This is about the most ridiculous thing I've seen coming out of academia in a long time.

The worst enemy of women is other women.

I agree. If those girls (and I use that word on purpose) aren't capable of handling Princeton, they should be sent packing and their spots given to people (men or women) who aren't wimps.

However, just because someone is quiet doesn't mean they are stupid, nor does it mean they need to speak up more. Maybe this Princeton professor should re-examine her own biases.

She has it wrong. If one has nothing to say, please don't miss the opportunity to be quiet.

Surely a bigger problem is getting women to shut the hell up? Based on the admittedly limited sample consisting of my ex-girlfriends...

(Shhh, secretly I love it. Opinionated debates are my favourite pastime)

My husband agrees

I'll just bet he does, if he knows what's good for him.

And some times it pays to keep your mouth shut. If you're taking some liberal course and you have a conservative viewpoint and a professor who will hold a grudge, why would you want to blow you GPA?

I don't want any yes-men around me. I want everybody to tell me the truth even if it costs them their job. -- Samuel Goldwyn

It also can pay at work.

It can also be a sign that I or she agrees with what is being said and don't feel like wasting time saying "Me too."

" male behavior and male choices as the default and the ideal."
In some places, sure, a sports field, a board room maybe, but in a school in America? LOL. How many times are boys berated to sit still and keep quiet in the 13 years previous? Keep quiet or we will drug you into submission. Your opinnions don't just not matter, but are bad or evil.

It's the Spanx. They can't breathe, let alone speak up. That line about crocheting doilies and baking pies might be some scary foreshadowing.

I have never shut up in a debate when I had something worth saying. And that fact has brought me far in my career and academic life.

However, most of the women I went to school with or work with are content to sit back and let the men set the agenda and the tone. Why? I can't help but feel that they have been socialized by their families, perhaps even grade schools or communities, that to be smart or aggressive isn't feminine.

I have 2 young daughters of my own and I am consistently empowering them and giving them a voice. My husband and I do not allow media, etc that has the woman as the "helpless princess" to take over our home. Sure a Disney movie once in a while isn't going to make woman meek, but an overwhelming PRINCESS CULTURE will do that.

When my girls play dress up, they are always the queen who makes the rules. They say, "Mommy YOU be the princess, I am the QUEEN!"

I read what she wrote (it was very long and tedious, so I may have missed a bit in the last few pages).

I was with her at the beginning, when she was saying that, you know, maybe it's not just that women (esp the younger ones) don't have the drive/commitment/etc to go after what I'll call the power jobs. Maybe they see value elsewhere or make a choice because it's what they want.

Then she said this, "We may not have choices about whether to do paid work, as dual incomes have become indispensable."

Sorry, but saying blatantly false things makes me doubt your ability to reason or make a good argument. Maybe it wouldn't have been so bad if she didn't then go on about single mothers (um, where's that dual income again?). Still, as somebody who made the CHOICE to leave the (paid) workforce to raise my children, I find this quote to be asinine. It's called, "budgeting," and it's what people used to do with their money.

All that aside, she starts out with the notion that, hey maybe women sometimes make the choice to not go all power-job as much as they could. But her whole tone and discussion assumes that they SHOULD. I was highly disappointed when she seemed to "get it" that maybe people making these choices aren't "bad" or "wrong" as many insist or imply. She then went on to say that, heck, maybe we should change school hours (and how does that help parents of young kids?) and a bunch of other suggestions to change the outcome (fewer women in power jobs).

Why can't women make their own choices? Why is it so important that women be equal in number to men in power jobs - if they don't WANT to? Why change society to push that? I'm not saying that all of the changes are bad ideas in and of themselves (some were quite good), but WHY is this goal so gosh-darned important to these "feminists?" Surely, the older ones fought so we'd have a choice, which we now have, and now we're not supposed to choose?

America's favorite pastime: telling mother's they're wrong for whatever they choose. What happened to our old one (MYOB)?

Minneapolis Mom,

I, too, don't tend to sit back. Even in early grade school, I found that most girls did. I don't think it is from their families/friends/media. I actually think it is inherent. Not that it can't be guided one way or the other.

There was a girl who, at age 2, was very much "in your face" and is now (at 6) still very engaged, outgoing, and at times a bit bossy (that's the guiding I mentioned, it's getting better).

My daughter is only 2, but leaning in that same direction. My son, is much more "laid back" in his approach to life.

That said, I've heard that women tend to socialize in a network manner and men in a hierarchy. In a hierarchy, you have to prove (& maintain) your spot, so interaction and such is valuable. Everyone knowing his/her spot makes it stable. In a network, keeping the peace and not making waves creates stability. If somebody tries to dominate, that disrupts the web.

So, more "hierarchically inclined" women tend to have similar daughters.

That's my hypothesis anyway. But my daughter likes to be a princess. I wouldn't dare give her the concept of queen (yet).

I had a couple female classmates in law school who did much better than I on on the LSAT and graduated in the top 10. They never said a word in class, unless questioned. One of them was an incoherent mess when called on...the other sat in the back row and muttered & passed notes to her seatmates. (Both were lefty feminists BTW.)

One of them let me know that she considered it uncool and a sign of lower IQ to voluntarily speak. Meant you took it too seriously, or something. Now this was at flyover state U and maybe they would have felt differently at Yale, I don't know.

There was a girl who, at age 2, was very much "in your face" and is now (at 6) still very engaged, outgoing, and at times a bit bossy (that's the guiding I mentioned, it's getting better).

Posted by: Shannon M. Howell at June 22, 2012 9:09 AM

http://www.newsweek.com/id/142670

By Kathleen Deveny.

"My daughter is a little bossy. It's not surprising, really, because I'm a little bossy. (OK, some would say more than a little bossy.) But I've given up trying to change that aspect of myself, and I'm not too concerned about my daughter, either. It's not that I think my dear child's behavior is beyond reproach. I often worry that she can be unkind to other kids without even realizing it. I am trying hard to help her learn the art of empathy and teach her to be respectful of others. She could do better at all those things. So could I.

"But I am going to stop fretting about bossiness for one simple reason: I have rarely heard anyone describe a little boy as bossy......"

(snip)

Well said. Girls who respect their peers should not be called bossy for doing the same polite, take-charge things that boys do.

Anyway, I wanted to take the opportunity to mention the difference between bossiness and assertiveness. It finally hit me when I was re-reading Laura Ingalls Wilder's "Farmer Boy" - that is, the scene where Eliza Jane says she's "mortified" because her father drinks tea from his saucer.

I think it's simple. Assertive people respect other people's rights, talents, and authority. Bossy people, however, do not want to acknowledge that ANYONE is their peer or superior, and so they would push around their own parents, teachers and bosses if they could get away with it. In short, they're insecure.

(In the same vein, it is NOT fair to call the class brain a "know-it-all" unless that person actually tries to boss other classmates around and can't even graciously wait two seconds for others to raise their hands in class before shooting up a hand. If the class brain is a polite sort, but others still can't handle the brain's very existence because he/she wrecks the grade curve, well, tough.)

I swore that last line said "...bring them out on an ass-needed basis." It amounts to the same thing I guess.

Postrel (I think, mebbe someone else) once wrote that you can track the arrival of soccer programs for girls in the American boardroom... That there's a visible and indisputable spike in the history of women's business achievements decades after they've learned the lessons of sporting competition from which they'd previously been excluded.

I wonder if Slaughter just happens to be on the other, whinier side of this generational divide, and now falls back upon the tropes that she and her grandmother enjoyed sharing with each other back in the in the day.

It's 2012. I can count the mousy women in my life with thumbs. (My own!)

I don't think encouraging female students to speak up more is necessarily a bad thing, but it would make more sense during their more formative years as opposed to when they're attending Princeton. I was student teaching for the past year and one woman I worked with was aware when the boys in her high school English class were dominating the discussions. She never stopped the guys from speaking, but she would occasionally remind the girls that she wanted to hear from them as well. After a while they started speaking up on their own, and the guys weren't made to feel they were wrong for contributing.

Lenona,

You're right that there is a difference between bossy and assertive. The girl in question was bossy. My son is going through a bossy phase. There IS a fine line between the two. A different tone for, "Come here!" can be the difference between I'm-excited-and-I-really-want-you-to-see-this and get-over-here-now-because-I-said-so.

I think kids who start out a bit bossy usually end up pleasantly assertive (once taught how to use manners and take turns, etc). Similarly, kids who are more passive can be taught to be assertive when they need to be.

That said, I have met bossy boys. I (even if nobody else will) will use the label if it fits. I know a couple actually... and only one girl.

Maybe that's just me. But I'm rather assertive. While not bossy (in the sense of bossing people about), I can be a bit domineering in conversation (just look at the tomes of comments I leave!). Again, another distinction worth keeping in mind.

But, "Make me lunch!" is bossy boy or girl.

I think people should keep quiet if they don't have anything to say. Quantity does not equal quality.

Also, crocheting and baking are excellent ways to pass the time. Everyone appreciates a warm scarf and a hot pie.

My husband agrees, but he actually tries to get the young men in his classes to act more like the women--to speak less and listen more.

I know that, in general, men supposedly talk more than women, dominating conversations -- and I'd say that's probably true -- but in my personal experience that hasn't been the case. I've met just as many women who talked and talked without doing a lot of listening as I have women who were good talkers and good listeners.

In my graduate classes I found it odd how many wouldn't talk unless forced to. I mean men and women. I know many of them were not native English speakers and I heard that as a cause. One classmate described the class as more like a discussion between the Prof and 3 of us plus a couple more occasionally chip in.

I first was let to take a class before being accepted and my adviser said that one of main reasons I got in was the Prof gave a recommended that said I often moved the class discussion forward.

Joe said:

In some places, sure, a sports field, a board room maybe, but in a school in America? LOL. How many times are boys berated to sit still and keep quiet in the 13 years previous? Keep quiet or we will drug you into submission. Your opinnions don't just not matter, but are bad or evil.

***

I'd be interested in finding out where this ideal boyland is where boys are encouraged to be rowdy and run around in class. Seems like in most of the world they're whipped if they do that.

Shannon wrote this:

Then she said this, "We may not have choices about whether to do paid work, as dual incomes have become indispensable."

Sorry, but saying blatantly false things makes me doubt your ability to reason or make a good argument. Maybe it wouldn't have been so bad if she didn't then go on about single mothers (um, where's that dual income again?). Still, as somebody who made the CHOICE to leave the (paid) workforce to raise my children, I find this quote to be asinine. It's called, "budgeting," and it's what people used to do with their money.

***

Shannon, you have a good point in that having two incomes is not necessary for survival.

Having two incomes IS necessary, for most of the country, in order to have a lifestyle comparable to the ones in the 70s, when only 1 partner (the dad) worked.

So most people can still live off of one income if they're willing to take a huge standard of living hit compared to previous generations. But generally if you want that lifestyle, you need two incomes.

Of course it depends on the working parents' job. Some guys do earn enough to support a middle-class family on one pay check. Most don't.

NicoleK,

You are right that it does depend on what ones spouse does. Obviously, the fledgling poet is not going to be earning what the janitor makes, nor the janitor what the CEO makes. That said, we are on one income and saving for retirement, have a home (modest by local standards, but adequate to our needs). We still manage private preschool, but had to space our kids for it. My husband earns quite well, but not nearly so much when I left the work force.

I think a lot of the "quality of life" stuff some people talk about (might not be you) is what I consider luxury. We don't have TV for instance. We took our very first family vacation last year. We have not had a honeymoon yet (we're saving that for our tenth anniversary next year).

By that standard, I do have a lower standard of living compared to my parents in the 70's and 80's. No TV, hardly any vacations, no house w/yard, no full-time sitter/nanny, no fancy electronics (we were one of the first in our area with computers and VCRs! back then.) For us, it is worth it, although we're still middle class (lower-middle instead of upper).

My main beef was that she said it was indispensable, and then went to talk about people on one income. Sure, they have it harder (as do we in some cases), I'm not saying that. I'd love to have a big yard, fancy gizmos, TV, vacations, etc, but we can't afford it... and it's not worth it to us to have that and not have me at home.

Right, most people won't starve on one income, but pretty much everyone is going to slip down a notch on the socio-economic scale.

So it takes two doctors/plumbers/poets/bus drivers/professors/teachers to earn a standard of living comparable to what one doctor/plumber/poet/bus driver/professor/teacher earned in the 70s.

But even poets don't usually die of starvation in America.

We find that with the higher tax rate on wives here (Switzerland), and the high cost of childcare (86 chf a day, roughly 86 dollars, might be more like $70 bucks a day if you adjust for all around cost of living), it's not really worth the added stress of not being home for our toddler. When she goes to school we might rethink things.

It's called, "budgeting," and it's what people used to do with their money.

I have a friend who made his wife return the $13 shirt she bought because it wasn't in their budget, and they're still barely making it. They could never survive on one salary. "Quality of life," for them, means being able to afford the $400 a month in medicine their daughter needs to be healthy and providing a buffer in case one of them is laid off. They've each been laid off once in the last three years.

There's also something to be said for providing children with more opportunities. Social mobility in America isn't as vibrant as people want to believe. Odds are, if you're born in a lower socio-economic bracket, you're going to stay there, and so are your children.

Anyone who knows me irl, know I'm not just assertive, but aggressive. My more retiring daughter, who was a shy toddler, has managed to hold her own in art class critique session by asking herself "what would Mom do?" which means I must have had some influence on her. If a young woman is too shy to speak up in her college classes, she probably needs therapy. And for the record, I'm a good listener, too.

Because I think we're conditioned as a society to value men who speak their minds, but women who do so are just loud bitches.

And it shouldn't be that way.

MonicaP,

Yes, there are people such as your friends - and I don't mean to say that everyone who needs a second income simply isn't budgeting. I'm afraid I'm a bit jaded by some personal examples, such as follows, so I was unclear on that.

There are plenty of people who COULD survive (decently) on one income, if they chose to make certain trade-offs, that's all.

Also, an eye-opening experience I had when we were prepping to go to one income...

First, I had to figure out how much take-home pay my husband would have if I wasn't working. You'd THINK it wouldn't change, but taxes get higher the more income you have... and certain credits/deductions phase out, etc.

Sooo, I figured our taxes for the prior year as if I hadn't worked. This meant that all the tax breaks were applied to my husband's income, and my income was totally taxed at our top (marginal) rate.

The interesting part was what I learned about MY income. My job was mostly covering taxes (social security, federal income, and state income), a little to my 401k, and almost all the rest went to daycare for our (then) 1 child. Of the money I earned, we were putting about $50 a MONTH toward non-childcare living expenses. I figured I could eek $50 out of our budget just by not commuting.

In other words, I was working to get income to 1.) pay taxes and 2.) pay for childcare so I could work. NOT worth it.

Oh yeah, I was working full-time in a high-skills job, so I wasn't earning minimum wage or anything. If I was, it would have been a net loss from my working. Without running the numbers, I'm sure I would have thought, "how can we survive if I don't work." Thankfully, I can run the numbers.

I think a lot of the "quality of life" stuff some people talk about (might not be you) is what I consider luxury. We don't have TV for instance. We took our very first family vacation last year. We have not had a honeymoon yet (we're saving that for our tenth anniversary next year).

By that standard, I do have a lower standard of living compared to my parents in the 70's and 80's. No TV, hardly any vacations, no house w/yard, no full-time sitter/nanny, no fancy electronics (we were one of the first in our area with computers and VCRs! back then.) For us, it is worth it, although we're still middle class (lower-middle instead of upper).

My main beef was that she said it was indispensable, and then went to talk about people on one income. Sure, they have it harder (as do we in some cases), I'm not saying that. I'd love to have a big yard, fancy gizmos, TV, vacations, etc, but we can't afford it... and it's not worth it to us to have that and not have me at home.

Posted by: Shannon M. Howell at June 23, 2012 12:12 PM
_____________________________

Reminds me of how people of all political stripes complain about how it's supposedly harder today, even in a two-income family, to make ends meet, compared to the 1950s. Um, maybe that's because so many little and not-so-little things that people insist on buying today didn't EXIST in the 1950s? Not to mention that time is money and a lot of what we buy is very time-wasting? Take cable TV. Or video games. We really need to learn to think of useful hobbies, such as carpentry or electronics repair, as more fun than passive, useless hobbies. More importantly, if adults everywhere think of hobbies as fun only if they cost money and/or are mindless, of COURSE kids will feel the same way!

You think Princeton should flunk out all the quiet kids? Really? Okay say goodbye to most of your scientists, engineers, techies, Asians, and Indians and be prepared for a campus dominated by lots of sociology types, women's libbers, and blowhards who may or may not have anything to say. (And I think you'd see just as many males getting the boot, if not more.)

I mean seriously--this is just a silly and over-the-top reaction. We're talking about 18 year old kids here who may have been inculcated in a school system or culture that discouraged speaking up--the example of yourself as a 47 year old woman telling someone to pick up litter really isn't comparable. If someone gets into Princeton chances are they have the smarts to be there--encouraging them to voice those smarts is all part of the education process.