married too young back when that was the cultural norm, or outliers who have had multiple marriages. Get this: each subsequent marriage has a higher likelihood of divorce. A person's second marriage is more likely to fail than his first, and his third is more likely to fail than his second.
You’re probably right. I actually just heard the divorce rate may be at a 50 year low from the 1980s. That is likely also due to less people overall getting married, which also is an issue, but hopefully this is the start of a return to marriage being more valued. I really hope, cuz the situation seems bleak.
And those people getting married 500 times is just embarrassing. Like 3 strikes you’re out, and even that’s too much man. Imagine going to your friends 5th wedding. My eyes would roll outta my head.
You’re being unfair. I suppose I didn’t explicitly state that there are obvious exceptions.
It is 100% true that domestic violence was more prevalent and that was horrific. That is an obvious reason to leave. There are many genuine reasons. But I don’t think most marriages fall apart for those genuine reasons. I think most just give up and ditch their vows and responsibilities. And especially when you have children, unless you’ve got a damn good reason to split, you’re fucking up your kids life for selfishness. There’s a lot to be said for staying together for the kids.
Don't speak for everyone. We prayed for our mom to leave. Do you honestly think it's better for kids to grow up in that kind of atmosphere? Whitewashing the abuse that occurred back in the day is pathetic.
“Make sure your partner is really marriage material” implies that women getting beaten and cheated on by their husbands could have foreseen the outcome somehow. I don’t think that’s the case. I think the majority of women who are abused or betrayed did not expect their husbands would do that.
I understand that I said some where in here that after marriage or a lengthy courting period some people just let the facade go and become pieces of shit so I get that. But there are obvious warning signs of impending impropriety for a lot of people.
Like my GFs sister has an absolutely horrible track record for men. 3 sperm donors, 2 went to prison, multiple cars destroyed in drunk driving accidents, a lot of similar red flags. If she ever gets married to a guy like that, she willfully fucked up. She has plenty of experience in what doesn’t work out. She’s a good person, just makes bad decisions in the guys she be hanging around with.
I’m not EXACTLY trying to victim blame, but a lot of people take years to get married these days so if you’re paying attention a lot of divorces could likely be avoided by not marrying a certain candidate at all.
Now of course, another problem is the heart wants what it wants, and it’s my view that human behavior is one of the most complex and contradictory and interesting things in the world, so many times it just is not that simple.
It’s a complicated thing, but trudging forward into something you already think might fail should warrant more consideration is all I’m saying.
It's a solution, for sure (my husband and I put money into a retirement ira for me when I stayed at home for a couple years). But nothing can make up for the loss in career advancement. It's really a risk that a woman is making to stay home. Because you lose out on pay raises, experience, etc. And if the marriage ends for any reason (including an untimely death), the non-working spouse can really be in a precarious position.
Women pre 1980s got married in there 20s because that was the only really economical viable and socially acceptable path forward. Part of what has us all fucked up now is that women do not need to get married to be financially stable. So they get married less and are way choosier. Divorece was sky high among boomers because it was the first time women really had the choice and option to not be married and they decided they’d rather be single than put up with a loveless unfulfilling relationship.
Another great point. So it kind of hurts on the face of it cuz society was in a large part more cohesive but in many of those particular situations under the surface it could be abusive and rough with no economic way out for females.
A very interesting and complex problem I say. It feels like, in a certain way, the value must be placed on individuals or societies. And buddy that’s a tough fuckin question. Cuz I love individual freedoms and rights and happiness but it really feels like that has definitely come at the cost of the wider society. I think I’m moving more away from some of my more hardcore libertarian feelings on such things.
I don't think that's true at all. There's actually evidence that the divorce rate is declining, and it's currently at a 50 year low, around 15 in 1000 marriages per year. The strongest predictor for a divorce is whether one of the parties in a marriage has been divorced previously (shockingly, the same problems that end one marriage are likely to crop up in subsequent marriages). Additionally, people are getting married less which lead to further declines in divorce, purely because marriages tend to be higher quality when you go into them on purpose and not just because everyone around you expects you to get married. Marriage is now an active choice and not a default, which by my lights is a good thing (I've been married for three years). This is a major undertaking and the only reason to do it is because you want to be married to your spouse and have seriously considered the implications of that.
Access to timely divorce does reduce one thing: spousal murder and intimate partner violence. Women in particular, who are more likely to be victims, don't have to stay married to abusive men, but in general people do not have to put up with mistreatment, philandering, financial irresponsibility, etc. This is an uncomplicated good; the alternative is a lot more poisonings.
Yes. People entering into a major social, legal and spiritual contract should be doing so because they want to, not because they are being compelled to by social pressures. My marriage is all the stronger because I actively chose it and continue to choose it every day. If you're not sure about getting married or who you're marrying, or you're doing it because it's "the thing to do" at your age, you SHOULD NOT GET MARRIED because that makes divorce more likely. If you want fewer divorces, you should be happy that people are not getting married who shouldn't be married.
That's so depressing, that now women can't even relax a little and focus on home and family (not that that's very relaxing!) - they have to also be out there hustling and earning and saving for retirement, while having to let other people watch their kids. It's maddening.
I am super doomer brained for sure. My friend who lost everything including her law degree left an impression. Also my field attracts a ton of single mothers because we can offer hours that allows them to avoid childcare by giving them hours that mostly cover school hours. Also the pay is so low they still qualify for benefits.
if I hung out with more rich people I would probably see things differently.
I mentioned this in a different comment, but a pre-nup actually reduces a couple's likelihood of divorce. Seems counterintuitive, right? But they actually encourage couples to communicate about the tough, unsexy topic of finance before they get married. Arguments about money are a very common part of divorces, and pre-nups make it easier for couples to navigate those conflicts.
I think these sort of contingency plans only become toxic if they're a secret to the other party in the marriage.
I suspect you think this is a "fringe" opinion because your media diet is mostly served by Fox News. In reality, this kind of Christo-fascism has influence in the most powerful quarters of American life.
But that's OK, because at least you owned the libs by voting for Trump.
I don’t use instagram so I’ll trust whatever that is to be an in good faith argument.
Wanting to push for a more traditional society where women don’t have to work to make ends meet and so they can raise kids and shit is far different from saying “women should not be able to work. They should all be in the kitchen, barefoot and pregnant, and god help that bitch if I come home and dinner is cold.”
But you can have a stable loving traditional family style that supports everyone’s desires. Advocating for that is fascism or something now? Nobody is taking anyones right to work away.
And for the record I have not ever watched Fox News. It’s too liberal for me.
I disagree about the end goal. That's the part that really turned me off of the democratic party. "Progressive" in their mind means there's never a goal. Once gay marriage became legal 10 years ago, the "trans" movement exploded. If it hadn't, all the LGB organizations would have become irrelevant (and they should have). Same happens with racism. They can't admit any progress has been made no matter how many successful POCs exist.
Oh I agree with that wholeheartedly. But by “end goal” I more refer to whatever is the immediate thing they’re bitching about.
Like with the communist coffee shops. They’re stupid and whiney, but their goal is to cancel someone and steal their shop or whatever. Or with any big name celebrity that they’re trying to cancel. They want to ruin someone (or put them back in line), reaffirm their boot on the neck of society, and “progress” their agenda.
With these catty bitches… it’s just catty bitches fighting over nothing at all. That’s what it looked like to me anyway.
The difference is a personal value vs a larger societal proposal. Saying not staying home is child abuse is quite extreme, but valuing a constant parental presence is not. I don’t think it’s extreme to say if you don’t need to work you probably should not. Or at least work less. But those are all conversations to be had hopefully before the situation arises.
And to be clear, I personally don’t care if it’s a stay at home dad. The point is child rearing is the most important thing most people will ever do with their lives and it is much more effective to have a parent there with them through most of their early years to raise as close to “right” as possible.
But fair enough. Maybe it’s more common than I thought. Overall that’s probably a good thing, unless it gets out of hand. The child abuse charge is quite rough.
I appreciate your points, but I just want to say that it doesn’t track at all with my experience with my conservative Christian in-laws. Between my MIL and three sisters in law, none of them were full-time, permanent stay at home moms. Some of them needed to work for financial reasons, but some of them just loved their jobs. One of them did spend a few years working part time from home when her kids were very little. Obviously I’ve never heard anything from any of them about working being child abuse. I don’t know if your family represents the more mainstream position or if mine does, but I guess these things vary from community to community.
I think the commonality depends on where you live. My mom wrote for a national evangelical magazine (outside the home!) and we went to a number of churches including ones that broke away from mainstream denominations over marriage, and I literally never heard a single person suggest that women are obliged to stay in the home. Of course I grew up in New England, other places are probably different.
I’d argue it’s mainstream conservative AND retarded. 😂
It’s absolutely insane some people in this group are saying it’s a “fringe” conservative position when the highest ranking conservatives in the nation are calling for the repeal of women’s suffrage. The gaslighting from these assholes is galling.
Or, they are being sincere but just, really, really stupid. I’m not sure which is worse.
A broken clock is right twice a day: Emily was 100% right when she said that being a housewife really opens women up to abuse, exploitation, and financial instability (unless she works from home or is some kind of freelancer). A big reason women stay with their abusers is that they are financially dependent on them. Frankly, housewives get screwed even in divorces that don't involve abuse. No one marries somebody who they think they'll have to divorce some day, but statistically, it's basically a coin flip. Being a housewife with no kind of side work creates a gap in employment that looks very ugly on a resume, which makes it hard to find a job during or after a divorce. It's fucked up that child-rearing isn't considered a "job" for these purposes, but that's the world we live in.
People contemplating this lifestyle need to understand the risks. The only women I think can safely take the housewife route are those with family money to fall back on (which is the case for basically all "tradwife" influences, especially the Mormon ones) or those with the sense to draft robust pre-nups. The commenter who said that he doesn't "plan" to trap a woman is pants-on-head retarded. Most abusers don't consciously make a plan to marry a woman and abuse her, because that requires a level of self-awarness not typically seen among those who engage in that behavior.
Counterpoint: I left my job as a nurse case manager to be a SAHM for 13 years.
When we divorced after his affair, I got alimony on top of my child support. This was because I had left my job to take on the home responsibilities. Had I worked, I would not have been entitled to that.
I had no trouble at all getting a good job. I explained I was a SAHM, regional Girl Scout coordinator, on the board of our local women’s civic group and PTO officer. Most of the other SAHMs I knew could say the same. We were all able to do a lot of volunteer work because of our schedules. My youngest still remembers being in a car seat while I did meals on wheels. My friend would bring her little son, and the two of them giggled back there.
Of course, ymmv. I just hear this a lot, and I think women need to know that being a SAHM is not impossible.
It's not impossible by any means, especially if someone engages in community building like you did. Still, I'd recommend that any woman interested in the housewife lifestyle sign a pre-nup. It's great that homemakers are entitled to alimony, but you also want to take steps to make sure (for instance) that you aren't on the hook for 50% of your husband's outstanding debt in the event of a divorce.
The funny thing about pre-nups is that sometimes they can actually prevent divorce, because they encourage couples to have uncomfortable conversations about money before they get married. It's a good way to test a couple's communication and negotiation skills before the stakes get too high.
I totally believe you about your own situation but it seems to depend heavily on the industry re getting back into making money and what state you're in regarding what your allocation of marital wealth ends up being. Also, I know you know this but for any readers please remember that it's possible that he comes out ahead of her regarding marital wealth versus earning potential even if he does end up paying her alimony. That's x amount of years that he was contributing to his retirement account and she was not contributing to hers, that he was getting promotions and pay bumps and she would have too if she had stayed in, etc. I'm sure that industry comes into play here as well as I get the impression that nursing is less stratified by hierarchical position than various business jobs, probably because they need you guys in the hospital keeping things going with the majority of patient care while the doctors are getting raw dogged and rendered infertile.
When I got a restraining order against my abusive ex and filed for divorce, the court ordered him to continue paying the mortgage on the house I stayed in with our kids. My ex simply didn’t pay it. 🤷🏻♀️
A man willing to break the law by abusing his wife probably can’t be counted on to obey court orders w/r/t things like alimony.
My wife and I both worked when our child was young because the hit we would have taken in being out of our fields in our prime working years was not worth it. In some professions I'm sure its fine, but there are others were being out of tthe field for 10 years is a real killer. It is part of the reason why women tend to make less than men, I think.
I completely agree. I think another risk that often gets overlooked is the pressure it puts on the breadwinner. In a two income household, if one person loses their job, at least there’s other money coming in. However, if there’s just one person bringing in money, the stakes are even higher. You have to hope that the breadwinner doesn’t get a debilitating illness or injury, their industry doesn’t become obsolete, their business doesn’t fail, they don’t get laid off, that nobody’s made any reckless investments that ended up backfiring. If you don’t have a strong financial backup plan, those sorts of disruptions can be particularly catastrophic for the household.
The "gap in employment" issue comes partially from a lack of resume-writing knowledge. My husband has done hiring in two (very male-dominated) fields. He says that when applicants list "stay at home dad" on their resumes, they always seem to leave the "skills" column completely blank for that role.
For a lot of jobs, an atypical work history can be a real asset since it means the applicant can bring interesting perspectives and experience to the table. But when any applicant leaves the "skills" column blank for their most recent job, which lasted for years, they are not doing themselves any favors.
The coin flip thing was me being hyperbolic. I made another comment earlier where I reference the exact demographic variability you're referring to.
Respectfully, not everything is about you. Acknowledging the associated risks and pointing out that social media paints an unrealistic picture of home-making is not an insult to your lifestyle, it's a word of caution to young people who haven't yet decided what they want their marriage and child-rearing to look like. Working full-time comes with tradeoffs, too. For instance, even when women work full time, they still end up doing 70% of the housework on average. When husbands don't pull their weight with domestic tasks (and statistically, they don't) working mothers basically end up with two full-time jobs, a recipe for burnout, resentment, and potentially even divorce.
This is part of the problem with how isolated people are from their communities and extended families. Historically, children had more adults in the home than just two parents; they had grandparents, aunts, uncles, cousins, etc. In this economy, couples are often put in a situation where they have to choose between spending most of their paychecks on childcare, or forgoing a second income entirely. Our culture should re-normalize multi-generational households so the burden of children doesn't fall entirely on one or two people, and so elderly people aren't just stuck in nursing homes away from their loved ones.
Very much agree with your last point. That’s why I asked my mother to come live with me. Not having kids any time soon (eventually though, I hope), so figured I’d start it on the other side first lol
I remember hanging out with my SAHM friends one day when we started talking bank accounts, and so I said yeah, I had my own, and I kept enough money in there I could walk if I needed to. You would have thought I said I had five kids and ate three of them. Why on earth would you PLAN for a divorce? etc.
in all my years at home with my kids, I never met another woman who financially protected herself. It’s bizarre.
My sister came out the other end of a nasty divorce with an awful guy (never liked him!) with no sense for managing money because he controlled absolutely everything and was a very high earner who deliberately tried to screw her out of alimony after he banged the secretary, and she is a pretty naive person in general without a lot of life skills. She didn't know how to pay the light bill and had no way to earn her own income or even a sense for how much things cost. It is not 'planning for divorce' to be sensible about money and have insight into your shared finances, even if you aren't the one working outside the home for a million reasons, it's common sense. I love and trust my husband, and we are completely transparent about money with each other, but I have my own too -- (god forbid) he could be hit by a truck and I'd have to be able to keep myself and the household going. A man is a partner, not a plan.
Happy to hear the update on the Lorenz kerfuffle. Proud of you Jesse! You were willing to have a good faith conversation about the Long Covid essay but you pulled out when you realized Taylor was not acting in good faith. A good decision.
BTW does anyone know if there’s disproportional overlap of trans identification and Long Covid?
Not surprising. I'd be willing to bet that there's a lot of "comorbidity" between "long COVID" and EDS, POTS, CFS, and all the other nebulous conditions often self-diagnosed by munchies, malingerers and hypochondriacs.
I think it is worth also saying that one can be unpleasant or distasteful and use their condition to bad-faith ends, but still suffer from said condition. I think there are probably less psychosomatic illnesses than we think, but it's just that a group most ppl find irritating are the ones speaking the loudest about them, almost by design..
Taylor Lorenz really seems like an awful person. This has nothing to do with her political views. And I don't know her personally but she is a public figure. But everything about her public conduct suggests that she's just a vile human being, from her treatment of people like Jesse to celebrating murder.
Okay, an interesting hypothesis from Katie that hadn’t occurred to me. Is Pearl’s intense loathing for other women actually internalized homophobia? Much to ponder.
The trad wife thing is either pick me or fetish-y, or both. I say this as a conservative woman in an actually fairly traditional marriage.
About not wanting women to vote — that’s all woke right bullshit.
Not to go all conspiracy brain, but I think James Lindsay is right that those guys are deliberately sabotaging the republican party’s next election cycle. Or they’re just fascists. James is right either way.
As someone on the opposite side of the aisle, I agree on that first point. There is a weirdly fetishistic undercurrent to the whole tradwife thing, like these women are emulating the stereotypical housewives they see in porn rather than home-makers as they actually are. My grandmother was a housewife who made everything herself, from preserves to clothes. She was homely, salt-of-the-Earth, and frugal without being materialistic. My grandfather was also very deferential to her, and never told her what to do. The fantasy presented by these influencers does not resemble that in the least.
I would love for someone to explain to me why saying that a person who claims to have Long Covid but had not evidence of SARS-COv2 infection might be suffering from a psychosomatic condition is anti-vaccine. Or anti-science for that matter. If you get infected with the virus, it's got to replicate its genome, so you should be able to detect it at the correct point in time. And if you get infected, you're going to produce antibodies and T cells that recognize it -- unless you have a condition like SCID. If I had symptoms without evidence of infection, I'd certainly prefer it to be psychosomatic rather than MS which shares some of the symptoms of Long COVID but shaves 5-10 years off your life unlike a psychosomatic condition.
As long as we can start with the proviso that I don’t actually agree with this logic, I think I can explain it:
There is a right-wing movement to promote eugenics and kill off the disabled in the population, sort of a vulgar Nietzcheanism. They believe the strongest should survive. In order to accomplish this, they tell lies about the science and the vaccines, so that people don’t mask up and get vaxxed to protect the vulnerable like they should. By saying Long Covid is psychosomatic, you are justifying those anti-science and anti-vaccine ideas and right wing eugenics in general.
I think it is just "the right wing is anti-vaxx, questioning any component of covid is therefore rightwing and therefore anti-vaxx."
Like all things in US political discourse, to cede any ground to a (in the case of the anti-vaxx and RFKJR crowd, pretty deranged and dangerous) opponent means to support them.
The eugenic agenda of depopulation Lorenz blames on people like Jesse is likely being accomplished by the widespread adoption of unsafe and ineffective mRNA "vaccine" technology. I get a flu jab every year and I am overdue for my pneumovax booster, but I'll never take another mRNA shot as long as I live, which, after having been talked into getting 3 of them in 2021 by my family and my doctors, might not be as long as it would have been had I never participated in the experiment.
Yeah I mean, heterodox is what heterodox does, right? I reject the notion of ideological silos, and have pretty varied opinions on many things from different perspectives. It's actually not very controversial to say the mRNA shots are killing people, by the way.
This episode illustrates why conservatives usually don't do comedy very well.
1) Those who take themselves overseriously are just not funny, and these women could not be more overserious about themselves.
2) Comedy is about putting together ideas that don't go together, and conservatives just don't do that very often. The thing about being traditional is that you think traditional thoughts, and there's nothing surprising about them.
3) Roasting people is about *knowing* them, so that your roasts are true. For example, if I say that Barack Obama is lazy, that's not funny because nobody, not even Obama's enemies, really think that is true. If I say he is arrogant or overintellectual, that's a more likely path to a good put-down. These women aren't really reading each other; they're just throwing a bunch of random insults, which is only funny in a look-at-me-pull-the-wings-off-a-fly way. Nothing they say is clever and honest, and a good roast is both.
It is amazing how bad conservative comedy, conservative movies, and any other type of conservative art tends to be. I've consumed a few of these things, almost always expecting something more than what I got. There are a couple of exceptions but not too many. It's something I was thinking about a lot because it does tend to show up even when you have a good budget. And as someone who was recently wondering why these suck so frequently, I appreciate your $.02
I agree, and want to add: I think the personality traits that make someone a very outspoken conservative are the opposite of the traits that artistic/creative people have. Comedic timing and good jokes are both a type of art.
“What is the difference between being married and in love or single and in a back of a cab” “what your not going to beat me or screw me? What kind of marriage is this?”
I haven't read Douthat's book, but recently read The Collected Schizophrenias by Esme Weijun Wang, and the entire way through I was thinking, "okay, this basically vibes with my very layman's knowledge of schizoaffective disorder, okay." And then near the end she discusses going to some Chronic lyme faith healer in Arizona and I'm just like "noooooo."
Some people confuse chronic lyme with late-stage lyme, though--so maybe Katie's just confused?
Douthat was on Andrew Sullivan's podcast to promote the book and he said (IIRC) that one of the few things that brought him relief from his chronic Lyme symptoms was praying to the Virgin Mary. And I was like, my man, you really ought not say such things out loud if you want me to believe that this thing is not psychosomatic. But say it he did.
Congratulations to Jesse on becoming the first sufferer of Long Seasickness.
Genuinely LOLed at this
I was just coming here to make some version of that joke. Thank you for your service.
I think Katie hit the nail on the head when she said these women have Real Housewives energy. I don’t know any of these people, but the whole story felt like pro wrestling. None of it seems real, it’s just grift all the way down.
Which to be clear is absolutely a bad thing, but at least griftiness is an idea I can sort of understand. It still somehow bothers me less than the bleak dystopian energy of holding an “accountability session” for dating a cop.
The real question is what kind of people are bought into the grift
Is anyone? There seems to be this assumption that these women represent a median MAGA, as opposed to being vaguely conservative-themed entertainment properties. I’m sure the number of people taking them seriously is not literally zero, but I can’t imagine it’s huge.
“Real Housewives” is right… but no one treats the Real Housewives as being representive of a median progressive, despite most of them having left leaning politics.
That's pretty different because their politics, even if they were to the left, don't have to do with how they got their money or their fame. I also seriously doubt that a group of women famous for being greedy, vapid, and inclined towards ostentatious displays of wealth are sitting up at night worrying about how to further Medicare for all, make housing a human right, or stop funneling taxpayer dollars to Blackwater. Like, they don't want to throw stones at gay people, think that they themselves should retain the right to vote, and don't want their domestic staff getting deported, but that's about the median level of leftism for these broads. Generally though, US conservatives haven't the foggiest idea what constitutes a leftist position. Is a smoothie with kale in it a leftist position? How about interacting amiably with a woman who has visible body hair without even grimacing once?
Yea. It’s wild to pretend the materialistic, vapid Real Housewives are left-coded. If they vote at all, it’s for whoever promises to tax rich people less.
I think a lot of the people buying into the grift are dissatisfied men. I have a couple of friends who don’t have a significant other who find pearl entertaining.
Oh ffs Katie (and apparently/maybe Jesse in the future), flying from New York to Boston is such a bitch move: usually not cheaper, burns a metric fuckton of jet fuel to go a frivolously short distance, absolutely *always* much much less pleasant (spacious seating on the train + no airports, for starters), and generally quite reliable. I love the incredulous discussion of delays and equipment problems as though that’s a thing that only happens with railroads and certainly never with domestic air travel, lol. Oh and besides, the NYC-BOS route is very pretty; it hugs the coastline basically the whole time until you get to Rhode Island.
And yes it was very important that I write this dumb comment about this tedious subject because in this case it’s one of my pet things to care a bit too much about. So I’m sorry/you’re welcome, everyone. I will say though, flying to Boston is at least fractionally more justifiable than flying to DC, which I’m still astonished anyone ever does. (Not sure why you wouldn’t just drive though since I know Jesse has/had a car, especially since you’ve gotta get to the Cape and not just Boston.)
I came to write the same dumb comment. Thank you.
???
Flying from Boston to DC is infinitely more justifiable than flying from Boston to NYC. The fastest Amtrak from Boston to DC is ~7 hours. Once transit time gets above 5 hrs flying is the more rational choice to save time.
I believe he means flying from NYC to DC is unnecessary. At least that is how I read the comment.
Yeah I meant flying from NYC -> BOS is more sensible than NYC -> DC. I agree with you: I used to live in central Mass. and in order to go to DC the best option was to fly (from Hartford in my case).
That said, sometimes I enjoy a long train trip. It’s the only pleasant way to go on a long land-based journey where you can take in the surroundings—buses are almost always somewhat miserable—so I have done BOS -> DC on the train a couple times. It’s nice to be able to zone out and stare out the window rather than sitting in traffic and swearing at my windshield.
For those of us who are broke af, the Chinatown bus is a surprisingly decent ride from NYC to Boston. For less popular routes? Less so.
Had a friend who was on one when it caught on fire on the highway once lol (everyone was fine but my friend was a bit shaken up) and I gotta say, while I know that’s highly abnormal and just really poor luck, it did sorta put me off the Chinatown buses a little bit. I’ve only done it once though and I agree it was perfectly fine, especially for the shockingly cheap price.
My aunt told me about one that got in an accident, I think with fatalities, that made the news. Idk if there are good stats available, and I wouldn’t be surprised if theirs looked worse than other services. You get what you pay for, etc… But I’ve had acceptable experiences so far. I also use it just about every time I go back and forth from Albany, which is near me, to NYC.
I take the train from DC to slightly past Boston (Springfield) regularly. It's cheaper, less of a hassle, and more comfortable. And I'm a frequent flyer (with status so in the good seats).
Last time I encountered a train delay, I just went to the window and got a free change to the next train going to my destination. About a 30 minute delay. Ask next time, Jesse!
Also, they switch from an electric engine to a diesel engine in New Haven. Less than 15 minutes!
Also, it is *maddening* that they haven’t managed to electrify the entire line from New York to Boston. Just madness that the only semi-modernized, non-freight-owned train line in America STILL has to switch to diesel halfway between its midway point and end point.
I’m confused by this: Springfield isn’t really “past Boston”, it’s way west of Boston (I used to live in central Mass., so I know that part of the state very well). There are NE Regional trains that go from DC to Springfield but they don’t go to Boston, of course; they head north after New Haven and go through Hartford and Windsor Locks directly to Springfield. The best train from DC to Springfield is the Vermonter though; gets you there a good 45 min faster since it skips some intermediate stops (Metropark, New Rochelle, multiple small-town stops in CT between New Haven and the Mass. border)—unfortunately there’s only one of them a day in each direction and the one from DC leaves at like 8am, sooo… plus I’d be tempted to stay onboard and just go to Vermont instead, lol.
I am sending you a DM with my contact information. I will talk to Anna the GM see if I can get you patio seating for Ciao Roma
I'm taking the train a ways and it's comfortable and convenient is my point.
The Vermonter is fine. The last time I tried to take it, it was delayed by several hours so I got on a different train, a NE regional. Or maybe it was the other way around?
I live and work in Boston and once a quarter I have to travel to Manhattan for a 90 minute meeting. I would rather fly than take the train. Also I have taken the Amtrak many times and I have had more delays on the train than on the plane. Would rather drive than take the train.
I mean these days I usually end up driving when I go to Boston because we’ve got a dog and it’s always preferable to be able to bring him with us, so that rules out the train. But if it’s just me going and the lady is staying home with the dog, train every time for me. It’s just so much more pleasant an experience, and I won’t pretend I’m not a bit of a train nerd too, so that is a factor for me as well. But yeah usually I drive these days, especially if I’m staying at a friend’s place who has a place for me to park. Love a nice cruise on the Merritt Parkway, one of the prettiest roads in the Northeast imo, or certainly one of the most well-designed roads of that sort I’ve driven on anywhere.
Well next time you drive to the city park in my garage. I run a garage in the city
Just noticed this because I’m terrible at checking my notifications on the six million platforms I use, but I might take you up on this! We’re actually coming up there a week from tomorrow but we’re taking the train for once (staying downtown for some conference the lady is attending, plus our friend volunteered to take the dog). But yeah, I’ll try to remember this the next time we drive up for sure!
Take your wife to Ciao Roma for dinner
Just made a reservation for Thursday night after our train gets in (and I got the last decent time too!), so thanks for the rec! Looks like a cool place; she'll definitely love it if we can sit on that patio but I suspect she'll love it regardless (it's Italian food after all)
I respect your passion
Also it's really easy to just drive, even if Jesse is too committed to his urban bohemian lifestyle to have a car you can get a rental or use Zipcar etc.
Thank you! I was extremely disappointed in Katie when she said that.
Lol it seems extra weird/out-of-character since she’s Ms. Take Three Ferries to a Tram to a Bus to a Packmule to Reach the Airport rather than just taking an Uber (and I sympathize with her on that! I would probably choose her route too if I had the time!)
I still feel bummed that the one time I had the chance to take the Acela from Boston to NYC, it was right before Hurricane Sandy and I ended up having to take a Chinatown bus instead.
I mean to be fair I live in New York and go to Boston a lot and love trains—and I’ve *still* never been on the damn Acela! The thing is so expensive compared to the Northeast Regional, which is only like 30-40 minutes slower. I just always end up choosing the time over the money.
The counterpoint is that Amtrak has sucked for a long time and continues to suck. If it were more consistent, fine. I often take it from NYC to Albany and usually it's good but on some occasions they have had to "replace the engine" or "restart the computer system" etc. NYC to BOS isn't bad and neither is NYC to DC but flying is way better though I think in terms of NYC to BOS when you factor in getting to the airport it all kind of evens out.
Of course what this boils down to is how Amtrak still sucks after years of sucking and it doesn't seem like they are improving at all. Japan has had high speed rail for many years. Trains in most of Western Europe (and not bad in Eastern Europe save Croatia where they are garbage) are amazing. Trains in Canada (from my recent experience) are not great, but better than Amtrak. I don't think it will get better, unless there was actual competition with Amtrak but that will never happen since most Americans prefer to drive.
I mean… calling the Acela “high speed rail” has been dubious for 2 decades now. I’ve driven from Boston to NYC faster than that train, that shouldn’t be the norm.
There are always delays in Connecticut. Always.
So you can see my lovely state, right?
New Haven is seriously underrated.
Wow I have truly never heard that take. All my friends who’ve lived there say “skip”
Nah, they’re wrong/talking about different things. I imagine they’re talking about crime, which is a real problem, but New Haven (the city and the surrounding area) has a ton to offer: beautiful natural/parkland areas like East Rock Park and others that are easily walkable from the city, or you can just catch the bus; lovely architecture in, for instance, Prospect Hill Historic District; the coastline is very pretty (Lighthouse Point Park, East Haven Town Beach, etc.); and the pizza, my god the pizza. I’m a diehard loyal New Yorker so I can’t quite bring myself to say it’s the best pizza around… but it’s fucking good pizza, as good as you’ll get anywhere, in my estimation.
And this is a bit niche but there’s a lovely place called The Owl Shop that you simply must visit if you enjoy pipes and/or cigars—or just enjoy an interesting atmosphere and interesting people, as long as you don’t mind smoke too much. (They have coffee too, for the non-smokers.) It’s a really unique little spot; I never miss it when I’m in New Haven.
Not sure I’d say it’s a must-visit if you’re over from the Weat Coast or something but if you make it to the Northeast with any regularity you oughta check out New Haven imo. Yale has a pretty campus too, lots of collegiate gothic architecture. Not as pretty as Harvard imo, but that’s a matter of taste.
Amazing food scene!! 100% agree
If you like bars of the non prison type. Just don’t send your kid to public school
Yale art gallery is a gem but art and arch is a blight. Don’t lean against that building.
Good for pizza, not that impressive otherwise the one time I went.
This whole situation is cringe as fuck. And I have to admit, as someone who absolutely loathes the left wing cancel mob culture and dog piles, (so much so I voted Trump), this did seem more low brow and just dirty. Like the libtards seem to at least have some kind of warped end goal to their bullshit. This just looks like a bitchy cat fight for no reason and it’s a bad vibe. Really gross.
One minor problem I had with the commentary was the idea that a sizeable portion of the “conservative movement” suggest women SHOULD NOT work. It’s more the idea of, do what you want, but society would be better off if more women had the choice not to, cuz the rents too damn high. It’s the pretty basic, women would be GENERALLY happier as home makers. That’s what I see much more of. Obviously not everyone is the same blah blah blah.
Anyone actually saying women should not work, or be able to vote, is a retarded fringe freak.
I think it’s either very naive or very disingenuous to suggest that the conservatives who peddle this rhetoric are just frustrated by economic conditions that mean families require two full time incomes. Many of the loudest conservative voices in this space are evangelical Christians who actively advocate for an end to women’s suffrage.
I know you’re deliberately equivocating by saying “many of the loudest voices”, but do you have any evidence that “women’s suffrage should be repealed” or “women should not be allowed to work” are anything like mainstream Evangelical opinions?
I mean I have not seen this. As a personal preference there are many who like the traditional family dynamic. And it is true that many of those are more likely to be of the Christian variety.
But to say many MAINSTREAM Christians want an end to women’s suffrage or rights (beyond abortion on demand) is outrageous.
Wishing for a society that pushes for and allows women to stay at home is very different from preventing women from working. That’s beyond traditional and is, as I said, a fringe idea.
Can you name some of those people? I've only seen weirdos on the Internet saying stuff like that, most likely for clicks and engagement. Who is out there trying to push policy like that? I wouldn't be surprised if some psycho guy in the Missouri state legislature has tried to sponsor a bonkers bill that never made it out of committee - but can you give some more examples because I truly have neve seen this be discussed seriously at a policy level.
Hegseth.
Ugh, he is such a…malignant buffoon.
Alkie Bohunk Buffoon, for sure.
Pete Hegseth is advocating for repealing your right to vote, PNWGirl. According to the presidential order of succession, he is the 6th most important person in American government. What will it take for you to take the threat of Christo-fascism seriously? https://www.instagram.com/p/DNN7lyiS2qL/
Well, certainly not being yelled at online by you, Noah.
Right. Never let facts get in the way of your beliefs, PNWgirl
????? Which beliefs are you referring to? I know Pete Hegseth is a piece of shit, I already said that in this thread. The only new thing you've convinced me of, is that you're a fucking douchebag too. That's all you've accomplished here. Nice work!
It’s the way you sound exactly like every lib when I tried to tell them that insane ideas were increasingly prevalent in online trans communities and would eventually be reflected in the mainstream. I assume you live in the PNW, but I am from TX and live here. I have been told by real life men (at my job at the state Capitol) I should only be wearing skirts. These conservatives may be grifters, but many of them genuinely subscribe to very fringe beliefs.
yep. I will never forget how many people denied that Roe v Wade could ever possibly be overturned in the US and denied that it was even on the R's radar for years, making fun of anyone who raised an alarm, until literally exactly that happened. Zero people learned from that, they all just do the exact same thing with the next issue.
In the most recent Social Q’s column in the NYT, there was a letter that kind of got to heart of this issue.
The writer says she is married to a man and they have a child ( maybe two kids?). She says she told her friends that the cost of daycare is more than her annual salary. Her friends seemed stunned/put off by this. She wondered if maybe she had committed a gaffe.
A small number of commenters pointed out that the LW’s family would be financially better off if the LW didn’t work, and took care of the kids herself. You would think by the reaction of the other commenters that they had advocated for child rape.
Most people on this planet cannot afford to have a job that actually costs them money.
It does depend on the job. I knew a person who stopped working as a lawyer to raise her children. Then when they were teenagers she had a really nasty divorce. However after all those years off she could no longer really work as a lawyer.
A lot of the problems with this issue is women are taking a risk by not working, not having a resume, not saving for retirement, being dependent on someone who can leave her at any moment.
The societal remedy for that would be to reinstall the true and original purpose of marriage. I guess it’s old fashioned now but when you get married, come hell or high water, you stay together. Make sure your partner is really marriage material, and don’t be a piece of shit. Everyone involved should have the same expectation that you are binding yourself to the other person and you will live your life together from there.
But marriage doesn’t seem like the bond it used to be. Sure some people stuck through some fucked up partnerships. People change. Or they become who they always were hiding. But I think society was still better when the fucking divorce rate wasn’t 50%. Every relationship goes through lows but you can’t just cut and run. You made your vows and you signed that contract, whether it’s with God or the government, and you have a responsibility to your spouse, kids, family, and society to hold on.
But nah, these days everyone just fucks around and nobody cares anymore. Everyone wants more freedom than they know what to do with. They just dip out at the marital equivalent of a stubbed toe.
Sorry for the rant.
I think this is a very uncharitable view of divorce. While there's definitely a case to be made that some people are too resistant to proper conflict resolution and sticking things out, some marital problems are genuinely irreconcilable. Nobody gets married thinking they will someday have a costly, emotionally taxing divorce.
Also, the divorce rate is a bit of an unreliable statistic, because the lion's share of divorces involve either boomers who got ill-advisedly married too young back when that was the cultural norm, or outliers who have had multiple marriages. Get this: each subsequent marriage has a higher likelihood of divorce. A person's second marriage is more likely to fail than his first, and his third is more likely to fail than his second.
You’re probably right. I actually just heard the divorce rate may be at a 50 year low from the 1980s. That is likely also due to less people overall getting married, which also is an issue, but hopefully this is the start of a return to marriage being more valued. I really hope, cuz the situation seems bleak.
And those people getting married 500 times is just embarrassing. Like 3 strikes you’re out, and even that’s too much man. Imagine going to your friends 5th wedding. My eyes would roll outta my head.
Let's have the women who used to walk around with black eyes and casts on their arms back in the day weigh in on this topic. Stubbed toe my ass.
You’re being unfair. I suppose I didn’t explicitly state that there are obvious exceptions.
It is 100% true that domestic violence was more prevalent and that was horrific. That is an obvious reason to leave. There are many genuine reasons. But I don’t think most marriages fall apart for those genuine reasons. I think most just give up and ditch their vows and responsibilities. And especially when you have children, unless you’ve got a damn good reason to split, you’re fucking up your kids life for selfishness. There’s a lot to be said for staying together for the kids.
Don't speak for everyone. We prayed for our mom to leave. Do you honestly think it's better for kids to grow up in that kind of atmosphere? Whitewashing the abuse that occurred back in the day is pathetic.
I just don't think that's true, but I'm sorry your parents' divorce affected you so badly.
“Make sure your partner is really marriage material” implies that women getting beaten and cheated on by their husbands could have foreseen the outcome somehow. I don’t think that’s the case. I think the majority of women who are abused or betrayed did not expect their husbands would do that.
I understand that I said some where in here that after marriage or a lengthy courting period some people just let the facade go and become pieces of shit so I get that. But there are obvious warning signs of impending impropriety for a lot of people.
Like my GFs sister has an absolutely horrible track record for men. 3 sperm donors, 2 went to prison, multiple cars destroyed in drunk driving accidents, a lot of similar red flags. If she ever gets married to a guy like that, she willfully fucked up. She has plenty of experience in what doesn’t work out. She’s a good person, just makes bad decisions in the guys she be hanging around with.
I’m not EXACTLY trying to victim blame, but a lot of people take years to get married these days so if you’re paying attention a lot of divorces could likely be avoided by not marrying a certain candidate at all.
Now of course, another problem is the heart wants what it wants, and it’s my view that human behavior is one of the most complex and contradictory and interesting things in the world, so many times it just is not that simple.
It’s a complicated thing, but trudging forward into something you already think might fail should warrant more consideration is all I’m saying.
I think the solution is take the money one would have spent on day care and pay the stay at home partner a salary and set up a retirement ira.
It's a solution, for sure (my husband and I put money into a retirement ira for me when I stayed at home for a couple years). But nothing can make up for the loss in career advancement. It's really a risk that a woman is making to stay home. Because you lose out on pay raises, experience, etc. And if the marriage ends for any reason (including an untimely death), the non-working spouse can really be in a precarious position.
He's got a lot of opinions from his lofty male tower.
Women pre 1980s got married in there 20s because that was the only really economical viable and socially acceptable path forward. Part of what has us all fucked up now is that women do not need to get married to be financially stable. So they get married less and are way choosier. Divorece was sky high among boomers because it was the first time women really had the choice and option to not be married and they decided they’d rather be single than put up with a loveless unfulfilling relationship.
Another great point. So it kind of hurts on the face of it cuz society was in a large part more cohesive but in many of those particular situations under the surface it could be abusive and rough with no economic way out for females.
A very interesting and complex problem I say. It feels like, in a certain way, the value must be placed on individuals or societies. And buddy that’s a tough fuckin question. Cuz I love individual freedoms and rights and happiness but it really feels like that has definitely come at the cost of the wider society. I think I’m moving more away from some of my more hardcore libertarian feelings on such things.
I don't think that's true at all. There's actually evidence that the divorce rate is declining, and it's currently at a 50 year low, around 15 in 1000 marriages per year. The strongest predictor for a divorce is whether one of the parties in a marriage has been divorced previously (shockingly, the same problems that end one marriage are likely to crop up in subsequent marriages). Additionally, people are getting married less which lead to further declines in divorce, purely because marriages tend to be higher quality when you go into them on purpose and not just because everyone around you expects you to get married. Marriage is now an active choice and not a default, which by my lights is a good thing (I've been married for three years). This is a major undertaking and the only reason to do it is because you want to be married to your spouse and have seriously considered the implications of that.
Access to timely divorce does reduce one thing: spousal murder and intimate partner violence. Women in particular, who are more likely to be victims, don't have to stay married to abusive men, but in general people do not have to put up with mistreatment, philandering, financial irresponsibility, etc. This is an uncomplicated good; the alternative is a lot more poisonings.
Wait, less marriage and easier divorce is an uncomplicated good?
Yes. People entering into a major social, legal and spiritual contract should be doing so because they want to, not because they are being compelled to by social pressures. My marriage is all the stronger because I actively chose it and continue to choose it every day. If you're not sure about getting married or who you're marrying, or you're doing it because it's "the thing to do" at your age, you SHOULD NOT GET MARRIED because that makes divorce more likely. If you want fewer divorces, you should be happy that people are not getting married who shouldn't be married.
That's so depressing, that now women can't even relax a little and focus on home and family (not that that's very relaxing!) - they have to also be out there hustling and earning and saving for retirement, while having to let other people watch their kids. It's maddening.
I am super doomer brained for sure. My friend who lost everything including her law degree left an impression. Also my field attracts a ton of single mothers because we can offer hours that allows them to avoid childcare by giving them hours that mostly cover school hours. Also the pay is so low they still qualify for benefits.
if I hung out with more rich people I would probably see things differently.
I mentioned this in a different comment, but a pre-nup actually reduces a couple's likelihood of divorce. Seems counterintuitive, right? But they actually encourage couples to communicate about the tough, unsexy topic of finance before they get married. Arguments about money are a very common part of divorces, and pre-nups make it easier for couples to navigate those conflicts.
I think these sort of contingency plans only become toxic if they're a secret to the other party in the marriage.
Lots of mistreated women —probably most — trusted their partners and their partners betrayed that trust.
What about beating the shit out of you and/or the kids?
Is the Secretary of Defence a fringe freak?
The answer is yes.
Good point. Impeach that jerk. Or at least force him to go on record about women’s voting rights.
Sure. IDK. Probably?
Do they dress up in dog suits and piss on their partners or…?
"Anyone actually saying women should not work, or be able to vote, is a retarded fringe freak."
Like Pete Hegseth? One of the most powerful people in the United States government? https://www.instagram.com/p/DNN7lyiS2qL/
I suspect you think this is a "fringe" opinion because your media diet is mostly served by Fox News. In reality, this kind of Christo-fascism has influence in the most powerful quarters of American life.
But that's OK, because at least you owned the libs by voting for Trump.
Oh it’s Mr. Good Faith.
I don’t use instagram so I’ll trust whatever that is to be an in good faith argument.
Wanting to push for a more traditional society where women don’t have to work to make ends meet and so they can raise kids and shit is far different from saying “women should not be able to work. They should all be in the kitchen, barefoot and pregnant, and god help that bitch if I come home and dinner is cold.”
But you can have a stable loving traditional family style that supports everyone’s desires. Advocating for that is fascism or something now? Nobody is taking anyones right to work away.
And for the record I have not ever watched Fox News. It’s too liberal for me.
I disagree about the end goal. That's the part that really turned me off of the democratic party. "Progressive" in their mind means there's never a goal. Once gay marriage became legal 10 years ago, the "trans" movement exploded. If it hadn't, all the LGB organizations would have become irrelevant (and they should have). Same happens with racism. They can't admit any progress has been made no matter how many successful POCs exist.
Oh I agree with that wholeheartedly. But by “end goal” I more refer to whatever is the immediate thing they’re bitching about.
Like with the communist coffee shops. They’re stupid and whiney, but their goal is to cancel someone and steal their shop or whatever. Or with any big name celebrity that they’re trying to cancel. They want to ruin someone (or put them back in line), reaffirm their boot on the neck of society, and “progress” their agenda.
With these catty bitches… it’s just catty bitches fighting over nothing at all. That’s what it looked like to me anyway.
The difference is a personal value vs a larger societal proposal. Saying not staying home is child abuse is quite extreme, but valuing a constant parental presence is not. I don’t think it’s extreme to say if you don’t need to work you probably should not. Or at least work less. But those are all conversations to be had hopefully before the situation arises.
And to be clear, I personally don’t care if it’s a stay at home dad. The point is child rearing is the most important thing most people will ever do with their lives and it is much more effective to have a parent there with them through most of their early years to raise as close to “right” as possible.
But fair enough. Maybe it’s more common than I thought. Overall that’s probably a good thing, unless it gets out of hand. The child abuse charge is quite rough.
I appreciate your points, but I just want to say that it doesn’t track at all with my experience with my conservative Christian in-laws. Between my MIL and three sisters in law, none of them were full-time, permanent stay at home moms. Some of them needed to work for financial reasons, but some of them just loved their jobs. One of them did spend a few years working part time from home when her kids were very little. Obviously I’ve never heard anything from any of them about working being child abuse. I don’t know if your family represents the more mainstream position or if mine does, but I guess these things vary from community to community.
I think the commonality depends on where you live. My mom wrote for a national evangelical magazine (outside the home!) and we went to a number of churches including ones that broke away from mainstream denominations over marriage, and I literally never heard a single person suggest that women are obliged to stay in the home. Of course I grew up in New England, other places are probably different.
I’d argue it’s mainstream conservative AND retarded. 😂
It’s absolutely insane some people in this group are saying it’s a “fringe” conservative position when the highest ranking conservatives in the nation are calling for the repeal of women’s suffrage. The gaslighting from these assholes is galling.
Or, they are being sincere but just, really, really stupid. I’m not sure which is worse.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TG36Gcfkzak
A broken clock is right twice a day: Emily was 100% right when she said that being a housewife really opens women up to abuse, exploitation, and financial instability (unless she works from home or is some kind of freelancer). A big reason women stay with their abusers is that they are financially dependent on them. Frankly, housewives get screwed even in divorces that don't involve abuse. No one marries somebody who they think they'll have to divorce some day, but statistically, it's basically a coin flip. Being a housewife with no kind of side work creates a gap in employment that looks very ugly on a resume, which makes it hard to find a job during or after a divorce. It's fucked up that child-rearing isn't considered a "job" for these purposes, but that's the world we live in.
People contemplating this lifestyle need to understand the risks. The only women I think can safely take the housewife route are those with family money to fall back on (which is the case for basically all "tradwife" influences, especially the Mormon ones) or those with the sense to draft robust pre-nups. The commenter who said that he doesn't "plan" to trap a woman is pants-on-head retarded. Most abusers don't consciously make a plan to marry a woman and abuse her, because that requires a level of self-awarness not typically seen among those who engage in that behavior.
Counterpoint: I left my job as a nurse case manager to be a SAHM for 13 years.
When we divorced after his affair, I got alimony on top of my child support. This was because I had left my job to take on the home responsibilities. Had I worked, I would not have been entitled to that.
I had no trouble at all getting a good job. I explained I was a SAHM, regional Girl Scout coordinator, on the board of our local women’s civic group and PTO officer. Most of the other SAHMs I knew could say the same. We were all able to do a lot of volunteer work because of our schedules. My youngest still remembers being in a car seat while I did meals on wheels. My friend would bring her little son, and the two of them giggled back there.
Of course, ymmv. I just hear this a lot, and I think women need to know that being a SAHM is not impossible.
It's not impossible by any means, especially if someone engages in community building like you did. Still, I'd recommend that any woman interested in the housewife lifestyle sign a pre-nup. It's great that homemakers are entitled to alimony, but you also want to take steps to make sure (for instance) that you aren't on the hook for 50% of your husband's outstanding debt in the event of a divorce.
The funny thing about pre-nups is that sometimes they can actually prevent divorce, because they encourage couples to have uncomfortable conversations about money before they get married. It's a good way to test a couple's communication and negotiation skills before the stakes get too high.
I totally believe you about your own situation but it seems to depend heavily on the industry re getting back into making money and what state you're in regarding what your allocation of marital wealth ends up being. Also, I know you know this but for any readers please remember that it's possible that he comes out ahead of her regarding marital wealth versus earning potential even if he does end up paying her alimony. That's x amount of years that he was contributing to his retirement account and she was not contributing to hers, that he was getting promotions and pay bumps and she would have too if she had stayed in, etc. I'm sure that industry comes into play here as well as I get the impression that nursing is less stratified by hierarchical position than various business jobs, probably because they need you guys in the hospital keeping things going with the majority of patient care while the doctors are getting raw dogged and rendered infertile.
That’s why divorce agreements usually divvy up the retirement accounts.
When I got a restraining order against my abusive ex and filed for divorce, the court ordered him to continue paying the mortgage on the house I stayed in with our kids. My ex simply didn’t pay it. 🤷🏻♀️
A man willing to break the law by abusing his wife probably can’t be counted on to obey court orders w/r/t things like alimony.
My wife and I both worked when our child was young because the hit we would have taken in being out of our fields in our prime working years was not worth it. In some professions I'm sure its fine, but there are others were being out of tthe field for 10 years is a real killer. It is part of the reason why women tend to make less than men, I think.
I completely agree. I think another risk that often gets overlooked is the pressure it puts on the breadwinner. In a two income household, if one person loses their job, at least there’s other money coming in. However, if there’s just one person bringing in money, the stakes are even higher. You have to hope that the breadwinner doesn’t get a debilitating illness or injury, their industry doesn’t become obsolete, their business doesn’t fail, they don’t get laid off, that nobody’s made any reckless investments that ended up backfiring. If you don’t have a strong financial backup plan, those sorts of disruptions can be particularly catastrophic for the household.
The "gap in employment" issue comes partially from a lack of resume-writing knowledge. My husband has done hiring in two (very male-dominated) fields. He says that when applicants list "stay at home dad" on their resumes, they always seem to leave the "skills" column completely blank for that role.
For a lot of jobs, an atypical work history can be a real asset since it means the applicant can bring interesting perspectives and experience to the table. But when any applicant leaves the "skills" column blank for their most recent job, which lasted for years, they are not doing themselves any favors.
One of many reasons why resume writing and personal finance should be taught in public school.
The coin flip thing was me being hyperbolic. I made another comment earlier where I reference the exact demographic variability you're referring to.
Respectfully, not everything is about you. Acknowledging the associated risks and pointing out that social media paints an unrealistic picture of home-making is not an insult to your lifestyle, it's a word of caution to young people who haven't yet decided what they want their marriage and child-rearing to look like. Working full-time comes with tradeoffs, too. For instance, even when women work full time, they still end up doing 70% of the housework on average. When husbands don't pull their weight with domestic tasks (and statistically, they don't) working mothers basically end up with two full-time jobs, a recipe for burnout, resentment, and potentially even divorce.
This is part of the problem with how isolated people are from their communities and extended families. Historically, children had more adults in the home than just two parents; they had grandparents, aunts, uncles, cousins, etc. In this economy, couples are often put in a situation where they have to choose between spending most of their paychecks on childcare, or forgoing a second income entirely. Our culture should re-normalize multi-generational households so the burden of children doesn't fall entirely on one or two people, and so elderly people aren't just stuck in nursing homes away from their loved ones.
Very much agree with your last point. That’s why I asked my mother to come live with me. Not having kids any time soon (eventually though, I hope), so figured I’d start it on the other side first lol
I remember hanging out with my SAHM friends one day when we started talking bank accounts, and so I said yeah, I had my own, and I kept enough money in there I could walk if I needed to. You would have thought I said I had five kids and ate three of them. Why on earth would you PLAN for a divorce? etc.
in all my years at home with my kids, I never met another woman who financially protected herself. It’s bizarre.
My sister came out the other end of a nasty divorce with an awful guy (never liked him!) with no sense for managing money because he controlled absolutely everything and was a very high earner who deliberately tried to screw her out of alimony after he banged the secretary, and she is a pretty naive person in general without a lot of life skills. She didn't know how to pay the light bill and had no way to earn her own income or even a sense for how much things cost. It is not 'planning for divorce' to be sensible about money and have insight into your shared finances, even if you aren't the one working outside the home for a million reasons, it's common sense. I love and trust my husband, and we are completely transparent about money with each other, but I have my own too -- (god forbid) he could be hit by a truck and I'd have to be able to keep myself and the household going. A man is a partner, not a plan.
I love your last line. Well said.
My mom taught me to do this - both by explicitly telling me to do it, but also by not taking her own advice and thus modeling for me what can happen.
Statistically, it’s correct.
Yes- Catholics have a much lower divorce rate than evangelicals, for instance.
Happy to hear the update on the Lorenz kerfuffle. Proud of you Jesse! You were willing to have a good faith conversation about the Long Covid essay but you pulled out when you realized Taylor was not acting in good faith. A good decision.
BTW does anyone know if there’s disproportional overlap of trans identification and Long Covid?
Yes, there definitely is more reporting of long COVID among trans populations: https://clearhealthcosts.com/blog/2024/02/long-covid-challenges-trans-bisexual-lgbtq-patients/
(This link is some standard issue TRA stuff but they link to results from a Census Bureau survey)
Not surprising. I'd be willing to bet that there's a lot of "comorbidity" between "long COVID" and EDS, POTS, CFS, and all the other nebulous conditions often self-diagnosed by munchies, malingerers and hypochondriacs.
I think it is worth also saying that one can be unpleasant or distasteful and use their condition to bad-faith ends, but still suffer from said condition. I think there are probably less psychosomatic illnesses than we think, but it's just that a group most ppl find irritating are the ones speaking the loudest about them, almost by design..
https://www.decodeme.org.uk/initial-dna-results/
Taylor Lorenz really seems like an awful person. This has nothing to do with her political views. And I don't know her personally but she is a public figure. But everything about her public conduct suggests that she's just a vile human being, from her treatment of people like Jesse to celebrating murder.
She strikes me as toxic and chaotic
“Laughing at her own jokes which I would never do” 😅 love you Jesse
Yes please do more conservative infighting episodes!!!!!!!
Okay, an interesting hypothesis from Katie that hadn’t occurred to me. Is Pearl’s intense loathing for other women actually internalized homophobia? Much to ponder.
The trad wife thing is either pick me or fetish-y, or both. I say this as a conservative woman in an actually fairly traditional marriage.
About not wanting women to vote — that’s all woke right bullshit.
Not to go all conspiracy brain, but I think James Lindsay is right that those guys are deliberately sabotaging the republican party’s next election cycle. Or they’re just fascists. James is right either way.
As someone on the opposite side of the aisle, I agree on that first point. There is a weirdly fetishistic undercurrent to the whole tradwife thing, like these women are emulating the stereotypical housewives they see in porn rather than home-makers as they actually are. My grandmother was a housewife who made everything herself, from preserves to clothes. She was homely, salt-of-the-Earth, and frugal without being materialistic. My grandfather was also very deferential to her, and never told her what to do. The fantasy presented by these influencers does not resemble that in the least.
I would love for someone to explain to me why saying that a person who claims to have Long Covid but had not evidence of SARS-COv2 infection might be suffering from a psychosomatic condition is anti-vaccine. Or anti-science for that matter. If you get infected with the virus, it's got to replicate its genome, so you should be able to detect it at the correct point in time. And if you get infected, you're going to produce antibodies and T cells that recognize it -- unless you have a condition like SCID. If I had symptoms without evidence of infection, I'd certainly prefer it to be psychosomatic rather than MS which shares some of the symptoms of Long COVID but shaves 5-10 years off your life unlike a psychosomatic condition.
As long as we can start with the proviso that I don’t actually agree with this logic, I think I can explain it:
There is a right-wing movement to promote eugenics and kill off the disabled in the population, sort of a vulgar Nietzcheanism. They believe the strongest should survive. In order to accomplish this, they tell lies about the science and the vaccines, so that people don’t mask up and get vaxxed to protect the vulnerable like they should. By saying Long Covid is psychosomatic, you are justifying those anti-science and anti-vaccine ideas and right wing eugenics in general.
I think it is just "the right wing is anti-vaxx, questioning any component of covid is therefore rightwing and therefore anti-vaxx."
Like all things in US political discourse, to cede any ground to a (in the case of the anti-vaxx and RFKJR crowd, pretty deranged and dangerous) opponent means to support them.
The irony is that the mRNA vaxes are likely accomplishing this goal along with other factors. Lorenz is a fool.
wut?
The eugenic agenda of depopulation Lorenz blames on people like Jesse is likely being accomplished by the widespread adoption of unsafe and ineffective mRNA "vaccine" technology. I get a flu jab every year and I am overdue for my pneumovax booster, but I'll never take another mRNA shot as long as I live, which, after having been talked into getting 3 of them in 2021 by my family and my doctors, might not be as long as it would have been had I never participated in the experiment.
you really meet all sorts in the blocked and reported comment section
Yeah I mean, heterodox is what heterodox does, right? I reject the notion of ideological silos, and have pretty varied opinions on many things from different perspectives. It's actually not very controversial to say the mRNA shots are killing people, by the way.
This episode illustrates why conservatives usually don't do comedy very well.
1) Those who take themselves overseriously are just not funny, and these women could not be more overserious about themselves.
2) Comedy is about putting together ideas that don't go together, and conservatives just don't do that very often. The thing about being traditional is that you think traditional thoughts, and there's nothing surprising about them.
3) Roasting people is about *knowing* them, so that your roasts are true. For example, if I say that Barack Obama is lazy, that's not funny because nobody, not even Obama's enemies, really think that is true. If I say he is arrogant or overintellectual, that's a more likely path to a good put-down. These women aren't really reading each other; they're just throwing a bunch of random insults, which is only funny in a look-at-me-pull-the-wings-off-a-fly way. Nothing they say is clever and honest, and a good roast is both.
It is amazing how bad conservative comedy, conservative movies, and any other type of conservative art tends to be. I've consumed a few of these things, almost always expecting something more than what I got. There are a couple of exceptions but not too many. It's something I was thinking about a lot because it does tend to show up even when you have a good budget. And as someone who was recently wondering why these suck so frequently, I appreciate your $.02
all of the roasts were "you have sex with black dudes"...which is a choice to make, i guess.
yet another installment of "when antinomianism goes wrong".
I agree, and want to add: I think the personality traits that make someone a very outspoken conservative are the opposite of the traits that artistic/creative people have. Comedic timing and good jokes are both a type of art.
Watching Strangers with Candy and just now on the episode with Colbert as a clown, i.e., Jesse’s cover photo on X
SWC. What a gem that show was.
This show shaped my sense of humor. I still quote it regularly.
Same. I have only one friend that also watched it, and no one else gets any of the wierdo goodness.
“What is the difference between being married and in love or single and in a back of a cab” “what your not going to beat me or screw me? What kind of marriage is this?”
"Don't. Rub your feces. On the lampshade."
The BEST!
Such a great show!
MY DADDY WILL NEVER DIE, NEVER, DO YOU HEAR ME, GOD??!!
That's Colbert!? I never would have guessed.
OMG please do a Jubilee debate that would be so uncomfortable in the best way
Jesse vs. 20 Serfs
Should you rather debate one Jesse-sized Serf or 20 Serf-sized Jesses?
What's the difference between a jubilee debate and Aella's birthday gangbang? This isn't the setup for a joke, what's the difference
Katie being a chronic Lyme believer based solely on Ross Douthat saying he has it really illustrates her weakness for contrarian credulousness.
I haven't read Douthat's book, but recently read The Collected Schizophrenias by Esme Weijun Wang, and the entire way through I was thinking, "okay, this basically vibes with my very layman's knowledge of schizoaffective disorder, okay." And then near the end she discusses going to some Chronic lyme faith healer in Arizona and I'm just like "noooooo."
Some people confuse chronic lyme with late-stage lyme, though--so maybe Katie's just confused?
Douthat was on Andrew Sullivan's podcast to promote the book and he said (IIRC) that one of the few things that brought him relief from his chronic Lyme symptoms was praying to the Virgin Mary. And I was like, my man, you really ought not say such things out loud if you want me to believe that this thing is not psychosomatic. But say it he did.
You laugh but Sodium HolyVirginoxalate is a promising new treatment for migranes
The FDA is fast-tracking approval as we speak.
She was a bit too quick and eager in refuting that it's fake, true.