Possibly the "primates" might spend that $15,000 coughed up for a Birkin Bag on meals for the hungry, or shelter for the homeless. Nah, how much fun could that be?
3
I am about halfway done with the book and love it. I find it smart and interesting.
1
I was surprised by the tone of this review. As if Ms. Maslin expected a serious examination of the social phenomenon of the Upper East Side Mother with or without the Wife Bonus and was disappointed to discover instead a tongue-in-cheek memoir of a woman caught up in the very materialism she'd set out to portray. But whatever the reason or the merit of the book itself, I do wish Ms. Martin had widened her scope to discover how the rest of the city, borough by borough, neighborhood by neighborhood has found itself with more and more insulated and privileged brands of Motherhood. The rich mothers of New York City are no longer just on Park Avenue. They are, like it or not, everywhere. A truly good read would be to take a long hard look at how thanks to folks like our previous mayor our beautiful city has been bleached and shined, and overbuilt and stopped-and-frisked to a wonderfully horrific perfection.
8
What I don't understand in all this coverage is that the book and everyone else seems to assume that the money the man ( or woman ) earns in a marriage is his (or hers) only and not theirs. All money earned during the marriage is marital property and both husband and wife have equal rights to it. I would think that these highly educated wives would be fully aware of this ~ marriage in this 'class' is most often between two equals who together choose how they wish to divide the labor and the reward. Often they decide that what works best is for one to take over the homemaking and one to handle the income making. The power struggle or loss of power she describes as a result of no income exists only in her mind ~ not in the marriages she was observing, I expect. At least, her sweeping generalization shouldn't be applied to all. I agree with another comment that she definitely seems to come at the subject with a bias against SAHMs, which explains her characterization a bit. (My understanding of what she wrote has come from these many articles, not the book.)
2
I just read blurbs from Amy Chua, a top Chicago Field Museum scholar, among other authoritative (highly accomplished in fields directly relevant to Martin's book) writers; while I'm the last fetishize credentials, I can't imagine these endorsers could be as easily hoodwinked into liking trash as would need to be the case if Maslin's takedown is impartial and accurate.
The cover clearly bills the book as a memoir, not a professional academic ethnography; the "PhD" title used on the cover is obviously part of its literary strategy to play up (playfully for that matter, not fraudulently) the technical-scientific literary conceit of the book.
Clearly this book is intended as a hybrid genre which "Blurs Genres" - to borrow the title from preeminent anthropologist Clifford Geertz - for combined literary/anthropological effect. She obviously believed couching her literary style in this academic mode would heighten the message-- there's nothing fraudulent about that. 'Scientic soujourn among the natives' is a well-established genre, w/ established conventions that by no means discredit an author. What counts is whether the author challenges and engages the reader with new insights into subject, the reader him or herself, & some aspects of psychology, method, episteme.
I suspect Martin succeeds more than Maslin acknowledges. Years back Brooks attempted a more academically leaning dissection of a social group in "Bobos in a Paradise." It's a legitimate endeavor.
The cover clearly bills the book as a memoir, not a professional academic ethnography; the "PhD" title used on the cover is obviously part of its literary strategy to play up (playfully for that matter, not fraudulently) the technical-scientific literary conceit of the book.
Clearly this book is intended as a hybrid genre which "Blurs Genres" - to borrow the title from preeminent anthropologist Clifford Geertz - for combined literary/anthropological effect. She obviously believed couching her literary style in this academic mode would heighten the message-- there's nothing fraudulent about that. 'Scientic soujourn among the natives' is a well-established genre, w/ established conventions that by no means discredit an author. What counts is whether the author challenges and engages the reader with new insights into subject, the reader him or herself, & some aspects of psychology, method, episteme.
I suspect Martin succeeds more than Maslin acknowledges. Years back Brooks attempted a more academically leaning dissection of a social group in "Bobos in a Paradise." It's a legitimate endeavor.
2
How is this different than the Nanny Diaries? I read the book and saw the movie too. Don't see any new insight. Nanny Diaries even used the anthropology angle. And it was funny
"like an urban Jane Goodall with an interest in social-climbing and fashion"
Priceless! At least for this particular insight, Ms Maslin's review, that is a work of art in its own right, will be remembered long after the book itself has faded into oblivion.
Priceless! At least for this particular insight, Ms Maslin's review, that is a work of art in its own right, will be remembered long after the book itself has faded into oblivion.
I feel sorry for anyone who thinks that owing a Birkin bag is essential to life.
9
Lighten up, everyone! The book is well-written, thought-provoking, and a good read, with many funny and (particularly at the end) sad bits. I thoroughly enjoyed it.
5
Sounds like you wealthy East Siders are pretty thin skinned. You need to toughen up, maybe get a job.
13
Just another incident of "conspicuous consumption"
http://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/conspicuous-consumption.asp
Which does not save anyone from this:
"Suffering is the one promise that life always keeps"
Nor this:
Statistically, no matter how wealthy you are, your derrière is too large for those leotards.
http://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/conspicuous-consumption.asp
Which does not save anyone from this:
"Suffering is the one promise that life always keeps"
Nor this:
Statistically, no matter how wealthy you are, your derrière is too large for those leotards.
7
I would like to see Caitlyn Jenner move to the UES and try to mingle with the moms Ms. Martin writes about. I would then like to see daily reporting (possibly in the Science section) of these attempts by the NYT.
7
I've read several articles about this book, and after having read this review, I can say that it's clear that Ms. Martin is a Mid-Westerner who uses her "anthropologist" schtick as her excuse to cover worn out and extremely tired cliches about New Yorkers...what new territory is she uncovering, exactly? She seems smug about her observations, when, in fact, she's glaringly un-funny and interesting about her adopted town...she perpetuates the classic Mid-Western (and other) stereotypes, natters on about a "breed" of woman already covered by "The Nanny Diaries", among other older books, and it's clear to see why the locals don't like her...how did this thing get published?
20
Ms. Martin may be silly (I personally think she is) but not all mid-westerners are. Some New Yorkers are silly but not all New Yorkers are. Let's not be silly ourselves and label people according to what part of the country they live in or come from. That's truly silly!!
4
Speaking of stereotypes, I'm not a Midwesterner but I've met plenty of New Yorkers who perpetuate the usual tired cliches about Midwesterners and other fly-over species all the time. Some of that no doubt comes from opinions formed mostly on the basis of books and articles written by New Yorkers who drop in on the Midwest to write a cliched local color piece or small-town expose. So now a Midwesterner has written a cliched study of Upper East Siders. Call it turnabout. As for how it got published, who wouldn't want to publish a book about the vanity of Upper East Siders? I'm sure it's selling briskly all over the city.
3
why is it when your "rich" and rude your called shy? I live in a neighborhood of new affluence , formerly a working class then middle class now affluent part of the city - the "rich" look down on everyone but their "rich" friends - not fun , so why should I read a vapid book like this? I live it
4
With nonsense like this about an insular group of over-the-top-spoiled people Is it any wonder that many in fly-over country have nothing but contempt for New Yorkers?
Thankfully the people depicted in the book are not typical New Yorkers. (There should be a disclaimer.) Typical New Yorkers are the hardest working, most creative, friendliest (yes, friendliest) people around but that's not the stuff of books.
Thankfully the people depicted in the book are not typical New Yorkers. (There should be a disclaimer.) Typical New Yorkers are the hardest working, most creative, friendliest (yes, friendliest) people around but that's not the stuff of books.
22
If a woman married a man who was engaged in making money by being truly useful to other people, and she agreed to do all the domestic work for their family to forward his work, wouldn’t she be proud of her agreement? Is what is really wrong with the women described in this book (fictitious or not), that they have entered into a partnership with a man to get all they can from other people without really deserving it? Real or not, I believe there is no woman who would not be ashamed (whether aware of it or not) of living off a man who is living off everyone else.
The fact that many of these men work long hours doesn’t mean a thing. Some criminals work hard too, but it doesn’t make them productive. Being a means of the rich getting richer by helping them take more and more of the profits produced by the work of other people, is not productive, only hurtful. What woman can truly be proud of a man who does this, and proud of being married to him?
The fact that many of these men work long hours doesn’t mean a thing. Some criminals work hard too, but it doesn’t make them productive. Being a means of the rich getting richer by helping them take more and more of the profits produced by the work of other people, is not productive, only hurtful. What woman can truly be proud of a man who does this, and proud of being married to him?
16
Thanks to Ms Maslin, I will not be reading thsi book. But what is with demonizing these people. Investment bankers go to work. Thje things that they do facilitate the growth in our economy by raining huge amounts of money. Becasue of these guys, we ahve an airline industry, Railroads, computers-or this newspaper. By the standards of some, only self-sustaining organic farmers are worhty of our respect. .
2
I guess this book and writer has now become a regular feature in the Times. I will not be surprised to see it pop up in the Business section, or perhaps even Sports (Birkin bag competition!).
Makes one wonder about deeper connections with the Times editorial staff. Or maybe just that they think they know their readership's demographics.
Makes one wonder about deeper connections with the Times editorial staff. Or maybe just that they think they know their readership's demographics.
11
Thank you Janet Maslin.
6
Rightly or wrongly the review prompted me to think of the first half of the 20th century when this class of women led or participated in serious social movements that included women's right to vote, reproductive autonomy, labor reform, and civil rights. Efforts that usually had more positive impact on the lives of the poor and working and middle classes and were often in direct opposition to the views of their powerful husbands.
Glad to see how far they've come in the last few decades.
Glad to see how far they've come in the last few decades.
19
As I documented in a post below, rich women OPPOSED including domestic workers in minimum wage laws because the rich women wanted to preserve a source of cheap labor.
8
What, the fourth piece on this silly book? And the author isn't even as talented as Nora Ephron and other favorites to whom the Times gives excessive coverage.
I, too, though the initial article was extremely misleading. It gave the impression that Wednesday Martin was an anthropologist with a graduate degree.
I, too, though the initial article was extremely misleading. It gave the impression that Wednesday Martin was an anthropologist with a graduate degree.
11
This book and this article are prime examples as to why the rest of the country doesn't give a hoot.
22
I guess that if the book sells enough copies she will be able to buy another Birkin bag with her own money.
I have not and will not read this book. It seems that she hates these women at the same time as wanting to be one of them.
I have not and will not read this book. It seems that she hates these women at the same time as wanting to be one of them.
28
Ms. Martin got what she wanted with her Ph.D. -- a Birkin Bag.
Well, alright, she got her PhD herself, but her husband got her the bag.
Then again, seeing how she admitted to flirting her way to getting her son a playdate, one wonders if she flirted her way to her PhD.
No matter, a Birkin bag is a scarcer commodity than a PhD anyway.
Well, alright, she got her PhD herself, but her husband got her the bag.
Then again, seeing how she admitted to flirting her way to getting her son a playdate, one wonders if she flirted her way to her PhD.
No matter, a Birkin bag is a scarcer commodity than a PhD anyway.
12
The whole conceit of this book derives from the script for Mean Girls, basically, in which the main character finds herself dropped into suburban US high school girl culture, having spent her childhood primarily in Africa. Tina Fey deserves all the credit for that smart film. I found Ms. Martin's piece on "wife bonuses" to be self-serving and shallow, and the book seems to be more of the same. What a waste of time.
6
Anyone else wonder what happened to sisterhood?
8
So the author desperately ingratiates herself into a tribe of shallow, covetous rich women, only to then repay them w/ this treacherous book? You'd think someone bright enough to earn a PhD might be able to find some more meaningful work.
12
Are the 1% are just trailer trash with tons of money ? Maybe worse, they have the ability and means to accomplish better things and yet many just wallow in self gratification and narcissistic behavior.
11
When you pay a woman an agreed amount for certain agreed upon acts, well then, that is.........
Why is it usually women who are dishing dirt on each other, while most men have each other's backs? I haven't read Ms. Martin's book (and won't), but it sounds like just another rant against phony snobs. Big deal. Why does she want to be included by these women if she thinks they're so ridiculous?
7
The author's problem, and the problem with her book, is that she is not being honest about her relationship to her subject. She claims to have been an anthropologist, a more or less detached and neutral observer, when in actuality she was a wannabe. She desperately desired to fit in, to be accepted, to have that special handbag. But either she was rejected or she felt rejected (I don't find her a particularly reliable narrator here). Maybe the other women recognized her as too needy. In any event, as someone who is very much NOT a part of the world she describes, but has interacted with it a great deal through my work and personal life, I can say categorically that it is not something I would wish upon my worst enemy (if I had one). Several of the most unhappy, and I mean truly miserable, people I have ever met have been very wealthy women of that cohort.
19
Despite all the negativity out there surrounding Wednesday Martin and her "tell-all", I'm with her. I'm one of New York's downtown mom's who sends her kid to an Upper East Side independent school. All true I say, right down to Aspen and the Hamptons ("out east") and Birkin bags. What I admire is how these moms are passionate and diligent in their lifestyle, which Ms. Martin plainly describes in her book. Those outside of Manhattan might find "Primates of Park Avenue" an eye-opening and entertaining romp if they've never been a New Yorker or been exposed to this singular breed of socialite mom.
5
Sounds exhausting. So glad I am a nobody.
17
Love it! This thought crosses my mind often. Sitting still, the mind pleasantly wandering, is such a balm.
Were I to reside in the stratum under discussion, I bet it'd be rough swinging enough time for that.
Were I to reside in the stratum under discussion, I bet it'd be rough swinging enough time for that.
2
One of the biggest problems with her book is that it straddles the line between fiction and memoir, leaving readers confused, in a sense because her protagonist does not follow the kind of arc we would expect in reading a 'story' like this, and therefore does not possess the moral courage, virtue or redeeming qualities of the chick-lit heroine we wish she would be, but instead, reveals herself to be just as shallow as the subjects she covers. So the pact with the reader is broken, and there is a feeling of betrayal. She is an 'unlikeable heroine'.
That's fine, but let's defend the writer for a moment. This is publishing and she wrote what she knew, and I think, judging from the hype, it's a good story with more than a little entertainment value--which is all it purported to be.
That's fine, but let's defend the writer for a moment. This is publishing and she wrote what she knew, and I think, judging from the hype, it's a good story with more than a little entertainment value--which is all it purported to be.
5
This book is a staggering PR success. It now possible to peddle trashy fiction(Fifty Shades) or social non-fiction just on the strength of brilliant marketing campaigns. I wonder how long this kind of success can be pulled-off. But it will be good for them while it lasts.
19
That anyone can hang out a sign as an amateur anthropologist or sociologist or semiotician, after Saussure, is something we've known since Barthes's "Mythologies" from the 1950s which was, I suspect, recommended reading in some comp lit. class in Ms. Martin's school days. The more interesting story she does not choose to tell is how some people manage to make a living reading signs and the framing of signs and others don't--history always being written and air-brushed by the wealthy and well-connected. For Ms. Martin's next swing through the trees, or groves, if she's not too busy, I recommend a "Return to the Planet of the Apes" that would focus on PhDs who left academia or the thousands of over-worked underpaid PhD-holding-adjuncts on American campuses striving to make ends meet, keep their sanity, and nurture the civic conscience of their fellow primates.
3
I hope this is the end of the NY Times' coverage of Ms. Martin's new book. This is the 3rd article about it I am aware of, and there are probably mentions of it elsewhere I haven't seen. Sales figures for it must be astronomical by now with all these promotions-that-money-can't-buy, at least not directly.
Ms. Martin is hardly the first, or the worst social climber in the recent history of Manhattan. The place is built on the backs of social climbers. That she allowed a desperate-looking publicity photo to be used to promote herself, then becomes self-exploitative at the end of the book should tell everybody everything they need to know about her: the only thing she hates more than not having been born into privilege and money is her own enormous social insecurity. She told NY Times reporter Ginia Bellafante that she misses living on the Upper East Side because the West Side women have lower standards about their weight and appearance. The woman is hopeless, and still doesn't get it. She just needs her husband to unload for decades of expensive psychoanalysis which won't change her insecurities one bit.
19
Seriously -- now she has had 4 write ups in the NYT. Her marketing is fricking brilliant.
29
It's Tiger Mom 2015. Even the NYT apparently can't resist.
I'm unclear why such a literary light weight of a book seems to be getting the full court press from the NYT. Perhaps the Public Editor could weigh in next to make sure all the bases are promoted, I mean covered.
27
This is the third article or review in the Times about this book. Instead of reviewing the same book three times, why not give space and reviews to other books?
26
Fourth.
5
America, the Beautiful? What wasted lives and what a waste of time to read the whole book. The review is stomach turning enough.
2
This op-ed is so vindictive and condescending, it gives the impression that the author of the book most certainly stepped on some toes. ... I have to say, until now I was interested, but after reading this scathing piece of venom, I REALLY want to read it.
7
Ginia Bellafante got her licks in last week, and today we have Janet Maslin. Haven't your best writers anything better to do than take cheap shots at Wednesday Martin, all the while rising in righteous defense of the overly-everything?
8
This is the FOURTH article about this ridiculous book that the NYT has published in the past two weeks. It is a nothing book (wife bonuses? Nobody buys that, sorry) by a fraud (claiming to be an anthropologist without having any training?). I have heard absolutely no buzz or interest in it from anyone in real life. It's been for sale for 2 days, and it doesn't exactly seem to be flying out of the Amazon warehouses, according to their rankings.
When can we stop reading about it?
When can we stop reading about it?
33
Who wrote this snarky review? Name? The original review that commenters refer to is a good, even-handed piece that projects the book as something interesting to read, maybe, if you are into this tranche of society. This unsigned hatchet job is clearly intended to suppress enthusiasm for the book which is probably flying out of B & N. Who paid for this review, I wonder? This hatchet job seems to say that unless fully-fledged anthropology students with white coats and clip boards ascent to the Upper East Side and conduct their interviews with the full approval of the Institutional Review Board the work is without value. Ho ho! Looks like maybe this book is touching a particularly achey, guilty nerve.
6
Uh, can you read? Look to the left of the article. The author's name is "Janet Maslin," and she is a longtime daily book reviewer for the Times. This piece is the only true review the paper has run so far to my knowledge. It is intelligent and funny, not snarky.
3
It's not unsigned Janet maslin
1
the author seems angry.
7
Yet another reason that the Flyover States really don't like the effete coastals… as if another reason was necessary.
4
Admittedly I have not read the book. Nevertheless, it seems clear that:
1. The NYTimes has given it wildly excessive coverage.
2. Much of this ground was covered in "The Nanny Diaries."
3. It aims to restart the "mommy wars" of the 1990s by pitting WOTH and SAHM women against each other.
1. The NYTimes has given it wildly excessive coverage.
2. Much of this ground was covered in "The Nanny Diaries."
3. It aims to restart the "mommy wars" of the 1990s by pitting WOTH and SAHM women against each other.
20
Psychologist Dr. Gregory Razran, a student of Ivan Pavlov, used to routinely regale his students with his tale of his encounter with anthropologist Margaret Mead. He stated that he advised her that she should have studied behavior at Jewish weddings in the Bronx instead of traveling to Samoa.
It appears that Ms. Martin, author of "Primates of Park Avenue", has taken his advice to heart.
It appears that Ms. Martin, author of "Primates of Park Avenue", has taken his advice to heart.
3
I have not read, and have no current plans to read, Ms. Martin's book, as it has little relevance to my personal life.
I have, however, read Ms. Maslin's review of Ms. Martin's book. In attempting to dismiss Ms. Martin's book as snotty, condescending, and less amusing than its author thinks, Ms. Maslin has managed to write review that is snotty, condescending, and less amusing than its author thinks. Ms. Maslin appears to have more in common with Ms. Martin than she may realize.
Ms. Maslin ends her review by noting that Ms. Martin has moved from the Upper East Side to the Upper West Side, something she snidely suggests that Ms. Martin "sees as positive." If Ms. Martin is as much of a social climber as Ms. Maslin seems to think, then perhaps that move did in fact make sense -- people on the Upper West Side have been looking down on people from the Upper East Side for years.
I have, however, read Ms. Maslin's review of Ms. Martin's book. In attempting to dismiss Ms. Martin's book as snotty, condescending, and less amusing than its author thinks, Ms. Maslin has managed to write review that is snotty, condescending, and less amusing than its author thinks. Ms. Maslin appears to have more in common with Ms. Martin than she may realize.
Ms. Maslin ends her review by noting that Ms. Martin has moved from the Upper East Side to the Upper West Side, something she snidely suggests that Ms. Martin "sees as positive." If Ms. Martin is as much of a social climber as Ms. Maslin seems to think, then perhaps that move did in fact make sense -- people on the Upper West Side have been looking down on people from the Upper East Side for years.
13
There was an article several years ago on how even beggars prefer the Upper West Side to the Upper East Side because the denizens are more generous.
No, the UWS is not full of virtue, especially in the 1% era, but there is definitely a tonal change.
No, the UWS is not full of virtue, especially in the 1% era, but there is definitely a tonal change.
1
Well said. As I read the review, I saw Janet Maslin typing furiously in her UES co-op, Birkin bag next to the laptop. If she doesn't live there, she should.
Didn't Ms. Martin marry very well herself? Why is she hating on these other women who also chose to marry someone wealthy like she did?
14
Tom Wolfe did a great job with this already.
23
"up-down and east-west axes"
Um, aren't up and down usually called north and south?
Um, aren't up and down usually called north and south?
4
"up-down and east-west axes"
Um, aren't up and down usually called north and south?
Actually, in New York we refer to the eastern or western parts of Manhattan as the East Side or the West Side, but the north/south parts of the axes are always referred to as Uptown/Downtown.
Um, aren't up and down usually called north and south?
Actually, in New York we refer to the eastern or western parts of Manhattan as the East Side or the West Side, but the north/south parts of the axes are always referred to as Uptown/Downtown.
1
Actually, in Manhattan, it is much more common to refer to the Upper East and Upper West Sides and Uptown and Downtown.
1
Not in NYC
3
Interesting to note how it's perfectly acceptable to mock upper-class white women by calling them primates. Were the title "Primates of West Baltimore," and the subject the real non-housewives of America's urban ghettos, this author would have been burned at the stake by the left for being an unforgivable racist.
That said, I think an anthropological study of this curious and peculiar alien society is certainly in order. Approach the beasts with caution and do not -- I repeat, do NOT -- stop to collect artifacts at the local CVS.
Ignore those who would have you perish if you published, too.
That said, I think an anthropological study of this curious and peculiar alien society is certainly in order. Approach the beasts with caution and do not -- I repeat, do NOT -- stop to collect artifacts at the local CVS.
Ignore those who would have you perish if you published, too.
5
"Primate" is an extremely charged term when referring to human beings. There's a difference between what is sarcasm and what is racism. Some of us get that, some do not - by choice, or whatever.
As for "an anthropological study of this curious and peculiar alien society," Frank Zappa did one of the L.E.S. society of thirty-five years ago (that later moved to the U.E.S.) in the lyrics to his song, "The Mudd Club." And if you would like a better understanding of how the U.E.S. has evolved over the past 40 years, check they lyrics of the Ramones' "53rd and 3rd." Both are always worth a revisit.
As for "an anthropological study of this curious and peculiar alien society," Frank Zappa did one of the L.E.S. society of thirty-five years ago (that later moved to the U.E.S.) in the lyrics to his song, "The Mudd Club." And if you would like a better understanding of how the U.E.S. has evolved over the past 40 years, check they lyrics of the Ramones' "53rd and 3rd." Both are always worth a revisit.
False equivalency: Don't you understand that mocking the privileged and powerful is not the same as mocking the oppressed and powerless?
I only wish the book were better.
I only wish the book were better.
3
Amen!
1
Forget Gucci bags.
There is a disgusting attitude of entitlement among rich women [and men] living in all areas.
That others should live in poverty so they can have luxuries.
http://wamc.org/post/dr-vanessa-may-seton-hall-university-labor-law-and-...
Domestics represented the largest category of women workers before 1940 but were excluded from wage and hour legislation until 1974. In contrast, many women industrial workers were covered by labor laws as early as 1908. By 1938, New Deal labor legislation covered both men and women. How had domestics been left out of these reforms?
In New York, two bills proposed a minimum wage and maximum hours for domestics. Surprisingly, prominent women's organizations, including the YWCA, the Consumers' League, the League of Women Voters, and the Women's City Club, refused to fully support the bills. These groups had lobbied hard for the Fair Labor Standards Act. They had written, campaigned for, and championed much of the progressive legislation that made the New Deal transformative. A bill for domestic labor standards could not pass without their support.
Why were they so reluctant? First, the members of these organizations were middle and upper-class women worried about maintaining access to cheap household help. They, like professionals today, depended on domestics to do the housework while they pursued other interests. "
There is a disgusting attitude of entitlement among rich women [and men] living in all areas.
That others should live in poverty so they can have luxuries.
http://wamc.org/post/dr-vanessa-may-seton-hall-university-labor-law-and-...
Domestics represented the largest category of women workers before 1940 but were excluded from wage and hour legislation until 1974. In contrast, many women industrial workers were covered by labor laws as early as 1908. By 1938, New Deal labor legislation covered both men and women. How had domestics been left out of these reforms?
In New York, two bills proposed a minimum wage and maximum hours for domestics. Surprisingly, prominent women's organizations, including the YWCA, the Consumers' League, the League of Women Voters, and the Women's City Club, refused to fully support the bills. These groups had lobbied hard for the Fair Labor Standards Act. They had written, campaigned for, and championed much of the progressive legislation that made the New Deal transformative. A bill for domestic labor standards could not pass without their support.
Why were they so reluctant? First, the members of these organizations were middle and upper-class women worried about maintaining access to cheap household help. They, like professionals today, depended on domestics to do the housework while they pursued other interests. "
11
Thank you for this commentary and you are right. HOWEVER, it also matters that the domestics (and farm workers) who were excluded from New Deal/Social Security were black and those provisions, while not specifying race, nevertheless were aimed specifically at black southerners in order to get the support of southern Congressmen.
Cheryl:
You are certainly correct that FDR made an unfortunate deal with southern senators to get support for much of his New Deal legislation. FDR would allow de facto segregation to continue in support for measures like Social Security etc. This certainly explains the exclusion of farm workers from the minimum wage laws.
Whether it explains exclusion of domestic workers is debatable.
The affluent women who opposed including domestic workers probably would have supported covering farm workers of all races.
You are certainly correct that FDR made an unfortunate deal with southern senators to get support for much of his New Deal legislation. FDR would allow de facto segregation to continue in support for measures like Social Security etc. This certainly explains the exclusion of farm workers from the minimum wage laws.
Whether it explains exclusion of domestic workers is debatable.
The affluent women who opposed including domestic workers probably would have supported covering farm workers of all races.
I have not read the book, but have read several of the articles. It seems that the author is intent on stripping these women of their humanness. I just spent nearly 2 years pastoring a church in an upscale neighborhood of Evanston, IL. Many of the women are professionals, but many others are stay-at-home moms. I am sure that some of them are busy in a variety of ways 'keeping up with the Joneses,' but many are also just trying to live their lives the best way they know how. Even in affluent/wealthy neighborhoods there is pain behind those lovely facades. There are marital struggles; children in academic and other kinds of trouble; depression, eating disorders, and, yes, financial worries. Some are looking good, but living right on the edge of financial disaster; some are shoring up low self-esteem and insecurities with Gucci bags and diamonds. In short, I think that what this author does is shallow and aimed at the jealous who love to hate those whom they perceive to "have it all."
38
Bravo! For a very important insight.
Evanston is a zone of academia. If you had been it in Kenilworth or Winnetka, where I grew up, your perception might have been different. As an example, when my Asian wife and I gathered with others for dinner at a restaurant in Winnetka, the wife of a former business associate, a woman with whom I was not acquainted with, loudly asked her husband why I had brought "the help" with me. Stay classy, New Trier Township.
I taught at an elite East Side private school at the high school level for many years.
There were some parents who were very supportive of me and were primarily interested in their child's education.
There were other parents who believed that the high tuition they were paying meant they were paying for guaranteed academic success for their child and it was my responsibility and duty to lie to inflate their child's grades so he /she could get into a prestigious ivy league college.
I found these different attitudes among east side parents and non-east side parents.
Singling out UES residents is not accurate.
There were some parents who were very supportive of me and were primarily interested in their child's education.
There were other parents who believed that the high tuition they were paying meant they were paying for guaranteed academic success for their child and it was my responsibility and duty to lie to inflate their child's grades so he /she could get into a prestigious ivy league college.
I found these different attitudes among east side parents and non-east side parents.
Singling out UES residents is not accurate.
34
"by living among and masquerading as one of those rich RoboMoms"
As I understand it, this is wrong. Already rich and newly moved to the Upper East Side, Ms. Martin was wanting to become one of the RoboMoms. It's only when she didn't find the acceptance she think she deserved that she wrote a Tell-All from the perspective of a jilted suitor.
And while I realize headlines can't fit in every word, Ms. Martin isn't making fun of the rich. She's making fun of rich *women*. As I understand it, she finds rich men just fine.
As I understand it, this is wrong. Already rich and newly moved to the Upper East Side, Ms. Martin was wanting to become one of the RoboMoms. It's only when she didn't find the acceptance she think she deserved that she wrote a Tell-All from the perspective of a jilted suitor.
And while I realize headlines can't fit in every word, Ms. Martin isn't making fun of the rich. She's making fun of rich *women*. As I understand it, she finds rich men just fine.
104
The workout wear trope is embarrassing. Moreover, it is clear that this 'anthropologist' failed to do a pre-investigative review of the literature. Had she done so, she would have encountered Wolfe's observation that the subject women are "starved to perfection." Nothing more need be said.
41
Re: "Wife Bonus" ... It's hardly unknown for anthropologists -- whether academic or, as in this case, self-styled -- to get pranked by their subjects. Margaret Mead's 1928 book on Samoan teens is only the most notorious example of natives making up tall tales and bogus rituals for naive anthropologists.
20
Wait, hold the laughter, I've got one even better than this!!! Ready!????
A book that highlights and mocks the lifestyle of the middle class and working poor! Better yet, add a bit about the lives of the unemployed! And...what?
We only make fun of the right and call it humor?
Oh, ok, never mind.
A book that highlights and mocks the lifestyle of the middle class and working poor! Better yet, add a bit about the lives of the unemployed! And...what?
We only make fun of the right and call it humor?
Oh, ok, never mind.
12
It's making fun of the rich, not the right. The reason this works is because of the power dynamics- the working class is already at a power disadvantage so it's not cool to kick them while their down.
1
It's a time-honored literary tradition, John, going back at least to the Greeks and ancient religious texts. It's about the haves and the have nots, not about right vs. left. This book just isn't very good, probably because it appears to be written from the point of view of a resentful jilted wannabee, rather than that of a great satirist. I do hope her posing as an "anthropologist" was meant to be a tongue-in-cheek persona, even though that fell flat. Anyway, thanks to the NYTimes and these posts I need never read this silly "book." Reading about it, however, has been rather fun.
1
No book necessary. There's already a whole network dedicated to mocking the lifestyles of the middle class and working poor - and they call it news.
2
This is nauseating. Does the Times really have nothing better to report than the lifestyles of the rich and famous? There are women in this city leading heroic lives, however unenviable. Learning about them would be inspiring, as opposed to demoralizing. Is there an editor somewhere, anywhere?
68
I can't help but also feel that there must be some actual anthropologists out there writing books that might actually be interesting or important, and that a review in the NYT could make the career of someone who has spent decades of their lives working to discover something new. Instead of to further the vanity career of a rich trophy wife.
3
It's a review of the book. Blame the publisher, not the Times.
Another "book" written by a non by birth New Yorker arriviste - why anyone needs to read this book is beyond me - as a Brooklynite by Birth and choice - I made the mistake of living in Manhattan in the "bad" times of the late 70's - just like Travolta - but i moved back to Brooklyn and now just go to "the City" by choice -
11
Really, this is your chance to assert that only people born in the city are "real new yorkers"? This is a city made by immigrants. If someone comes here and truly embraces the city and its people then they are as much a New Yorker as anyone alive. Anything beyond that is stupid xenophobia. Let's also remember we are living in a city that once belonged to a very different group of people and was stolen from them. So if you want to force the issue NONE of us are New Yorkers.
3
Just a gossip column disguised as a book. Who cares what a bunch of underfed neurotic social climbers are doing?
40
This explains why the author was so biased. I was surprised that an anthropologist was not objective. Most disappointing thing I have read in the NYT ever.
10
This reads like an excessively long and ultimately tedious Metropolitan Diary entry.
19
And not a very good one either.
1
I'm so thankful that, after having hyping this book to the skies, the Times' own Ms. Maslin has done a thorough takedown of this insulting book. Aside from the fact that, as she notes, this is hardly a new take on the subject (hello, "Nanny Diaries"!), it's also repulsive in its stereotyping. If the subject matter had been a minority neighborhood like Bed-Stuy, imagine the howls of protest.
I lived for many years on the edge of the Upper East Side in Yorkville, and so can speak for experience: Yes, these women exist. But they're only a part — a small part — of the matrix that makes up this large, complex area.
I lived for many years on the edge of the Upper East Side in Yorkville, and so can speak for experience: Yes, these women exist. But they're only a part — a small part — of the matrix that makes up this large, complex area.
43
Ms. Martin lost her credibility as even a rank amateur anthropologist in the first clause of her May 16 Sunday Review opinion piece. She wrote: "When our family moved from the West Village to the Upper East Side in 2004, seeking proximity to Central Park, my in-laws and a good public school..."
(1) One does not need to leave the Village to find a good New York City public school. (2) In any case, Primates of Park Avenue, including, apparently, Ms. Martin, do not send their children to public school. (3) And apparently she failed to observe the SAHMs in her old neighborhood.
(1) One does not need to leave the Village to find a good New York City public school. (2) In any case, Primates of Park Avenue, including, apparently, Ms. Martin, do not send their children to public school. (3) And apparently she failed to observe the SAHMs in her old neighborhood.
30
I've been listening to excerpts of this in the "books-on-tape "version, and it is rather sad. Not juicy but sad. And I mean mostly sad about the author who is exposing too much of her own self. I wonder if she realizes this.
39
Perhaps this is a true life, personal story about the wishing and wanting, then the getting of a Birkin bag.
The End.
The End.
85
The first Times article about Martin said she had a PhD and implied that she was a real Anthropologist, so I read the article with interest. It wasn't until about he third Times, article that I realized her PhD was in literature. At that point I disregarded all that I had read. The Times should have made it very clear in the first article that Martin was not an Anthropologist. I am not pleased that I was misled, and wasted valuable time on Martin, when I could have been reading other Times articles which (I hope) are not misleading
186
Let your experience with this be a caution in your other reading. Caveat lector!
9
And waste three reviews on this kind of nonsense? Is this NYT's advertising of chic literature or what? This is my first and last review and I will definitely not read the book. Thank you Ms Maslin for alerting me.
20
The areas mentioned in the article - Downtown, (I believe the author lived in Greenwich Village before moving to the UES.) The Upper East Side, and The Upper West Side all have their share of well-to-do families. The reality is if you don't have a rent stabilized apartment in these areas, you need to be earning $500K - $1M to be comfortable raising a family if you own your apartment and send your kids to private school. I'm not sure why the author makes such a big To Do over the UES because it's not much different than anywhere else in Manhattan proper.
I've lived in NYC for a long time and neighborhoods used to have their own distinctions. But to me everything below 96th street is interchangeable. The UES, UWS, the Village...slightly different vibes but the Bourgeoisie are the same everywhere.
I've lived in NYC for a long time and neighborhoods used to have their own distinctions. But to me everything below 96th street is interchangeable. The UES, UWS, the Village...slightly different vibes but the Bourgeoisie are the same everywhere.
75
sad but so true - as a lifetime resident of New York City I couldn't agree more!
9
Anyone who considers himself or herself an outsider in a well established society can make fun of those people they meet all the time about whom they know little. Perhaps someone can write a similar ersatz, alleged scientific experiement profile about the authors of addiotinal books making satire the east side of Manhattan. The earliest I recall offhand was about forty years ago. Preppies was a term coined in this era long passed to categorize young adults relocating from zones of lower population density for corporate and professional Manhattan jobs to quickly establish their unique lifestyles. The term Preppies soon fell out of use.
5
The term "preppies" has definitely not fallen out of use in all circles.
Do you mean "Yuppies"?
Seems boring, reading about the wives of the Upper East Side financial titans. It would have been more fun reading about their secretaries and other mistresses...
54
I know women like those covered in this too-often discussed, rather average book. What strikes me about them is that they spent their younger lives pursuing status, then they spent their older lives pursuing status, and in the end they have led sadly vapid lives. They first sought the protection of "career" as an excuse for their shallow status-consciousness, then "child rearing", but it was all just a facade for an inability (or lack of necessary courage) to locate any meaning. The money is irrelevant. They have squandered the only real thing anyone has, which is time. After a few chapters, I couldn't waste any more of my own time reading about them and didn't finish the book.
100
I think this is a brilliant analysis.
6
But you bought it. Didn't you read a review first to alert you?
2
I didn't purchase this book. But I don't buy books based on reviews anyway. I read them myself in the bookstore at a café table or standing in an isle and decide from there whether it is something I want to keep. If you wait for the reviews, you will find yourself reading very little poetry, very few of the small independent press books, and almost no art history or other humanities, because these types of books are rarely reviewed. Don't allow your reading life to be dictated by reviewers.
6
Perhaps a novel might have worked for her. But she wrote a biased, personalized book masquerading as a serious scientific study. As with many shallow sociological and anthropological studies, she started with personal opinions and biases and then selected those facts that supported her hypothesis. In the "hard sciences" this would have been tossed out as junk science.
78
Yes. But this is not anthropology and she is not an anthropologist.
7
She is not an anthropologist. Her Ph.D. is in literature. Social scientists do the opposite of what you claim they do. They look past personal opinions and analyze data.
2
A lot of hard-science research has come under similar fire decently, including in editorials incl. in the NYT in the last week.
Many so-called hard scientists trying to please/impress sponsors or grant committees have fudged data or distorted findings, as have those seeking to bolster the CV for tenure, or simply bolster prestige.
At least the book panned in this review appears to have been somewhat honest in its intention to slam an insular social group exploiting the mythology of meritocracy (even the trophy wives reported on Stanley Kaplaned their way into Ivies, from there springboarding to advanced degrees, lest anyone including John Houseman question whether They Earned It) to install itself as ersatz aristocracy. The rituals, customs & self-image of this group warrant exposure.
Lambasting the memoir aspect may not be fair. I suspect the author believed she could better convey her subject by assimilating into its mores, as Clifford Geertz as I recall consciously eschewed the "fly on the wall" detachment style, to convey Balinese life from a we-they hybrid approach.
Joyce also seems to have built these issues - subjectivity vs. objectivity of narrator into Ulysses by including the Stephen Dedalus character in the "Telemachiad" intro section of the novelistic exploration of modernity.
My point is not to defend the Park Avenue Primates book, but to suggest the there may be more methodological integrity drawing on real tradition than it's being given credit for.
Many so-called hard scientists trying to please/impress sponsors or grant committees have fudged data or distorted findings, as have those seeking to bolster the CV for tenure, or simply bolster prestige.
At least the book panned in this review appears to have been somewhat honest in its intention to slam an insular social group exploiting the mythology of meritocracy (even the trophy wives reported on Stanley Kaplaned their way into Ivies, from there springboarding to advanced degrees, lest anyone including John Houseman question whether They Earned It) to install itself as ersatz aristocracy. The rituals, customs & self-image of this group warrant exposure.
Lambasting the memoir aspect may not be fair. I suspect the author believed she could better convey her subject by assimilating into its mores, as Clifford Geertz as I recall consciously eschewed the "fly on the wall" detachment style, to convey Balinese life from a we-they hybrid approach.
Joyce also seems to have built these issues - subjectivity vs. objectivity of narrator into Ulysses by including the Stephen Dedalus character in the "Telemachiad" intro section of the novelistic exploration of modernity.
My point is not to defend the Park Avenue Primates book, but to suggest the there may be more methodological integrity drawing on real tradition than it's being given credit for.
"Ms. Martin’s description of her book as a “stranger-than-fiction story” is fair — but only because fiction usually makes sense."
Ouch! But very funny.
Ouch! But very funny.
29
Funny, but not really hers:
"Why shouldn't truth be stranger than fiction? Fiction, after all, has to make sense."
--Mark Twain
"Why shouldn't truth be stranger than fiction? Fiction, after all, has to make sense."
--Mark Twain
33
The best thing about NYTimes online comments is people like ERDOC who find stuff like this. Delicious!!
The best and most interesting part about this story is found in the original opinion piece titled "Poor Little Rich Women" written on May 16. And that best and most interesting part is the beautiful illustration created by Malika Favre that accompanied the piece!
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/17/opinion/sunday/poor-little-rich-women....
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/17/opinion/sunday/poor-little-rich-women....
4
I recently tried to read Valley of the Dolls. Horrible! Seems similar. Empty and clichéd. Writing backwards from a premise.
29
Any interest in this book was lost for me after reading her recent excerpt in the NY Times. Judging solely from that piece, I was fairly disgusted.
For an anthropologist, Ms. Martin ignores an enormous aspect of her piece: her own cultural bias.You see, Ms. Martin clearly has a viewpoint about the inherent lack of value of full-time mothering.
You see it when she refers dismissively to “intensive mothering” without delving deeply into what that it is, and more importantly, whether or not it’s effective. Much as we try and forget it, children do not raise themselves and do benefit from parental interaction and guidance.
But in Ms. Martin’s opinion piece, the children never make an appearance: it’s really all about impaling the mothers for the unforgivable sins of getting advanced degrees and not applying them as she sees fit. For prioritizing their children and not their careers. For lending those talents to charity organizations, instead of at corporations that may reward with financial gain, but necessarily satisfy.
Her essay would have been so much less repugnant if she would have explored the nuances of those choices without such overt judgment. I, for one, found Sheryl Sandberg’s "Lean In" better. That book did not ignore the children as it instead pressed for more male participation in the raising of the kids, more supports in the workplace and family laws that support women’s very real needs to be with their children when they are little.
That I would like.
For an anthropologist, Ms. Martin ignores an enormous aspect of her piece: her own cultural bias.You see, Ms. Martin clearly has a viewpoint about the inherent lack of value of full-time mothering.
You see it when she refers dismissively to “intensive mothering” without delving deeply into what that it is, and more importantly, whether or not it’s effective. Much as we try and forget it, children do not raise themselves and do benefit from parental interaction and guidance.
But in Ms. Martin’s opinion piece, the children never make an appearance: it’s really all about impaling the mothers for the unforgivable sins of getting advanced degrees and not applying them as she sees fit. For prioritizing their children and not their careers. For lending those talents to charity organizations, instead of at corporations that may reward with financial gain, but necessarily satisfy.
Her essay would have been so much less repugnant if she would have explored the nuances of those choices without such overt judgment. I, for one, found Sheryl Sandberg’s "Lean In" better. That book did not ignore the children as it instead pressed for more male participation in the raising of the kids, more supports in the workplace and family laws that support women’s very real needs to be with their children when they are little.
That I would like.
48
Note that she is not an anthropologist. She just drops lines about anthropology. Her degree is in comp lit.
11
Although a serious critique of class is always in order, I am tired to the bones of reading pithy and mean-spirited attacks on mothers who are under ever increasing pressure, in a viciously competitive world, to raise their children well. You are not going to be effective at addressing dehumanization with dehumanization. How about some compassion for a change? How about a little sisterhood?
86
Oh dear. Poor poor suffering millionaire women who need so much compassion....
4
The women depicted don't represent all UES women or all privileged women in Manhattan for that manner. But I have seen this type, and they are elitist, entitled, excluding, and often anti-feminist and racist. What sisterhood?
2
I found what I could read of the book, since I grew tired of the book, to be pretentiously stereotypical. This is no Jane Austen, not even close. There is no depth.
50
FOUR articles about this book, NY Times? Seriously? We get it, you're enthralled and exhilarated by it, but there are tons of other books published over the last month, last three months, last three YEARS, that you could focus on. Please, enough about these hyper-rich, entitled women. We've seen their story and them again and again. And again. And again. And again....
316
did it occur to you that, maybe and maybe and maybe, there are readers of the NYT who actually like these articles? Forgive me for not being as sophisticated as you are. My plebeian taste is actually quenched by reading about uber-narcissistic parents and their perfectiness
15
Absolutely! Move aside Primates of Park Avenue articles! Make room for more Caitlyn Jenner coverage!
19
Sorry to hear it. Good luck to you
O my. The 4th article the NYTimes has published in the past month on this book!!! Much ado about nothing.
196
Wow! Read Lauren Weisberger. She had characters like that.
3