Fine. I revise my premise. It's not that I'm old, it's that I've blown my ears out by going to so many totally awesome concerts. Because I'm not old, you see.
Oh, it's obviously about the loud music. It's the reward of us oldsters for having been really square in our youth--now we get to be cool with the students who have the sneaky ring tones.
I hear it here (via laptop, crap speakers), but I didn't hear it when NPR tried. Clearly, evidence that my car audio system's has trouble playing a true 20-20 frequency response.
It doesn't surprise me, though. I know I'm doomed to early hearing loss: my mother, all four of her siblings, her mother and her father all needed hearing aids by forty and got them by fifty. My geneticist sister is looking into it. And then there were all the raves in my youth.
It's pretty horrible. I may not be too old to hear it, but I'm sure as hell old enough to know better than to put it on my cell phone so I can listen to it on purpose.
OUCH! I'm north of 40, and I sure as hell heard that.
If I was a teacher and some teenager's cell phone made that noise, the phone would be separated from the battery and the component halves would be sent to different Vice Principal's offices. By surface mail. Via China.
Yeah, I can hear it - despite lots of loud gigs (and actually playing guitar in a shit pub metal band circa 1989). It's just the usual mosquito high-pitched 'pheep pheep'.
I can always hear those high-pitched sounds. Ditto for TVs being on and most other electrical devices. As with 6, those noises are pretty annoying.
ash
['One of these fancy electric doorbell things? I tell you, we had to knock on doors when I was a kid, and it built up the calluses on your hands so we could work harder and we liked it that way, goddammit.']
I hear a high pitched tone, then it fades and I'm not sure if I hear anything (getting old?) then it crackles and I hear it again, then it fades, then crackles and I hear it.
So fucking annoying! Everybody on the floor was playing that thing all day yesterday and asking each other if they could hear it. Like the whining of a million monitors warming up.
If it makes you feel better, Becks, I couldn't hear it until I turned it up. And then: holy crap! Kids *voluntarily* put that on their phones?!
I'm 37, btw, and went to *way* too many small club rock and punk shows in my day. (I wear earplugs like all the other 30-somethings at shows now. It's hilariously dorky.)
But I wonder if kids can hear it even turned way down?
I'm now reading this thread at work and wondering if the reason I can't hear it has less to do with my age or all of the rock concerts and more to do with the fact that I've had a rack of servers about three feet away from my desk at work for the last five years. If it's the same high-pitched squeal that electronics make, I wonder if I've become desensitized to it or lost my ability to hear it because of that. I do remember the servers being much louder when I first started to work here.
I can hear this one, but I couldn't hear the NPR version. Whew.
It's the sound of my first office. I sat in a room with the world's most annoying hard drive, and that was the soundtrack to my first 6 months out of school.
43: They make a high-pitched whine. It's not the lights, I think, but the pressure sensors under the road. It's drowned out by the radio, but otherwise noticeable.
46: Nah, my TV's right next to my bed (hellishly small apartment) and I can't get to sleep if the CRT's on even if everything else is off. Same used to be true of my old monitor, actually. Never heard traffic lights, though.
Oh, the TV thing is definately real. When I was a kid, I'd make my parents turn it off before I went to bed, otherwise I couldn't get to sleep. They were convinced I was imagining things, since my room was far enough away that the actual sound of the program wasn't audible, and would try to sneakily turn it back on at low volume, but I would always catch them.
That's interesting about the traffic lights, I've never noticed it before.
I can hear it, and not only did I go to a lot of hardcore and metal shows in my twenties, I spent most of my teens listening to heavy metal at top volume via headphones.
I also hear a lot of other electronic whines (my monitor, right now), but never traffic lights.
Good hearing in the extremely high range runs in my family. In fact my dad's hearing was tested once, and it was off the charts at most frequencies except for the ones in the range of human voices, where it was in the normal range. Always used to joke that he couldn't hear his daughters due to his freakish hearing.
When that study came out a year or so ago that said that men had problems hearing women's voices, he felt absurdly vindicated.
My wife, who is L, claims to be able to hear a sort of electronic threshold sound, she can tell in a way that there is a tone, but she can't hear the tone. I, LIV, hear nothing.
My dad was a T.A. at Dalhousie in the late forties. He described a prof demonstrating this effect with an audiologist's tone producer. He said it was like clockwork: the professor, about fifty, suddenly said "I can't hear this" when my dad, about thirty, still clearly could. A few tones later, my dad couldn't hear it but the normally-aged undergrads could. By and large it's age but there must be outliers.
I'm 34, and I get nothing from the NYTimes version. But my hearing has never been great --even as a teenager, I never liked trying to talk with background music on.
On the site 57 links, the ringtone put up by the BBC (the official Mosquito) pulses.
I was able to hear up to 17000 with no problems, and then nothing, but I'm thinking that might be the limitation of the sound card, or that my ears are ringing now.
The site at 57 is good because it has a range of frequencies. I can hear 13000 well and 14000 just barely. But given that I am both old and spent over 20 years as an artilleryman, that's not so bad. I would add that Mr. B.'s hearing loss is electronics related sounds right to me. I suspect I lost more hearing to being surrounded by radios than from the sound of cannon firing.
61: Man, I talk about my hearing being bad, but 57 confirms it. Just like Ideal, I can hear 14kHz but not 15kHz. I have no biographical excuse at all -- I've never liked loud music nor worked in a particularly loud environment.
Awesome. I can hear 15, but it's markedly quieter than 14. I can hear 16 at the beginning and end, just as it starts and stops, but other than that, nothing.
I can only hear up to 13kHz, which I guess isn't very good, on account of I'm only 21. I had tubes in my ears as a baby, and frequent (and painful) ear infections through out childhood.
Does anyone here know if this is the sort of thing one out to have checked out by a doctor if one isn't currently insured? Is hearing loss something that can be prevented if caught early?
I can hear up to 17Khz with no problems. I can't hear the 18Khz though, so that's either a limitation of my speakers or my hearing. Probably the hearing
On the link in 57 I hear 17K but not 18K. This is starting to remind me of the vocab and reading speed test threads that took place before I was hanging out here. In which case DeLong, Farber, and Belle should do the best.
LB--maybe your hearing's fine, it's just that you are trying to listen to the tones through cheap speakers or, worse, the internal speaker on your desktop at work.
Nah, I run into enough situations where I'm surrounded by people wincing in pain at some irritating noise that I can't hear that I know it's below average.
I do wish more bars would eschew the mandatory loud music. If I'm not dancing, I'm in a bar to talk, not listen to a jukebox.
Trying again I heard 12 but not 13. My wife can hear 15 but just the electronic threshold or whatever at 16.
Now, the squawk at the beginning and end, without being able to hear the steady tone in between, I take to be overtones that don't count. I can hear "stuff" above 12, just not the tone.
SaM K. wrote: Does anyone here know if this is the sort of thing one out to have checked out by a doctor if one isn't currently insured? Is hearing loss something that can be prevented if caught early?
I've been told that it is somewhat useful to "establish a baseline," but I suspect that is just so that you can pretend that tracking your decline gives you more agency.
As for prevention, I think it's just about protecting your ears from loud noises. Other than that, practice saying: "You're going to need to speak up and enunciate."
67: I'd actually suspect that you'd be better off *not* testing your hearing now, b/c once you *do* have health insurance, you don't want them to refuse you a hearing aid (or whatever) based on any hearing loss being a preexisting condition.
20KHz appears to be my upper limit, at least with this shitty headphone/speaker combination. The little "clicks" at the beginning and the end create the illusion that I can hear something at 21-22, but I think that's a phantom.
I can hear it loud and clear. Without doing any frequency analysis, I would guess a more or less constant tone around 13,000 Hz (which is less than a TV whine, at about 15,000 and thus quite a bit louder), possible modulating in frequency a little bit, or maybe that's just the volume modulating.
I'm not sure it would work as a ringtone. Most phones have extremely crappy speakers that sound like they're incapable of reproducing frequencies that high. Also, the crappy codecs used to digitize those tones probably cut off frequencies that high. But I'm not sure.
12: You probably couldn't hear it over your car radio because FM radio cuts off high frequencies, starting at around 12,000-15,000 Hz, which is right around where this tone is. It's really not reproducible over radio. Your car audio system probably had little, if anything, to do with it.
My hearing maxes out around 18,000, which is a little less than average (20,000) for young folks. But 20,000 isn't the absolute maximum. I had a friend that could hear a tone at 22,050, which is the absolute maximum frequency most PCs (and CDs) can reproduce. I don't know how much higher his hearing went from that.
About TVs. All CRT monitors, afaik, make that whining sound. I'm not sure how the pitch relates to refresh rate, but sometimes turning up the refresh rate to 70-80 Hz (if your monitor supports it) will cause the whine to go away. Most CRT TVs only support one refresh rate, though, and I imagine it's usually 60 Hz.
35: I've never heard a light fixture or traffic light whine like that. I know some flourescent lights buzz, but that's a low frequency (and still very annoying) buzz.
About loud music. Yes, loud music can definitely damage your hearing nerves, after about 100 dB or so. But 80 dB is still really loud, (think full NBA basketball stadium) and probably isn't that bad for you, so maybe you haven't listened to music *that* loud. Also, there's probably a big genetic component. Also, age does affect this.
41: I don't think rackmount anythings make this noise.
I really really wanted to find out this was a lie from students--"Oh yeah, it's a special ring no old people can hear"--but really they were seeing a light or something. An old classic Emperor's Clothes scenario. Too bad!
About the clicks. What's this shit program that doesn't do a fade-in/out? If you get a sound editor like audacity you can generate the tone and the fade-in/out to get rid of the clicks. It should only take 100 ms to get rid of the click. If I were prodded enough I might be convinced to make mp3s with the fades included.
Revising 73, I can definitely hear 18K, but I didn't realize because that one sounds so much like background noise that I don't really notice is starting, only when it stops. And I might be able to hear 19K, but it's really cheating to have a little bar telling me when the sound stops, so I'm not sure.
I can hear 18K just fine, but 19K not at all. 20K is a faint, intermittent, dotted-line of sound, and everything above that is inaudible to me. Looks like the answer is "misconfigured cheapo deterrent," and not "critter."
87: Don't trust things about around 21,000 Hz on most sound cards. All you're probably hearing is aliasing noise, not actually tones at that frequency.
Speaking of annoying noise, does anyone else hate it when their coworkers have long (30+ minutes) personal conversations and don't make an effort to speak in low, even tones?
While we're on the subject of sound, would I be totally insane to buy these?
I mean, buying expensive earphones to listen to mp3s (granted, ripped at 256 kbps, but still), but the ones I have are such shit, and if I'm going to buy some new ones, I might as well go all the way, right?
I can hear it. But it made me feel kind of uncomfortable. Perhaps they're using that ring tone at Guantanamo. Which, really, shouldn't be something to joke about. God, this country can suck.
Even better than digital white noise (what you get on the CDs or with the digital noisemakers) is an old-school analog white noisemaker like this. (You can get them cheaper than that, I just used the first Google hit.) Those things are awesome.
Not only that, but for the last ten minutes her personal conversation has been about her difficulties filing expense reports here. Is this really something you need to spend a lot of time in the middle of the day having an animated conversation about? AND she complained to me about our other coworker's gum popping, and how it was so loathsome she had to use headphones, but the gum popping has never made the kind of noise she's making now.
I'm actually glad to have the TV thing pointed out, b/c while I don't consciously "hear" it most of the time, I guess it is true that late at night or if it's turned down low, I can hear the high pitch.
The point being, it gives me new ammo in my argument that turning the television on first thing in the morning is like drinking dirty water.
I hear 20, 19, 18 - I started high and went down, but stopped at 18. 21,000 sounds like the whine of the laptop when the the tones are not playing. Uh, I think that means I can't hear it. But my speakers suck anyway, and I had to turn it up. Probably I should have used headphones.
Haven't taken the ranges test yet, but I definitely can hear the TV when it's on but nothing is playing. We keep the TV muted and route the sound through a stereo, but if the TV is on, I can hear it from a mile away. Ugh. Drives me crazy.
Hell no! I'm using a pair of ER-6s with my iPod right now... they're awesome. The sealed eartips make a big difference for listening on transit, too.
Don't buy 'em from Apple, though. You can get them cheaper at HeadRoom. And if you *really* wanna geek out on audio quality, you can also get a portable headphone amp.
93 & 102: Hearing one side of a phone conversation is more irritating, probably because your brain is working to fill in the other half and you can't tune it out as easily as if you could hear both sides.
Also, on the hearing loss thing, huge swathes of the Irish army sued the Irish State for hearing loss due to inadequate ear protection during firing practice etc. I think the last figure I saw for payouts was 278 million (inc. costs of about 90 m).
Yeah, the transit thing is really important, because when the train goes underground, the noise is so loud that I have to either a) jack my music up way loud or b) just turn it off. Plus, in my office there's a) fluorescent lights and b) a humming air conditioner, and I would very much like to block those things out.
I used shooters' plugs in the US Army ca. 1970, a fairly good pair, rubber over a small metal cylinder, with pinholes at both ends.
Idealist talked about Artillerymen above, and it's true that I knew some deaf ones, but the general rule is the bigger the calibre, the lower the note, and it's the high tones that do the damage. Just about every infantry sergeant I knew had some hearing loss. I think that this effect has worsened over time, the rate of fire has gone way, way up in the last half century. If the Irish army didn't provide earcovers, or recommend plugs on the ranges, that's unconscionable.
92: White noise CDs can be good at covering up annoying sounds. For apartments, however, I recommend playing low-frequency noise, or "brown noise", because most of the sound that makes it through walls is low frequency, and thus you don't have to turn up the noise as loud to cover everything. (Please to be not mentioning Southpark thank you.) Also because low-frequency noise is much less grating--basically just a low rumbling. For dealing with neighbors with big subwoofers, this is the best solution.
105, 109: Listening to music in high-noise conditions can be tough. Besides those earphones, applying something like a dynimac compressor to music that gets quiet in places, so that those quiet places are about as loud as the louder ones, can really help with some music. (Especially classical music, or live-recorded music, or other music that isn't already compressed-the-hell out of.)
The headphone talk reminds that my speakers are completely ass. Even though almost all of my music is ogg or mp3 (high bitrate!) I still notice a huge improvement with other speakers or with headphones.
Even the difference between 84 kbps and uncompressed is less than the difference between high quality speakers and cheap-ass speakers.
Speaking of encoding rates, I think this would be a neat test for everyone to take: comparing two different short clips of music encoded at different qualities and see if they can tell which one is better. (They would play in pairs, in a randomized order, and you would compare your picks with the actual order.) I did this test with ogg, and I could differentiate between quality 4 and 5.
Graham has this 4000 dollar stereo that, I must admit, sounds incredible. In that Modest Mouse song, "The World at Large", the part with all the bah bah bah bahs sounds like a huge symphony orchestra filling a concert hall. And once we played a test CD designed to demonstrate speaker capability, and this violin track recorded in a church made me start crying, and I don't think it would have listening to it on another stereo.
Yeah. My headphones, and my speakers are total ass. I'm trying to make the fact that I'm a sellout palatable by using the money on some better speakers for home, and headphones for work.
I currently have these, which aren't bad for what I paid for them (more than currently listed, as I bought them about two years ago), but I really want to get something better in like the $200-$300 range (for my computer).
Not all of it was violin music and such. There's a lot of very high tones, very low tones, sound recorded from the left, right, and center, stuff like that.
116: My co-worker bet me that I couldn't tell the difference between something encoded at 192 kbps and at 256 kbps, and so we're going to work up a test next week. But then I started saying that we needed some really good headphones to do the test, and that's what got me obsessing about those ER-6's
121: Yeah, but the music it did have was geared toward doing a good job at making it possible to tell the difference between really good speakers and very good speakers, which can be hard to do. (Especially in a noisy store.)
I'd like to buy some nice speakers--something $1000+ or so--but so much of what you can get at Best Buy etc is such complete crap, even for the price. And then some of it isn't. And it's hard to tell the difference sometimes.
And then I think about the kind of sound system that has the power to, e.g., move you to tears on this or that piece of music, and I wonder whether I would be missing out on that if I made the wrong choice, and how it's possible to know what you're getting. And maybe a test cd would help with that.
You can assuage your guilt over being a sellout not by buying yourself nice things (something for which sellouts are notorious), but rather by making the life of an impoverished grad student that little bit more enjoyable. Fortunately, I happen to know of such a one, and will gladly provide you with his contact information, preferences regarding consumer electronics, and other details should you be interested it taking this route.
122: I haven't officially made the decision yet, but I just blew off a preliminary clerkship-related deadline, so I'm not going to do that, and it looks like I'm not going to apply for an Equal Justice Works Fellowship like I was thinking about, either.
Each day I find myself rationalizing just taking this job if/when they give me an offer. I have all kinds of reasons that I make up: I'm good at it, I need to pay off my loans, it's good training, blah blah blah. But it still makes me feel a little sick. Although in the pantheon of corporate work, it's a niche practice that is probably at the low end of evilness.
I don't know. All I know is that my co-worker got viciously yelled at yesterday by a 5th-year associate in a way that was totally uncalled for, and sometimes I wonder if I even want to be a lawyer. Most of them seem to be pretty unpleasant, uninteresting, or downright awful.
123: Pick a section of music with a solo acoustic guitar or a harp or violin or flute, or lots of cymbol crashes. Those things all have white noise as a part of their sound (weighted toward the top end), which is one of the hardest things to encode well. At least for mp3.
Wolfson, you can do what Graham did and put 4000 dollars of debt on your credit card and then when you get a girlfriend tell her you can never go on vacation with her because you have to pay off your credit card debt, even when once she offered to pay for your plane ticket.
Each day I find myself rationalizing just taking this job if/when they give me an offer. I have all kinds of reasons that I make up: I'm good at it, I need to pay off my loans, it's good training, blah blah blah. But it still makes me feel a little sick.
This is a very, very good time to think really, really hard about what you want to do, and what you can afford to do. I'm seven years into this, and while I like the actual work I do, I'm not happy with my career so far: my clients have consistently sucked (in that I disapprove of them) and I don't enjoy the law firm life.
It's only going to get harder to change your plan from here on out -- if you go the law firm route, it'll be tough to pull yourself back out of it. (This has been your weekly broadcast from the Voice of Doom.)
It's funny, because all year since I accepted this job, I was worried about the work: would I be good at it, would it be interesting, would it be evil, etc. I didn't ever once worry about the people here, I assumed I would get along with most of them, as I tend to with people in general.
Now that I'm here, the work's no problem; it's interesting enough, I do it well, it engages my brain. It's the people I hate.
Then again, maybe I'm just more of a misanthrope than I thought.
And of course, no judgment for going the lawfirm route -- I'm the last person to do that. Just pointing out that your flexibility only decreases from here on out.
There is little to be done to assuage my guilt, except for rely on the fact that someday I'll be disgruntled and tired and I'll quit.
Truer words, they were never spoke. But bear in mind that this assuaging mindset can continue to hold over the course of many years, long past the point where it becomes a way of "living in bad faith".
I thought, though, that in many cases if you want to do something Morally Pure it's easier if you do firm work for a few years, because they can actually afford to train you.
141: Yeah, that's what I've been told, too. That's another part of my rationalization. I desperately need the training, particularly in the area of developing a decent work ethic (which I have not).
People keep telling me (and I myself) that I can just work here for 3, 4, 5 years and learn some stuff and make some cash. But I think, hey, I'm 24, and not tied down in any way, and don't need much, and this is the perfect time for me to do totally crazy work that I love, and do I really want to spend the rest of my twenties working on [redacted] cases?
141: That's less true than you'd think. You develop slowly in a big firm, because clients can afford to pay for the experienced lawyer to do the interesting work -- I'm quite a senior associate at this point, and I'm still mostly a brief-writer. I've made court appearances and taken depositions, but not all that often. Someone who came up in a more poorly funded environment than I is probably significantly more experienced for the same number of years of practice.
Maybe this will assuage your guilt, Silvana. (I was pretty ambivalent about this article, and meant to dredge it up at some point to blog about it)
By contrast, a common thread among the women I interviewed was a self-important idealism about the kinds of intellectual, prestigious, socially meaningful, politics-free jobs worth their incalculably valuable presence. So the second rule is that women must treat the first few years after college as an opportunity to lose their capitalism virginity and prepare for good work, which they will then treat seriously.
The best way to treat work seriously is to find the money. Money is the marker of success in a market economy; it usually accompanies power, and it enables the bearer to wield power, including within the family. Almost without exception, the brides who opted out graduated with roughly the same degrees as their husbands. Yet somewhere along the way the women made decisions in the direction of less money. Part of the problem was idealism; idealism on the career trail usually leads to volunteer work, or indentured servitude in social-service jobs, which is nice but doesn’t get you to money.
The annoying thing about non-ass speakers is finding out that all your music was mastered like ass. Except, coincidently, recordings by one Sufjan Stevens.
Thinking about Sufjan Stevens makes me feel even worse (also, he's my other imaginary boyfriend); I remember one night up late listening to Greetings from Michigan, I was moved to tears and couldn't sleep until 5 am for thinking that I should drop everything and pursue music.
Sigh.
I'm going to skip the rest of the afternoon and watch the Germany-Poland game with my German co-workers. And drink.
While I realize that much of it is probably intentional, the mastering quality of The White Stripes (at least on De Stijl) is possibly the number two thing that makes them unbearable for me.
Coincidentally, that happens to also be the number 2 thing about Weezer that makes them unbearable for me.
The more expensive the studio, the better the mixing & mastering quality, and the better they reproduce on high-end equipment. Because of this, bands' (especially successful bands') later albums trend towards higher and higher sound quality, regardless of music quality.
151: Really? I read it and got kind of depressed. My moral responsibility as a woman is to make as much money as possible? I can't work in social services?
Hirshman is very hard-nosed, and utterly disgusted with what she sees as diletantism by women. I found her article bracing but bleak. BTW, that article and the way people reacted to it started the chain of links that led me here. She was guesting all last week at the Prospect.
Coincidentally, that happens to also be the number 2 thing about Weezer that makes them unbearable for me.
So, by exposing this, good speakers make it more difficult for you to appreciate poorly recorded music, because they bring more fidelity than the subject can bear? Must one have separate speakers for separate sorts of music? Is there no end to this madness?
I'm seven years into this, and while I like the actual work I do, I'm not happy with my career so far: my clients have consistently sucked (in that I disapprove of them) and I don't enjoy the law firm life.
Fifteen years in, I kind of have the opposite issue: I enjoy most of my clients and most of my colleagues, but the fun has mostly gone out of the work. I'm pretty good at it, but I've reached the point where I feel like I know this game well enough that it's no longer very interesting to play it out over and over again. The third year of law school was the same way--maybe that should have been a warning.
I remember that article. It got me thinking for days, and made me more angry than depressed.
But I was pretty persuaded by a lot of the stuff she said. Of course, I have thought for a while it would be pretty cool to be the bacon-bringer and have a stay-at-home husband, so I didn't have that far to go.
But I'm perturbed by the fact that my fantasy life, if I was a dude, would totally get him chastised by me for being a total fucking prick.
Silvana, if it's any comfort, people are cretinous assholes in all other lines of work as well, so it's not like you can avoid them by doing something else.
My moral responsibility as a woman is to make as much money as possible? I can't work in social services?
Oh, someone's got to be idealistic, and someone has to work in social services. But taking an 'idealistic' job (depending on what it is -- some low paying jobs are routes to power, but those aren't the stereotypically feminine social services jobs) is going to have consequences for you: a lifetime loss of security and increased likelihood of dependence on someone else's financial decisions. And it's going to have consequences for the women around you -- if you aren't in the game working for money and power, you make it harder for other women to stay in that game. She's arguing that women don't sufficiently consider those costs, and I think she's right.
158: While the sound quality may make it so that my preferential ordering on different albums changes on high quality speakers, I think that the absolute difference in enjoyment can never go down on higher-quality speakers, except perhaps by an unusual quirk of the way the album was recorded. In other words, I don't think I enjoy poorly-recorded albums less on hi fi systems, I just don't see the same gains in enjoyment that I do with other albums.
Of course, I have thought for a while it would be pretty cool to be the bacon-bringer and have a stay-at-home husband, so I didn't have that far to go.
I'm halfway there (Buck works, but it's at home, and I make significantly more money than he does) and it's wonderful. I don't think I'm quite a stereotypical prick -- I do, I think, more housework and childcare than most men with jobs like mine (although not approaching half), and react with delighted appreciation to the housework and childcare Buck does. But it's a pretty sweet deal.
I excused the harshness of Hirshman's tone by remembering she was focussing on upperclass people, the ones whose weddings were announced in the NYT.
Still, she has a pretty hierarchical idea of worth. It's useful to think about, even if you reject the premises.
161, 164: She just had and end-cap post up on Tapped comparing her position to that of Larry Summers; IIRC, basically the same, but different explanations for why it happens.
I think I would have liked the article better if she had said "this is why there's no shame, but rather pride, in being a serious member of the rat race," rather than being as supercilious and commanding as I found her.
Agree with 144 on 141, depending on the firm. At most of the big ones that I know, even the ones that crow about how much "responsibility" they give early on, the first couple years can be pretty useless in terms of training. You might get lots of responsibility, but it might consist of coordinating a million page document production; not the kind of training you want.
That said, it's pretty easy, and extremely common, to get out 2-5 years into it. And if you wanted to clerk, but are punting b/c of a missed deadline (huh? isn't clerkship season in Sept.?), it's becoming increasingly common to clerk after a year or two at a firm (my route), which, in addition to the financial benefit, provides a good opportunity to rethink the whole career path thing.
Still, she has a pretty hierarchical idea of worth.
Not worth, power. If you think it's important for women in society to have the same access to power as men, then her take is, I think, perfectly accurate -- in our society, power generally comes with money. A better society would be one where it didn't, but we're never going to change anything without getting power first.
And what IDP said about her notion of worth, too. I'm not sure taking a tone that actively demeans homemaking, social service jobs, etc. is actually all that good for women, because it makes men less likely to do them.
158: Actually, now that I think about it, a hi fi system can decrease enjoyment. For instance, on my parents' system, ($16,000 including a 65" hd screen and surround sound) you can often hear in DVDs the difference between dialogue recorded onset and dubbed dialog. (The difference usually being that dubbed dialog is crisper on the high end, and sometimes there's a bit of noise.) This can be really distracting. Fortunately, this only seems to happen on movies I don't like much anyway. I think I might have even stopped noticing it as much once the novelty of the new system wore off.
I think that the absolute difference in enjoyment can never go down on higher-quality speakers
I actually disagree with this. A friend of mine has a pair of Sennheiser HD-600s, and listening to Metallica's "One" through them (with a headphone amp) was actually less enjoyable than listening to it on a lower-quality pair of headphones. The HD-600s were *so* precise that it was glaringly and unpleasantly obvious that the song was multitracked.
I don't think that's true -- historically, homemaking has been most celebrated when it's been most feminine. Men aren't going to do more housework because we sell them on its being gloriously uplifting, they're going to do it because their wives aren't home yet and they need clean boxers.
If you think about it in labor terms, women are scabs. We've been driving down the market price of housework and social work by being willing to take approval rather than money to do it. She's suggesting that we stop the scabbing.
people are cretinous assholes in all other lines of work
Not true. I meet a lot of social workers in my job. And while they can be a little earnest, when you're in trouble or having a problem they pitch right in, advise you exactly what to do, whom to call, how to keep everyone else and yourself calm. It's amazing. I have concluded that I need to take one home with me to have around at all times.
I'm not just talking about housework, but child care. And I do think male willingness to be the primary child care provider has increased with the lifting of the "women's work" stigma. If Silvana wants a SAH husband, but the world regards that work as empty and boring and low status, even if it's neither empty nor boring, why would he do it?
I don't know, you think it's the lifting of the stigma or the increased likelihood that the children's mother is bringing home a paycheck sufficient to support the family? Men love their kids, just like women, and neither housework or childcare should be stigmatized -- it's necessary work, and (for childcare) often wonderfully enjoyable. But it shouldn't be fetishized, and the costs of devoting one's life to it should be considered.
Yeah, I think the problem is less that it's stigmatized for men (though it is to an extent) and more that motherhood is overly romanticized and elevated to some sort of quasi-priesthood.
I think if it weren't partly the lifting of the stigma, I doubt it would be happening. The man wouldn't take on childcare duties; the man and the woman would both work, and the kid would be in day care.
Agree largely with #182. I think much of the problem is that there's a tendency to address society as a whole, and that makes the message inappropriate for some.
Because I've had SAH forced upon me, I've never embraced it as a calling, as I believe Mr. B. has. Still, it can be damn depressing. Also, my wife hates being the breadwinner, and feels she's missing out on all kinds of things, and that things she wants done don't get done.
B, whom I discovered in the aftermath of Hirshman's article last year, has a point that the responsibility for overseeing what gets done, when and how, is very seldom shared. If the breadwinner is still directing the homemaking, and evaluating it in detail, then the double shift is still very much in place. On the other hand, letting go can be very hard. And the communication about this is hard among the best, strong dedicated people. What chance do most people have to get this right?
In her 1995 book, Kidding Ourselves: Babies, Breadwinning and Bargaining Power, Rhona Mahoney recommended finding a sharing spouse by marrying younger or poorer, or someone in a dependent status, like a starving artist
This needs to be worked into personal ads for both men and women.
w/d, when the ox-eyed Alamedia began to grace our pages with her graceful grace, -gg-d (PBUH) specifically requested that we not use her full real name in googlable form.
I never took that admonition to mean that if we wanted to say "_____________ wrote an interesting post at __________" there would be a problem, but I maybe I misinterpreted. But I don't think so, for a reason my links sort of demonstrate.
Very few people have a chance. Social pressure sucks. I'm not even married yet, and my parents are already starting the 'you're not going to stick our grandkids in daycare are you because we raised you better' and I'm thinking that I'm not sure what my parents were expecting when I went off to graduate school but being a stay-at-home mom never's really been the life goal here.
And I think 180 & 182 aren't in tension. The stigma decreases as women are able to support a family on just their own income, because now staying home is a choice with (in some upperclassish cases, granted) a real monetary cost, instead of a pink-collar one.
195: The problem wasn't supposed to be people reading here and figuring it out, it was supposed to be people googling [name 1] and getting hits associating it with things written by [name 2].
185: Well, the point isn't to stigmatize childcare as unmanly or unwomanly, the point is to make it clear that it's burdensome and poorly compensated. Parents will do it anyway (and, dude, putting your kids in daycare doesn't mean that there are no childcare duties. Daycare=40hrs/week. Kids are around for the full 168.) but women who agree to devote their time to it in a manner that make the pursuit of career impossible are hurting themselves personally in terms of access to power and money, and, if they're more likely to abandon career for childcare than men are, are hurting other women who are trying to gain access to power and money. It's a real cost, and one that gets ignored.
94 -- weighing in a little late I would mention that I've heard very, very good things about the Sure E3c and E5c headphones. The ones you link to look similar, but I would check out the Sure earbuds.
That's all fine. She just went further than you did:
"Housekeeping and child-rearing in the nuclear family is not interesting and not socially validated. Justice requires that it not be assigned to women on the basis of their gender and at the sacrifice of their access to money, power, and honor."
(Technically she does not say that, she says, "feminists can't say that..." but I'm pretty sure the implication is that it's all true.)
Because aspects of housekeeping and child rearing are interesting. Aspects of work are boring. And it's not socially validated, true, and she's not socially validating it. Social service work is poorly compensated. But people who are doing it are also doing something important. I don't really accept that the only acceptable path to moral womanhood, or at least the best one, is to try to accrue as much money as possible, even though there are costs associated with not doing so, and I think that is essentially her argument.
She's not being concilatory in her phrasing, but she's talking about feminism, not idealism generally. While I'm all for idealistic work for everyone (see my comments warning Silvana about law firms) she's right that women get tracked into childrearing and low-paid service work because they get paid off in a gendered form of social validations: it's okay for you to give your labor away because some man will take care of you -- you don't need money or power of your own. Oh, no one did take care of you? Man, sucks to be you. Good thing women are just so giving that the emotional satisfaction of serving others(your kids) is all you need out of life. Men just aren't decent like that.
Social validation for service work? Sure. The gendered validation we've got now: service is good and fitting for women, men not so much? Bad.
For instance, I get the feeling, even though I'm pursuing a career and I selected it consciously to make sure it would provide for my autonomy, because it's kind of academic and kind of social servicey, it probably won't make me as much of a decision maker as others. I can acknowledge that there are costs associated with that, but at the same time I'll be doing work that benefits society in other ways, not inferior to the benefits of me being an advertising exec. I liked her point about women being socialized into the helping professions, and she's probably right that that has the side (main?) effect of keeping them away from power, but it doesn't mean that women who do it are all just dilettantes, or that they aren't doing something that needs to be done. There should be a path toward gender equality that does not include insisting that women become advertising executives.
Not worth, power. If you think it's important for women in society to have the same access to power as men, then her take is, I think, perfectly accurate -- in our society, power generally comes with money. A better society would be one where it didn't, but we're never going to change anything without getting power first.
I find it very unlikely that women in power are going to be any more inclined to do something about power generally coming from money than men in power. And I don't think Hirschman thinks this either. She's just concerned with making the distribution of power is more equitable.
I understood her to be saying nothing will change until a critical mass of women rise to the top. And that the women who, by education and opportunity are best prepared to do that aren't doing it, for reasons she can't hide her disgust with. And if it's happening because girls, somehow, don't know better, then they've got to be better prepared for what it means to work.
She talking about career paths to power, to the power to change things, just by being there. She's not talking about flakes like me, she's focussed on a narrow strata who ought to be ready if anyone is. And they're not.
There should be a path toward gender equality that does not include insisting that women become advertising executives.
No, there's not going to be a path to equality that doesn't include insisting that women become advertising executives so long as we live in a world with advertising executives in it. If the path we travel down is to a society where it's understood that women just aren't likely to be in some positions because they aren't interested in money and power, and they'd generally rather devote their lives to serving others because they're just nicer than men, it won't be equality. That may be where we're going, you could make arguments that even if it's not equality, it's not oppression, but it's not equality.
she's right that women get tracked into childrearing and low-paid service work because they get paid off in a gendered form of social validations:
That's not the only reason. Sometimes causation is flipped. There are women who "marry well" in order to decouple compensation from work. It may not be the best idea, but it's hardly novel, and if you look at many women in low paying, high prestige jobs, it's not uncommon to find a money-making engine connected to her. There are real problems with this, but, in the couples I know that follow this model (or some form of it), it isn't immediately clear that the man holds all of the cards within the relationship.
I tend not to like this species of relationship, but the ones I know seem to work as well as any other.
There are real problems with this, but, in the couples I know that follow this model (or some form of it), it isn't immediately clear that the man holds all of the cards within the relationship.
Sure, almost all forms of sexism can be understood as hurting men as well as women. The fact that men can be damaged by gendered expectations (pressure to earn at a high level; pressure to avoid more emotionally rewarding service work) doesn't make those expectations less objectionable, it makes it more so.
I find it very unlikely that women in power are going to be any more inclined to do something about power generally coming from money than men in power.
It's the implication that women making other choices than becoming advertising executives (or such) are not really choosing - sorry "choosing" - but are being duped, that grates.
The 50 percent of census answerers and the 62 percent of Harvard MBAs and the 85 percent of my brides of the Times all think they are “choosing” their gendered lives. They don’t know that feminism, in collusion with traditional society, just passed the gendered family on to them to choose.
LB, I meant "without insisting that all women who are possibly capable become advertising executives or something like it."
But she's not insisting that. She's not calling for the closing down of social services generally, or of making low-pay, idealistic jobs male-only ghettos. Those jobs should exist, and I assume she thinks they should be filled bymen and women in roughly equal numbers. She's objecting to the assumption that it's right or normal for women who are well-fitted to achieve money and power to walk away from that into a service role where men wouldn't and don't.
218: Well, if these choices were free, we'd be seeing a lot more stay-at-home dads with MBAs. The choices are constrained by something -- social pressures? evolutionary biology? I lean toward the first rather than the second, but they aren't free.
The fact that men can be damaged by gendered expectations (pressure to earn at a high level; pressure to avoid more emotionally rewarding service work) doesn't make those expectations less objectionable, it makes it more so.
That's a good point, but it wasn't quite what I was trying to say. Rather, it seems like marrying well should be a bad path to power for women, and should set up some fairly bad outcomes for those women. (Should not meaning ought.) But, perhaps because I'm still only in my mid-thirties, it hasn't yet. I can't really divide the marriages I'm envious of by reference to that distinction. I can't say the women that have chosen to stay home (or really, work part time) seem less happy, or more subservient, or anything. They seem fine. And being fine seem like the point of getting power.
SCMT, Hirshman's point is that being fine isn't the goal. The goal is to make it possible for other people to be fine, and autonomously fine, without depending on making good marriages.
210, 212, 217: I'm not intending to claim that women in power will change the world and bring feministo-socialist nirvana about; generally, women in power will act pretty much like men in power. Just that if you do want to change the world, eschewing the routes to power that now exist is counterproductive.
The examples illustrate her point. The one I remember is the husband and wife who start out together at a law firm, he prepares to go on his own as a businessman and she is left claiming cluelessness. You can just feel Hirshman's indignation at the woman.
She isn't all men or women should aspire to these jobs, she is saying if a woman actually lands such a job she should be prepared to try to succeed at it.
And LB, I really think you're underestimating the degree to which the article was heavily, and I think gratingly, prescriptive. I thought her argument was that educated women have a moral duty to pursue as much social power as possible, and that means doing it by making money.
223, 224: Exactly. And there's an aspect of dependency that's not glaring within a successful, happy marriage, but can get really problematic when the marriage breaks down, as a significant percentage do.
I'm feeling a bit named in this discussion. I did econ in college and I went to all the interviews for investment banks as part of the recruitment drive at my college and I had an incredibly unpleasant experience even applying for those jobs. I'm sure I could have decided against my inclination, against my utter lack of affinity with anyone I met during the process, against all the signs and internal feeling to go ahead with it anyway. But the problem is, it's a year or two years or a whole lot more than that of one's life, and yeah, the greater good may be served by going against one's inclinations and tastes, but it's the individual who has to live it. I suppose that's where a lot of this breaks down.
Well, if these choices were free, we'd be seeing a lot more stay-at-home dads with MBAs.
I would say they aren't equal, but they're still free, within the constraints of living in a world where no one controls the conditions of their lives. It's fine to say they're choosing inequality and that they should see the consequences of those choices, and to the extent that Hirschman is talking about giving women the ability to make more informed choices I don't disagree. But I don't have much sympathy for arguments that say "you're not really choosing" rather than "don't you see what you're choosing?"
I thought her argument was that educated women have a moral duty to pursue as much social power as possible, and that means doing it by making money.
Moral duty? Maybe. More that by not pursuing money and power they're holding back movement toward equality (and equality is something which a non-horrible person might possibly not be into. As in my 213, one could conceive of a world that was neither equal nor oppressive.) and hurting other women who do want equal access to money and power.
If you think there's a moral duty to bring about equality between the sexes, than I would agree that women have a moral duty to pursue money and power.
I thought her argument was that educated women have a moral duty to pursue as much social power as possible, and that means doing it by making money.
Not educated women in general, not those who may have gone to graduate school, or the Peace Corps, or social work. The women she is talking about went to law and business school and got top entry-level jobs, and then dropped out because they didn't like them, apparently never having realistically understood what those jobs would be about and what succeeding in them would require.
ac's story, which I see in preview, shows a self-knowledge Hirshman finds lacking in these women.
I think Hirshman is basically right. She's not saying "this is how things should be," she's saying, "this is how things are." It's true that housework and childcare aren't valued. It's also true that women tend not to negotiate salaries as well as men, and to feel guiltier about pursuing money and power, to make excuses for being ambitious in ways that men don't (and aren't really expected to). It's true that assuming the default role of primary housekeeper/childcarer means having a lot less negotiating power within a marriage. And it's true that if women, as a class, want to have the same power that men as a class do, then women are going to have to go after that.
The other thing is, given socialization, even women who *do* pursue these things are probably a lot more likely to feel "guilty" or worry about "balance" or whatever than men do when the shoe's on the other foot. I know that I worry a lot about whether I'm spending enough time with PK, even though he has a full-time caretaker. When Mr. B. was working long hours, dedicated dad and husband though he is, I had to have several cows to get him to make it home by 8 pm for dinner. It's only anecdote, but I think the reality is that women have a lot more ambivalent relationship with ambition than men do, and I think that a bit of hard-assed advice can be better for stiffening spines than a lot of sympathy and validation of the idea that there's more to life than money. Women *know* there's more to life than money--we've been told that all our lives.
hurting other women who do want equal access to money and power.
This is the part I have trouble buying. There seems to be evidence that women who do pay (very large) costs--unmarried, or no kids, etc.--do fine within the corporate world. In fact, I seem to recall that their salaries are 104% of similar male salaries. But that seems like the distinction is not gender, but having and raising kids. If you're willing to marry someone who's willing to do the primary childrearing and householding, you'll do fine as a woman, even if all other women choose to be the childrearing householders.
a bit of hard-assed advice can be better for stiffening spines than a lot of sympathy and validation of the idea that there's more to life than money. Women *know* there's more to life than money--we've been told that all our lives.
This is absolutely spot-on. This is why I liked Hirshman (although it made me angry, that this is what it takes).
But a person only has one life. And there is more than one way to further equality. And there are multiple positive ends that can be served by different careers. I don't have any problem with vigorously pointing out the social benefits of being an advertising exec. if you're a woman, or the costs of not doing so. But I don't think that my goal of helping people lead emotionally stable, fulfilling lives is lesser, or at the very least I have no idea how to quantify the relative goods. B is a minor academic, not a Senator or a businesswoman, but she does a lot more for women's equality than a lot of people. There was just a kind of lack of generosity toward other paths in her article, which she of course she intended, because as far as I can tell, she thinks, at this juncture, there is one good path.
229: Oh, we're all living in the same world. I'm working in a firm partially because of a thought process like this: if I'm not going to be a big-firm litigation partner, who is? And I'm not crazy about my job, and I don't think I'm on the partner track (I have time for blogging because I'm underworked. This is not a good sign. It's not the quality of my work -- that gets reviewed as excellent, generally. Is it because I'm less driven than I ought to be -- not as committed to making partner as a man in my shoes might be? Is it because I'm being treated in a sexist fashion? Who knows.), and I'd rather be out saving the world too.
231: 'If you think there's a moral duty to bring about equality between the sexes, than I would agree that women have a moral duty to pursue money and power.'
That's not reasonable. There's a moral duty to do something, but not to dedicate your whole life to it, eschewing happiness.
Hirschman's can be insightsful and have a point, and still have an attitude problem.
In fact, I seem to recall that their salaries are 104% of similar male salaries.
We can argue about this stat later, but I looked it up the last time you mentioned it and it's basically crap. The guy 'controls' for a bunch of stuff that makes no sense, IIRC. I'd have to look back to find the link, but it's not respectable social science.
I can't say the women that have chosen to stay home (or really, work part time) seem less happy, or more subservient, or anything. They seem fine.
Sure, for now. But if the marriage falls apart, or the husband drops dead, they're fucked. Being "fine" for now isn't the point of power; the point of power is to ensure security over the long term--and, as LB says, to help others. Since when is feminism (or any other political movement) supposed to be about, "hey, I'm fine, so I don't care about the system"?
I do think there's a case to be made that those of us who are way educated owe society something. If those of us who'll be "fine" if we stay home do so, then there's very little pressure on anyone to take into account the realities of childcare, work hours, the career arc, and so forth--the argument just ends up being, "well, women should stay home--look, even these Harvard grads are doing so because they know how Important Motherhood Is."
My grandmother was an advertising executive (in the cosmetics industry), actually. She never married and raised my dad by herself. No one's quite sure how she did it; she always claimed not to have done anything special. As she moved up in advertising, her employers were pretty open about unequal pay: her salary was good "for a woman." This was in the 40s, 50s, and 60s. After a few decades of that she ran a charity for a few years, then moved near, and then in with, my parents to help them raise my sister and I. Since both our parents worked, she did pretty much all the daytime childcare: making breakfast and lunch, taking us to and from school, etc.
Hirschman's can be insightsful and have a point, and still have an attitude problem.
Just another of those insufficiently winsome feminists. (This really isn't aimed at you, David, I just think it's behind a lot of the negative reaction she's getting and you said it most clearly. Although Tia's close with "There was just a kind of lack of generosity toward other paths in her article, which she of course she intended, because as far as I can tell, she thinks, at this juncture, there is one good path.")
She's saying that women who 'choose' service over money and power for gendered reasons are hurting her and other women who want money and power, and are hurting progress toward equality. I think that's true, and I don't think there's a way to say it nicely that doesn't involve not saying it.
I know that I worry a lot about whether I'm spending enough time with PK, even though he has a full-time caretaker. When Mr. B. was working long hours, dedicated dad and husband though he is, I had to have several cows to get him to make it home by 8 pm for dinner.
I used to be sure this was socialization, but I'm a lot less sure about that these days. I've just seen several friends, all of whom were the hard-chargers in their relationships, dial back post kids. It's bizarre, for me and (interestingly) for them. And they uniformly seem befuddled that their husbands are relatively OK with not seeing the kid for a week. Of course it could still be socialization, but it was a dramatic and eye-opening experience for someone watching from the sidelines.
Hirshman herself is an academic (now retired). She's not saying there's only one thing women should do--she's saying there's only one direct route to changing legislation, and that's being in the position to write it. Those of us who don't pursue that can write the checks. Organizations like Emily's List, which are run by and depend on the deep pockets of women with money, make a big difference too.
The problem is that there are power disparities everywhere, not just in the corporate world. When I look at the public interest organizations I'd love to work at, the powerful people there are men, too. I think what she's trying to say is that there needs to be a trickle-down approach rather than a trickle-up approach (the education system has been basically equalized, but it doesn't matter because women with advanced degrees are dropping out of the workforce).
I took her advice to be saying that if you are trying to choose between money and not money, and you're torn, go for the money. If there's no reasonable "money" option that you're considering, it doesn't seem like she is saying that you should forget that and only go for a "money" career. Her advice has to be framed as a response to the women who were on the career path to money/power and eschewed it for something else. That may still be bad advice, but I don't think she was saying money is the only path for everyone and it's your moral duty to follow it.
I do think there's a case to be made that those of us who are way educated owe society something.
The strange thing is that this is exactly the kind of attitude I take Hirschman to be trying to kill, and the attitude that guides women to helping careers, or whatever. If you're a hard-charger, do it for yourself. It's going to require a fair bit of selfishness, and anyone that tells you that there is some hidden goodness motivating you is giving you happy talk.
The question raised by the article is why they were able to get so far without having faced-up to what they wanted. But the man next to them is not so conflicted. I would be, but men in general, men in those jobs appear not to be. The women need better preparation, and earlier steering and career advice.
LB, I am making a substantive point about her broad prescriptive goals, which you endorsed, saying women have a moral duty to pursue other goals. Even if she didn't make that point, and that's how I took it, you just did. I don't expect her to be winsome.
(I disagree that her response is framed as narrowly as silvana and IDP are taking it, since she's explicitly deprecating taking a lower paying, lower status job.)
I read Hirshmann as responding to a) highly educated women in a narrow range of power-suit careers: banking, law, the like who b) dropped out upon having a family AND c) framed their dropping out as their feminist choice. The sort at 28 who says "Feminism was supposed to be about being free to make my own choices and I'm choosing to stay home [and enter in the Competitive Parent Olympics]. I didn't like working much anyway. I'm still a feminist."
I read her response as saying that's about as convincing as my great-grandmother insisting that she was really free to choose the corset, and that new bloomer style was so ugly. And trying to get women to consider: if they want to make the workforce such that there is a truly free choice between staying home and working (pleasant hours, good childcare, etc), that change is going to happen not by the dropouts, but by the women who stay in and advance.
I didn't see at all her saying that a good feminist must be a lawyer or banker; just that if you've dropped out of one of those careers, recognize that decisions are made by those that show up, and you're not showing up, so you're giving up a lot more when you make your so-called free choice to stay home.
247: No, she still does have a measure of idealism. It's just that power jobs are idealistic:
Here’s the feminist moral analysis that choice avoided: The family -- with its repetitious, socially invisible, physical tasks -- is a necessary part of life, but it allows fewer opportunities for full human flourishing than public spheres like the market or the government. This less-flourishing sphere is not the natural or moral responsibility only of women. Therefore, assigning it to women is unjust. Women assigning it to themselves is equally unjust. To paraphrase, as Mark Twain said, “A man who chooses not to read is just as ignorant as a man who cannot read.”
Plus, the other thing is (and I was thinking this reading Silvana's should-I-be-a-lawyer angst), *any* job is going to have frustrating, shitty things about it. The law will, and so will social services. I think part of what's frustrating for idealists is realizing that being idealistic can still mean you end up hating your job. Whereas if you hate your job but earn good money, you have a lot more options.
Obviously no one should do something they hate or aren't suited for. OTOH, if you've been dedicated enough to X subject to get through college and graduate school studying it, you obviously have both the dedication and the interest to make a go of it.
And I've agonized about all this stuff myself, as you know. I know it isn't easy. Sometimes I've found that men make way better mentors, b/c while women will sympathize, guys will focus on the practical questions of how to prioritize and move into a better situation.
Dude, you are so old! I can hear it. Mr. B. can't, though.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 06-13-06 10:40 PM
Lots of old people can hear it. Some young 'uns can't.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 06-13-06 10:41 PM
Fine. I revise my premise. It's not that I'm old, it's that I've blown my ears out by going to so many totally awesome concerts. Because I'm not old, you see.
Posted by Becks | Link to this comment | 06-13-06 10:42 PM
2 - Can you?
Posted by Becks | Link to this comment | 06-13-06 10:42 PM
I hear it loud and clear.
Posted by teofilo | Link to this comment | 06-13-06 10:43 PM
Yep, I can hear it. It's like the sound a tv makes when it's turned on, which I can hear anywhere in the house. Drives me nuts.
Posted by Matt F | Link to this comment | 06-13-06 10:50 PM
Nope.
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 06-13-06 10:50 PM
I can indeed hear it.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 06-13-06 10:54 PM
Oh, it's obviously about the loud music. It's the reward of us oldsters for having been really square in our youth--now we get to be cool with the students who have the sneaky ring tones.
Whoo.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 06-13-06 10:54 PM
7 - I glad someone's with me. Yay Tim!
8 - Wear those earplugs!
Posted by Becks | Link to this comment | 06-13-06 10:56 PM
I can't hear it, but I could hear the TV screech every time I walked in a department or electronics store when I was a kid.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 06-13-06 10:57 PM
I hear it here (via laptop, crap speakers), but I didn't hear it when NPR tried. Clearly, evidence that my car audio system's has trouble playing a true 20-20 frequency response.
Posted by Stanley | Link to this comment | 06-13-06 10:58 PM
I read this the other day and thought it was a joke, because how could anyone not hear that noise? Guess I was wrong.
Posted by Urple | Link to this comment | 06-13-06 10:59 PM
12: minus the obvious typo, that is.
Posted by Stanley | Link to this comment | 06-13-06 11:01 PM
It hurts.
Posted by eb | Link to this comment | 06-13-06 11:02 PM
I clicked on it, and though it's very faint, I can make out the chorus to "It's Chico Time!"
Posted by Armsmasher | Link to this comment | 06-13-06 11:02 PM
Y'know what? I can hear that if I turn my Powerbook all the way up. I couldn't hear it when I came across the story on the BBC's website earlier.
I hate that noise.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 06-13-06 11:03 PM
Can't hear a damned thing on that link.
It doesn't surprise me, though. I know I'm doomed to early hearing loss: my mother, all four of her siblings, her mother and her father all needed hearing aids by forty and got them by fifty. My geneticist sister is looking into it. And then there were all the raves in my youth.
Posted by Jackmormon | Link to this comment | 06-13-06 11:06 PM
Yeah, it kinda hurts. I guess it's because the frequency is so high.
Posted by teofilo | Link to this comment | 06-13-06 11:06 PM
I heard it. My teeth hurt now.
Posted by Josh | Link to this comment | 06-13-06 11:07 PM
I heard it. And then my ears said 'you like that huh?' and decided to generate it all by themselves.
I shall now go insane.
Posted by Anthony | Link to this comment | 06-13-06 11:26 PM
It's pretty horrible. I may not be too old to hear it, but I'm sure as hell old enough to know better than to put it on my cell phone so I can listen to it on purpose.
Posted by DaveL | Link to this comment | 06-14-06 12:16 AM
OUCH! I'm north of 40, and I sure as hell heard that.
If I was a teacher and some teenager's cell phone made that noise, the phone would be separated from the battery and the component halves would be sent to different Vice Principal's offices. By surface mail. Via China.
Posted by LarryB | Link to this comment | 06-14-06 12:22 AM
I'll talk! I'll talk! Just make it stop!
Oh, there's a volume control. Never mind.
Posted by rilkefan | Link to this comment | 06-14-06 12:22 AM
Yeah, I can hear it. But I'm a young'n (23).
Posted by aaa | Link to this comment | 06-14-06 12:25 AM
Christ, what a sound. I turned 30 last week. Guess I'm holding up all right.
Posted by gswift | Link to this comment | 06-14-06 12:28 AM
At 31, I can totally hear it. And yes, it sounds exactly like the sound of a TV being on. This is how I know when my computer's still on, actually.
Posted by Robust McManlyPants | Link to this comment | 06-14-06 12:34 AM
Yeah, I can hear it - despite lots of loud gigs (and actually playing guitar in a shit pub metal band circa 1989). It's just the usual mosquito high-pitched 'pheep pheep'.
I can always hear those high-pitched sounds. Ditto for TVs being on and most other electrical devices. As with 6, those noises are pretty annoying.
Posted by Matt McGrattan | Link to this comment | 06-14-06 12:50 AM
I know my monitor is on because of sounds like that. I know my computer is on because of the fans, which are much easier to hear.
Posted by NBarnes | Link to this comment | 06-14-06 1:15 AM
What's a ringtone?
ash
['One of these fancy electric doorbell things? I tell you, we had to knock on doors when I was a kid, and it built up the calluses on your hands so we could work harder and we liked it that way, goddammit.']
Posted by ash | Link to this comment | 06-14-06 2:42 AM
I can hear it, and I'm old! let's chalk it up to healthy living.
Posted by alameida | Link to this comment | 06-14-06 2:59 AM
Um, I can hear a faint drill-like sound. No beeping. I take it that you're supposed to hear something else?
Posted by David Weman | Link to this comment | 06-14-06 4:11 AM
I hear a high pitched tone, then it fades and I'm not sure if I hear anything (getting old?) then it crackles and I hear it again, then it fades, then crackles and I hear it.
Posted by Tia | Link to this comment | 06-14-06 5:35 AM
So fucking annoying! Everybody on the floor was playing that thing all day yesterday and asking each other if they could hear it. Like the whining of a million monitors warming up.
Posted by The Modesto Kid | Link to this comment | 06-14-06 5:59 AM
I can hear it. It's the same sound, roughly, that TVs make, that radios make, that light fixtures make, and that traffic lights make.
Posted by Cala | Link to this comment | 06-14-06 6:03 AM
I heard a practically subliminal high-pitched annoying sound. Definitely not loud and clear.
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 06-14-06 6:15 AM
I can definitely hear it. I think this young/old thing is bullshit.
Also, I've listened to a LOT of loud music, played in very loud band, etc.. Although I am getting better about volume control
Posted by silvana | Link to this comment | 06-14-06 6:18 AM
If it makes you feel better, Becks, I couldn't hear it until I turned it up. And then: holy crap! Kids *voluntarily* put that on their phones?!
I'm 37, btw, and went to *way* too many small club rock and punk shows in my day. (I wear earplugs like all the other 30-somethings at shows now. It's hilariously dorky.)
But I wonder if kids can hear it even turned way down?
Posted by Dr. Virago | Link to this comment | 06-14-06 6:19 AM
Hey did Dr. Virago ever get a fruit basket?
Posted by The Modesto Kid | Link to this comment | 06-14-06 6:28 AM
Welcome, Dr. Virago, and please enjoy this fruit basket!
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 06-14-06 6:35 AM
I'm now reading this thread at work and wondering if the reason I can't hear it has less to do with my age or all of the rock concerts and more to do with the fact that I've had a rack of servers about three feet away from my desk at work for the last five years. If it's the same high-pitched squeal that electronics make, I wonder if I've become desensitized to it or lost my ability to hear it because of that. I do remember the servers being much louder when I first started to work here.
Posted by Becks | Link to this comment | 06-14-06 6:38 AM
I can hear this one, but I couldn't hear the NPR version. Whew.
It's the sound of my first office. I sat in a room with the world's most annoying hard drive, and that was the soundtrack to my first 6 months out of school.
Memories.
Posted by mrh | Link to this comment | 06-14-06 6:44 AM
35: Traffic lights?
Posted by Matt F | Link to this comment | 06-14-06 6:49 AM
41: Probably. Mr. B.'s hearing loss is electronics related.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 06-14-06 6:52 AM
yeah, i could hear it. it's a lot worse than the TV whine though. now I want to go in the corner in cry. my ears hurt.
Posted by tweedledopey | Link to this comment | 06-14-06 6:56 AM
I think you people are making up this shit about TV whines and computers and traffic lights.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 06-14-06 6:56 AM
43: They make a high-pitched whine. It's not the lights, I think, but the pressure sensors under the road. It's drowned out by the radio, but otherwise noticeable.
Posted by Cala | Link to this comment | 06-14-06 7:03 AM
46: Nah, my TV's right next to my bed (hellishly small apartment) and I can't get to sleep if the CRT's on even if everything else is off. Same used to be true of my old monitor, actually. Never heard traffic lights, though.
Posted by Anarch | Link to this comment | 06-14-06 7:08 AM
At an old 35 I can hear it just fine. It would irritate me very much to have that sound going off in someone's pocket while I'm teaching.
Posted by profgrrrrl | Link to this comment | 06-14-06 7:09 AM
Oh, the TV thing is definately real. When I was a kid, I'd make my parents turn it off before I went to bed, otherwise I couldn't get to sleep. They were convinced I was imagining things, since my room was far enough away that the actual sound of the program wasn't audible, and would try to sneakily turn it back on at low volume, but I would always catch them.
That's interesting about the traffic lights, I've never noticed it before.
Posted by Matt F | Link to this comment | 06-14-06 7:12 AM
I can hear it and I'm extremely old. It's a quietly piercing squeal?
Posted by mcmc | Link to this comment | 06-14-06 7:13 AM
what a cute kitten!
Posted by mcmc | Link to this comment | 06-14-06 7:14 AM
I can hear it, and not only did I go to a lot of hardcore and metal shows in my twenties, I spent most of my teens listening to heavy metal at top volume via headphones.
I also hear a lot of other electronic whines (my monitor, right now), but never traffic lights.
I couldn't hear the BBC version at all.
Posted by Chopper | Link to this comment | 06-14-06 7:18 AM
Good hearing in the extremely high range runs in my family. In fact my dad's hearing was tested once, and it was off the charts at most frequencies except for the ones in the range of human voices, where it was in the normal range. Always used to joke that he couldn't hear his daughters due to his freakish hearing.
When that study came out a year or so ago that said that men had problems hearing women's voices, he felt absurdly vindicated.
Posted by Cala | Link to this comment | 06-14-06 7:33 AM
And, I had heard this yesterday on the 'Today' news site, but DAMN the NYT is piercing loud.
Posted by Cala | Link to this comment | 06-14-06 7:35 AM
My wife, who is L, claims to be able to hear a sort of electronic threshold sound, she can tell in a way that there is a tone, but she can't hear the tone. I, LIV, hear nothing.
My dad was a T.A. at Dalhousie in the late forties. He described a prof demonstrating this effect with an audiologist's tone producer. He said it was like clockwork: the professor, about fifty, suddenly said "I can't hear this" when my dad, about thirty, still clearly could. A few tones later, my dad couldn't hear it but the normally-aged undergrads could. By and large it's age but there must be outliers.
Posted by I don't pay | Link to this comment | 06-14-06 7:40 AM
More on the tones here, with a bunch of frequency variations so you can see (or hear, I suppose) what your range is.
And he lowers the pitch of the BBC version (which nobody seems to be able to hear) a little--it's definitely there.
Posted by ettinauer | Link to this comment | 06-14-06 7:45 AM
I can hear that, but are we sure that's really the ringtone? Let's track down someone who has the ringtone on their phone.
When we have a commenter by that name, you could mis-use Roman numerals by adding them, rather than confusing me about who your wife is.
Posted by washerdreyer | Link to this comment | 06-14-06 7:45 AM
I'm 34, and I get nothing from the NYTimes version. But my hearing has never been great --even as a teenager, I never liked trying to talk with background music on.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 06-14-06 7:46 AM
On the site 57 links, the ringtone put up by the BBC (the official Mosquito) pulses.
I was able to hear up to 17000 with no problems, and then nothing, but I'm thinking that might be the limitation of the sound card, or that my ears are ringing now.
Posted by Cala | Link to this comment | 06-14-06 7:51 AM
The site at 57 is good because it has a range of frequencies. I can hear 13000 well and 14000 just barely. But given that I am both old and spent over 20 years as an artilleryman, that's not so bad. I would add that Mr. B.'s hearing loss is electronics related sounds right to me. I suspect I lost more hearing to being surrounded by radios than from the sound of cannon firing.
Posted by Idealist | Link to this comment | 06-14-06 8:07 AM
what's with this tv monitor nonsense? that's the sound the drill at the dentist's makes...
Posted by mike d | Link to this comment | 06-14-06 8:07 AM
61: Man, I talk about my hearing being bad, but 57 confirms it. Just like Ideal, I can hear 14kHz but not 15kHz. I have no biographical excuse at all -- I've never liked loud music nor worked in a particularly loud environment.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 06-14-06 8:19 AM
I can hear 11,000 but not 12,000.
Posted by I don't pay | Link to this comment | 06-14-06 8:19 AM
Awesome. I can hear 15, but it's markedly quieter than 14. I can hear 16 at the beginning and end, just as it starts and stops, but other than that, nothing.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 06-14-06 8:30 AM
I can hear 16, but with 17 I have the weird sensation that something is happening auditorially, but I can't identify it as noise.
Posted by Tia | Link to this comment | 06-14-06 8:34 AM
I can only hear up to 13kHz, which I guess isn't very good, on account of I'm only 21. I had tubes in my ears as a baby, and frequent (and painful) ear infections through out childhood.
Does anyone here know if this is the sort of thing one out to have checked out by a doctor if one isn't currently insured? Is hearing loss something that can be prevented if caught early?
Posted by Sam K | Link to this comment | 06-14-06 8:35 AM
out s/b ought
Posted by Anonymous | Link to this comment | 06-14-06 8:36 AM
Should amplifying the volume on these tests make a difference? Because I can hear the ring tone if I route it through speakers.
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 06-14-06 8:43 AM
Most headphones and all laptop speakers are ass. It's not the amplification so much as listening with speakers that are less ass.
Posted by Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 06-14-06 8:46 AM
Kitty!
Posted by Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 06-14-06 8:47 AM
I can hear up to 17Khz with no problems. I can't hear the 18Khz though, so that's either a limitation of my speakers or my hearing. Probably the hearing
Posted by Matt McGrattan | Link to this comment | 06-14-06 8:47 AM
On the link in 57 I hear 17K but not 18K. This is starting to remind me of the vocab and reading speed test threads that took place before I was hanging out here. In which case DeLong, Farber, and Belle should do the best.
Posted by washerdreyer | Link to this comment | 06-14-06 8:49 AM
Most headphones and all laptop speakers are ass.
LB--maybe your hearing's fine, it's just that you are trying to listen to the tones through cheap speakers or, worse, the internal speaker on your desktop at work.
Posted by Idealist | Link to this comment | 06-14-06 8:54 AM
Nah, I run into enough situations where I'm surrounded by people wincing in pain at some irritating noise that I can't hear that I know it's below average.
I do wish more bars would eschew the mandatory loud music. If I'm not dancing, I'm in a bar to talk, not listen to a jukebox.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 06-14-06 8:58 AM
And you kids should get off my lawn!
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 06-14-06 8:59 AM
Trying again I heard 12 but not 13. My wife can hear 15 but just the electronic threshold or whatever at 16.
Now, the squawk at the beginning and end, without being able to hear the steady tone in between, I take to be overtones that don't count. I can hear "stuff" above 12, just not the tone.
Posted by I don't pay | Link to this comment | 06-14-06 9:12 AM
SaM K. wrote: Does anyone here know if this is the sort of thing one out to have checked out by a doctor if one isn't currently insured? Is hearing loss something that can be prevented if caught early?
I've been told that it is somewhat useful to "establish a baseline," but I suspect that is just so that you can pretend that tracking your decline gives you more agency.
As for prevention, I think it's just about protecting your ears from loud noises. Other than that, practice saying: "You're going to need to speak up and enunciate."
Posted by Jackmormon | Link to this comment | 06-14-06 9:44 AM
I do wish more bars would eschew the mandatory loud music. If I'm not dancing, I'm in a bar to talk, not listen to a jukebox.
Furthermore, rock concerts are almost universally way too loud. The most egregious case of this was an Orthrelm concert at the empty bottle.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 06-14-06 9:57 AM
67: I'd actually suspect that you'd be better off *not* testing your hearing now, b/c once you *do* have health insurance, you don't want them to refuse you a hearing aid (or whatever) based on any hearing loss being a preexisting condition.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 06-14-06 10:00 AM
20KHz appears to be my upper limit, at least with this shitty headphone/speaker combination. The little "clicks" at the beginning and the end create the illusion that I can hear something at 21-22, but I think that's a phantom.
Posted by mrh | Link to this comment | 06-14-06 10:06 AM
I can hear it loud and clear. Without doing any frequency analysis, I would guess a more or less constant tone around 13,000 Hz (which is less than a TV whine, at about 15,000 and thus quite a bit louder), possible modulating in frequency a little bit, or maybe that's just the volume modulating.
I'm not sure it would work as a ringtone. Most phones have extremely crappy speakers that sound like they're incapable of reproducing frequencies that high. Also, the crappy codecs used to digitize those tones probably cut off frequencies that high. But I'm not sure.
12: You probably couldn't hear it over your car radio because FM radio cuts off high frequencies, starting at around 12,000-15,000 Hz, which is right around where this tone is. It's really not reproducible over radio. Your car audio system probably had little, if anything, to do with it.
My hearing maxes out around 18,000, which is a little less than average (20,000) for young folks. But 20,000 isn't the absolute maximum. I had a friend that could hear a tone at 22,050, which is the absolute maximum frequency most PCs (and CDs) can reproduce. I don't know how much higher his hearing went from that.
About TVs. All CRT monitors, afaik, make that whining sound. I'm not sure how the pitch relates to refresh rate, but sometimes turning up the refresh rate to 70-80 Hz (if your monitor supports it) will cause the whine to go away. Most CRT TVs only support one refresh rate, though, and I imagine it's usually 60 Hz.
35: I've never heard a light fixture or traffic light whine like that. I know some flourescent lights buzz, but that's a low frequency (and still very annoying) buzz.
About loud music. Yes, loud music can definitely damage your hearing nerves, after about 100 dB or so. But 80 dB is still really loud, (think full NBA basketball stadium) and probably isn't that bad for you, so maybe you haven't listened to music *that* loud. Also, there's probably a big genetic component. Also, age does affect this.
41: I don't think rackmount anythings make this noise.
I know too much about this stuff.
Posted by pdf23ds | Link to this comment | 06-14-06 10:18 AM
I really really wanted to find out this was a lie from students--"Oh yeah, it's a special ring no old people can hear"--but really they were seeing a light or something. An old classic Emperor's Clothes scenario. Too bad!
Posted by A White Bear | Link to this comment | 06-14-06 10:19 AM
About the clicks. What's this shit program that doesn't do a fade-in/out? If you get a sound editor like audacity you can generate the tone and the fade-in/out to get rid of the clicks. It should only take 100 ms to get rid of the click. If I were prodded enough I might be convinced to make mp3s with the fades included.
Posted by pdf23ds | Link to this comment | 06-14-06 10:20 AM
Revising 73, I can definitely hear 18K, but I didn't realize because that one sounds so much like background noise that I don't really notice is starting, only when it stops. And I might be able to hear 19K, but it's really cheating to have a little bar telling me when the sound stops, so I'm not sure.
Posted by washerdreyer | Link to this comment | 06-14-06 10:21 AM
I can hear 18K just fine, but 19K not at all. 20K is a faint, intermittent, dotted-line of sound, and everything above that is inaudible to me. Looks like the answer is "misconfigured cheapo deterrent," and not "critter."
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 06-14-06 10:22 AM
Huh. I can hear stuff going on all the way up to 23 KHz. Faint (and I wouldn't notice if I weren't listening for it) but there.
Posted by silvana | Link to this comment | 06-14-06 10:23 AM
87: Don't trust things about around 21,000 Hz on most sound cards. All you're probably hearing is aliasing noise, not actually tones at that frequency.
Posted by pdf23ds | Link to this comment | 06-14-06 10:24 AM
Here's a good wikipedia article on aliasing and why you can't trust high frequencies on sound cards.
Posted by pdf23ds | Link to this comment | 06-14-06 10:26 AM
89: That article is teh hott.
Posted by silvana | Link to this comment | 06-14-06 10:30 AM
Oh. And my motherfucking air conditioner emits a high whine. Fucking summer humidity noisy air conditioning fuck.
And, let's see. If I leave my DVD player powered on, but in sleep mode, I can hear it whine.
Posted by Cala | Link to this comment | 06-14-06 10:30 AM
I strongly recommend a white noise CD to anyone whose having trouble with annoying sounds. It made my apartment livable.
Posted by Tia | Link to this comment | 06-14-06 10:35 AM
Speaking of annoying noise, does anyone else hate it when their coworkers have long (30+ minutes) personal conversations and don't make an effort to speak in low, even tones?
Posted by Tia | Link to this comment | 06-14-06 10:37 AM
While we're on the subject of sound, would I be totally insane to buy these?
I mean, buying expensive earphones to listen to mp3s (granted, ripped at 256 kbps, but still), but the ones I have are such shit, and if I'm going to buy some new ones, I might as well go all the way, right?
Posted by silvana | Link to this comment | 06-14-06 10:39 AM
I can hear it. But it made me feel kind of uncomfortable. Perhaps they're using that ring tone at Guantanamo. Which, really, shouldn't be something to joke about. God, this country can suck.
Posted by benton | Link to this comment | 06-14-06 10:40 AM
Even better than digital white noise (what you get on the CDs or with the digital noisemakers) is an old-school analog white noisemaker like this. (You can get them cheaper than that, I just used the first Google hit.) Those things are awesome.
Posted by Becks | Link to this comment | 06-14-06 10:42 AM
I finally took the hz. test. I can barely, barely hear 15,000. I'm 28.
Posted by Jackmormon | Link to this comment | 06-14-06 10:46 AM
Not only that, but for the last ten minutes her personal conversation has been about her difficulties filing expense reports here. Is this really something you need to spend a lot of time in the middle of the day having an animated conversation about? AND she complained to me about our other coworker's gum popping, and how it was so loathsome she had to use headphones, but the gum popping has never made the kind of noise she's making now.
Posted by Tia | Link to this comment | 06-14-06 10:48 AM
I'm actually glad to have the TV thing pointed out, b/c while I don't consciously "hear" it most of the time, I guess it is true that late at night or if it's turned down low, I can hear the high pitch.
The point being, it gives me new ammo in my argument that turning the television on first thing in the morning is like drinking dirty water.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 06-14-06 11:00 AM
(for clarification, it was a phone conversation). but she's off now. thank goodness.
Posted by Tia | Link to this comment | 06-14-06 11:01 AM
Man, when people are having loud personal conversations that last for more than ten minutes, I go and tell them to shut the fuck up.
Posted by silvana | Link to this comment | 06-14-06 11:03 AM
Now she's calling her dad. Liveblogging cubicle sharing.
Posted by Tia | Link to this comment | 06-14-06 11:04 AM
I hear 20, 19, 18 - I started high and went down, but stopped at 18. 21,000 sounds like the whine of the laptop when the the tones are not playing. Uh, I think that means I can't hear it. But my speakers suck anyway, and I had to turn it up. Probably I should have used headphones.
Posted by eb | Link to this comment | 06-14-06 11:05 AM
I know my computer is on because of the fans
I meant monitor.
Haven't taken the ranges test yet, but I definitely can hear the TV when it's on but nothing is playing. We keep the TV muted and route the sound through a stereo, but if the TV is on, I can hear it from a mile away. Ugh. Drives me crazy.
Posted by Robust McManlyPants | Link to this comment | 06-14-06 11:13 AM
would I be totally insane to buy these?
Hell no! I'm using a pair of ER-6s with my iPod right now... they're awesome. The sealed eartips make a big difference for listening on transit, too.
Don't buy 'em from Apple, though. You can get them cheaper at HeadRoom. And if you *really* wanna geek out on audio quality, you can also get a portable headphone amp.
Posted by Josh | Link to this comment | 06-14-06 11:18 AM
93 & 102: Hearing one side of a phone conversation is more irritating, probably because your brain is working to fill in the other half and you can't tune it out as easily as if you could hear both sides.
Also, on the hearing loss thing, huge swathes of the Irish army sued the Irish State for hearing loss due to inadequate ear protection during firing practice etc. I think the last figure I saw for payouts was 278 million (inc. costs of about 90 m).
Posted by emr | Link to this comment | 06-14-06 11:25 AM
Er, wrong link for the headphone amp. You want a Total AirHead, given that the iPod already has a pretty good DAC.
Posted by Josh | Link to this comment | 06-14-06 11:26 AM
I can hear 17K but not 18K.
Posted by teofilo | Link to this comment | 06-14-06 11:33 AM
Thanks, Josh! Sweet.
Yeah, the transit thing is really important, because when the train goes underground, the noise is so loud that I have to either a) jack my music up way loud or b) just turn it off. Plus, in my office there's a) fluorescent lights and b) a humming air conditioner, and I would very much like to block those things out.
Posted by silvana | Link to this comment | 06-14-06 11:34 AM
I used shooters' plugs in the US Army ca. 1970, a fairly good pair, rubber over a small metal cylinder, with pinholes at both ends.
Idealist talked about Artillerymen above, and it's true that I knew some deaf ones, but the general rule is the bigger the calibre, the lower the note, and it's the high tones that do the damage. Just about every infantry sergeant I knew had some hearing loss. I think that this effect has worsened over time, the rate of fire has gone way, way up in the last half century. If the Irish army didn't provide earcovers, or recommend plugs on the ranges, that's unconscionable.
Posted by I don't pay | Link to this comment | 06-14-06 11:38 AM
For concerts, these earplugs are the best. Much better sound than with others that I've used.
Posted by Becks | Link to this comment | 06-14-06 11:48 AM
92: White noise CDs can be good at covering up annoying sounds. For apartments, however, I recommend playing low-frequency noise, or "brown noise", because most of the sound that makes it through walls is low frequency, and thus you don't have to turn up the noise as loud to cover everything. (Please to be not mentioning Southpark thank you.) Also because low-frequency noise is much less grating--basically just a low rumbling. For dealing with neighbors with big subwoofers, this is the best solution.
105, 109: Listening to music in high-noise conditions can be tough. Besides those earphones, applying something like a dynimac compressor to music that gets quiet in places, so that those quiet places are about as loud as the louder ones, can really help with some music. (Especially classical music, or live-recorded music, or other music that isn't already compressed-the-hell out of.)
Posted by pdf23ds | Link to this comment | 06-14-06 11:51 AM
dynimac s/b dynamic
Posted by pdf23ds | Link to this comment | 06-14-06 11:52 AM
I could hear 20000Hz but not 21000.
The headphone talk reminds that my speakers are completely ass. Even though almost all of my music is ogg or mp3 (high bitrate!) I still notice a huge improvement with other speakers or with headphones.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 06-14-06 11:57 AM
113 -- Dynimac would however be an awesome name for a tech company. (Checks Google...) And it appears to be untaken!
Posted by The Modesto Kid | Link to this comment | 06-14-06 12:01 PM
"Even though"
?
Even the difference between 84 kbps and uncompressed is less than the difference between high quality speakers and cheap-ass speakers.
Speaking of encoding rates, I think this would be a neat test for everyone to take: comparing two different short clips of music encoded at different qualities and see if they can tell which one is better. (They would play in pairs, in a randomized order, and you would compare your picks with the actual order.) I did this test with ogg, and I could differentiate between quality 4 and 5.
Posted by pdf23ds | Link to this comment | 06-14-06 12:01 PM
Graham has this 4000 dollar stereo that, I must admit, sounds incredible. In that Modest Mouse song, "The World at Large", the part with all the bah bah bah bahs sounds like a huge symphony orchestra filling a concert hall. And once we played a test CD designed to demonstrate speaker capability, and this violin track recorded in a church made me start crying, and I don't think it would have listening to it on another stereo.
Posted by Tia | Link to this comment | 06-14-06 12:01 PM
I need to get me a hold of one of those test CDs. Those things sound pretty damn cool.
Posted by pdf23ds | Link to this comment | 06-14-06 12:03 PM
I wish I had some totally sweet speakers. :( Y'all can get me some for the next major holiday (Bloomsday), if you like.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 06-14-06 12:05 PM
Yeah. My headphones, and my speakers are total ass. I'm trying to make the fact that I'm a sellout palatable by using the money on some better speakers for home, and headphones for work.
I currently have these, which aren't bad for what I paid for them (more than currently listed, as I bought them about two years ago), but I really want to get something better in like the $200-$300 range (for my computer).
Posted by silvana | Link to this comment | 06-14-06 12:05 PM
Not all of it was violin music and such. There's a lot of very high tones, very low tones, sound recorded from the left, right, and center, stuff like that.
Posted by Tia | Link to this comment | 06-14-06 12:06 PM
I'm trying to make the fact that I'm a sellout
Summer job, or have you made post-law school decisions yet?
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 06-14-06 12:07 PM
116: My co-worker bet me that I couldn't tell the difference between something encoded at 192 kbps and at 256 kbps, and so we're going to work up a test next week. But then I started saying that we needed some really good headphones to do the test, and that's what got me obsessing about those ER-6's
Posted by silvana | Link to this comment | 06-14-06 12:08 PM
121: Yeah, but the music it did have was geared toward doing a good job at making it possible to tell the difference between really good speakers and very good speakers, which can be hard to do. (Especially in a noisy store.)
I'd like to buy some nice speakers--something $1000+ or so--but so much of what you can get at Best Buy etc is such complete crap, even for the price. And then some of it isn't. And it's hard to tell the difference sometimes.
And then I think about the kind of sound system that has the power to, e.g., move you to tears on this or that piece of music, and I wonder whether I would be missing out on that if I made the wrong choice, and how it's possible to know what you're getting. And maybe a test cd would help with that.
Posted by pdf23ds | Link to this comment | 06-14-06 12:11 PM
You can assuage your guilt over being a sellout not by buying yourself nice things (something for which sellouts are notorious), but rather by making the life of an impoverished grad student that little bit more enjoyable. Fortunately, I happen to know of such a one, and will gladly provide you with his contact information, preferences regarding consumer electronics, and other details should you be interested it taking this route.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 06-14-06 12:12 PM
122: I haven't officially made the decision yet, but I just blew off a preliminary clerkship-related deadline, so I'm not going to do that, and it looks like I'm not going to apply for an Equal Justice Works Fellowship like I was thinking about, either.
Each day I find myself rationalizing just taking this job if/when they give me an offer. I have all kinds of reasons that I make up: I'm good at it, I need to pay off my loans, it's good training, blah blah blah. But it still makes me feel a little sick. Although in the pantheon of corporate work, it's a niche practice that is probably at the low end of evilness.
I don't know. All I know is that my co-worker got viciously yelled at yesterday by a 5th-year associate in a way that was totally uncalled for, and sometimes I wonder if I even want to be a lawyer. Most of them seem to be pretty unpleasant, uninteresting, or downright awful.
Posted by silvana | Link to this comment | 06-14-06 12:14 PM
123: Pick a section of music with a solo acoustic guitar or a harp or violin or flute, or lots of cymbol crashes. Those things all have white noise as a part of their sound (weighted toward the top end), which is one of the hardest things to encode well. At least for mp3.
Posted by pdf23ds | Link to this comment | 06-14-06 12:15 PM
126: Blind men and the elephant. There's a universe of law. There are many, many other ways to live. My loans were a lot smaller, though.
Posted by I don't pay | Link to this comment | 06-14-06 12:17 PM
I never said assuage my guilt, I said make being a sellout palatable.
There is little to be done to assuage my guilt, except for rely on the fact that someday I'll be disgruntled and tired and I'll quit.
Posted by silvana | Link to this comment | 06-14-06 12:18 PM
Wolfson, you can do what Graham did and put 4000 dollars of debt on your credit card and then when you get a girlfriend tell her you can never go on vacation with her because you have to pay off your credit card debt, even when once she offered to pay for your plane ticket.
So I kind of resented the stereo, too.
Posted by Tia | Link to this comment | 06-14-06 12:18 PM
Hey I reckon there is an indiscretion error of sorts up in w/d's 73.
Posted by The Modesto Kid | Link to this comment | 06-14-06 12:19 PM
My experience as a legal ass't pretty well matches silvana's description. Maybe it's just Chicagoans.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 06-14-06 12:20 PM
Deleting the last name should work.
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 06-14-06 12:20 PM
Most of them seem to be pretty unpleasant, uninteresting, or downright awful.
Yeah, just look at all the Mineshaft denizens who are lawyers by day.
Posted by The Modesto Kid | Link to this comment | 06-14-06 12:20 PM
I think 131 may have been the indiscretion error. But I will degoogle 73.
Posted by Tia | Link to this comment | 06-14-06 12:21 PM
Each day I find myself rationalizing just taking this job if/when they give me an offer. I have all kinds of reasons that I make up: I'm good at it, I need to pay off my loans, it's good training, blah blah blah. But it still makes me feel a little sick.
This is a very, very good time to think really, really hard about what you want to do, and what you can afford to do. I'm seven years into this, and while I like the actual work I do, I'm not happy with my career so far: my clients have consistently sucked (in that I disapprove of them) and I don't enjoy the law firm life.
It's only going to get harder to change your plan from here on out -- if you go the law firm route, it'll be tough to pull yourself back out of it. (This has been your weekly broadcast from the Voice of Doom.)
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 06-14-06 12:21 PM
It's funny, because all year since I accepted this job, I was worried about the work: would I be good at it, would it be interesting, would it be evil, etc. I didn't ever once worry about the people here, I assumed I would get along with most of them, as I tend to with people in general.
Now that I'm here, the work's no problem; it's interesting enough, I do it well, it engages my brain. It's the people I hate.
Then again, maybe I'm just more of a misanthrope than I thought.
Posted by silvana | Link to this comment | 06-14-06 12:23 PM
then when you get a girlfriend tell her you can never go on vacation with her because you have to pay off your credit card debt
When exactly do you mean? See, I've already waited too long!
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 06-14-06 12:23 PM
And of course, no judgment for going the lawfirm route -- I'm the last person to do that. Just pointing out that your flexibility only decreases from here on out.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 06-14-06 12:23 PM
There is little to be done to assuage my guilt, except for rely on the fact that someday I'll be disgruntled and tired and I'll quit.
Truer words, they were never spoke. But bear in mind that this assuaging mindset can continue to hold over the course of many years, long past the point where it becomes a way of "living in bad faith".
Posted by The Modesto Kid | Link to this comment | 06-14-06 12:24 PM
I thought, though, that in many cases if you want to do something Morally Pure it's easier if you do firm work for a few years, because they can actually afford to train you.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 06-14-06 12:26 PM
Really -- I'm amazed by the terse accuracy of 129.
Posted by The Modesto Kid | Link to this comment | 06-14-06 12:26 PM
141: Yeah, that's what I've been told, too. That's another part of my rationalization. I desperately need the training, particularly in the area of developing a decent work ethic (which I have not).
People keep telling me (and I myself) that I can just work here for 3, 4, 5 years and learn some stuff and make some cash. But I think, hey, I'm 24, and not tied down in any way, and don't need much, and this is the perfect time for me to do totally crazy work that I love, and do I really want to spend the rest of my twenties working on [redacted] cases?
Anyway, I'll shut up now.
Posted by silvana | Link to this comment | 06-14-06 12:30 PM
141: That's less true than you'd think. You develop slowly in a big firm, because clients can afford to pay for the experienced lawyer to do the interesting work -- I'm quite a senior associate at this point, and I'm still mostly a brief-writer. I've made court appearances and taken depositions, but not all that often. Someone who came up in a more poorly funded environment than I is probably significantly more experienced for the same number of years of practice.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 06-14-06 12:32 PM
Maybe this will assuage your guilt, Silvana. (I was pretty ambivalent about this article, and meant to dredge it up at some point to blog about it)
Posted by Tia | Link to this comment | 06-14-06 12:34 PM
This thread makes me want to cry.
Posted by silvana | Link to this comment | 06-14-06 12:34 PM
The annoying thing about non-ass speakers is finding out that all your music was mastered like ass. Except, coincidently, recordings by one Sufjan Stevens.
Posted by Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 06-14-06 12:34 PM
It was on those very speakers that I listened to Sufjan Stevens, SB. Modest Mouse also is beautifully recorded.
Posted by Tia | Link to this comment | 06-14-06 12:36 PM
First name pronounced "Suchfan".
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 06-14-06 12:36 PM
It was on those very speakers that I listened to Sufjan Stevens, SB.
Graham paid $4000 for speakers that failed to give you a Sufjasm? That is the very definition of ass.
Posted by Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 06-14-06 12:37 PM
146: You'll be okay, law firm life isn't that bad. I don't mean to sound scary.
and 145: Yeah, I wanted to blog that too. I think I agree with pretty much everything she says; I just haven't got myself together to write something.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 06-14-06 12:38 PM
Thinking about Sufjan Stevens makes me feel even worse (also, he's my other imaginary boyfriend); I remember one night up late listening to Greetings from Michigan, I was moved to tears and couldn't sleep until 5 am for thinking that I should drop everything and pursue music.
Sigh.
I'm going to skip the rest of the afternoon and watch the Germany-Poland game with my German co-workers. And drink.
Posted by silvana | Link to this comment | 06-14-06 12:38 PM
While I realize that much of it is probably intentional, the mastering quality of The White Stripes (at least on De Stijl) is possibly the number two thing that makes them unbearable for me.
Posted by pdf23ds | Link to this comment | 06-14-06 12:39 PM
Coincidentally, that happens to also be the number 2 thing about Weezer that makes them unbearable for me.
The more expensive the studio, the better the mixing & mastering quality, and the better they reproduce on high-end equipment. Because of this, bands' (especially successful bands') later albums trend towards higher and higher sound quality, regardless of music quality.
Posted by pdf23ds | Link to this comment | 06-14-06 12:42 PM
I'm told that Einstürzende Neubauten's most recent two albums make for good good speaker listening.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 06-14-06 12:42 PM
151: Really? I read it and got kind of depressed. My moral responsibility as a woman is to make as much money as possible? I can't work in social services?
Posted by Tia | Link to this comment | 06-14-06 12:42 PM
Hirshman is very hard-nosed, and utterly disgusted with what she sees as diletantism by women. I found her article bracing but bleak. BTW, that article and the way people reacted to it started the chain of links that led me here. She was guesting all last week at the Prospect.
Posted by I don't pay | Link to this comment | 06-14-06 12:42 PM
Coincidentally, that happens to also be the number 2 thing about Weezer that makes them unbearable for me.
So, by exposing this, good speakers make it more difficult for you to appreciate poorly recorded music, because they bring more fidelity than the subject can bear? Must one have separate speakers for separate sorts of music? Is there no end to this madness?
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 06-14-06 12:44 PM
I'm seven years into this, and while I like the actual work I do, I'm not happy with my career so far: my clients have consistently sucked (in that I disapprove of them) and I don't enjoy the law firm life.
Fifteen years in, I kind of have the opposite issue: I enjoy most of my clients and most of my colleagues, but the fun has mostly gone out of the work. I'm pretty good at it, but I've reached the point where I feel like I know this game well enough that it's no longer very interesting to play it out over and over again. The third year of law school was the same way--maybe that should have been a warning.
Posted by DaveL | Link to this comment | 06-14-06 12:45 PM
Thinking about Sufjan Stevens makes me feel even worse
Sorry. That had rather the opposite effect than intended.
Posted by Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 06-14-06 12:45 PM
I remember that article. It got me thinking for days, and made me more angry than depressed.
But I was pretty persuaded by a lot of the stuff she said. Of course, I have thought for a while it would be pretty cool to be the bacon-bringer and have a stay-at-home husband, so I didn't have that far to go.
But I'm perturbed by the fact that my fantasy life, if I was a dude, would totally get him chastised by me for being a total fucking prick.
Posted by silvana | Link to this comment | 06-14-06 12:46 PM
Silvana, if it's any comfort, people are cretinous assholes in all other lines of work as well, so it's not like you can avoid them by doing something else.
Posted by Chopper | Link to this comment | 06-14-06 12:47 PM
Well. I don't make a lot of money, but at least I don't have any co-workers.
Posted by David Weman | Link to this comment | 06-14-06 12:49 PM
My moral responsibility as a woman is to make as much money as possible? I can't work in social services?
Oh, someone's got to be idealistic, and someone has to work in social services. But taking an 'idealistic' job (depending on what it is -- some low paying jobs are routes to power, but those aren't the stereotypically feminine social services jobs) is going to have consequences for you: a lifetime loss of security and increased likelihood of dependence on someone else's financial decisions. And it's going to have consequences for the women around you -- if you aren't in the game working for money and power, you make it harder for other women to stay in that game. She's arguing that women don't sufficiently consider those costs, and I think she's right.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 06-14-06 12:49 PM
158: While the sound quality may make it so that my preferential ordering on different albums changes on high quality speakers, I think that the absolute difference in enjoyment can never go down on higher-quality speakers, except perhaps by an unusual quirk of the way the album was recorded. In other words, I don't think I enjoy poorly-recorded albums less on hi fi systems, I just don't see the same gains in enjoyment that I do with other albums.
Posted by pdf23ds | Link to this comment | 06-14-06 12:51 PM
Of course, I have thought for a while it would be pretty cool to be the bacon-bringer and have a stay-at-home husband, so I didn't have that far to go.
I'm halfway there (Buck works, but it's at home, and I make significantly more money than he does) and it's wonderful. I don't think I'm quite a stereotypical prick -- I do, I think, more housework and childcare than most men with jobs like mine (although not approaching half), and react with delighted appreciation to the housework and childcare Buck does. But it's a pretty sweet deal.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 06-14-06 12:52 PM
I excused the harshness of Hirshman's tone by remembering she was focussing on upperclass people, the ones whose weddings were announced in the NYT.
Still, she has a pretty hierarchical idea of worth. It's useful to think about, even if you reject the premises.
Posted by I don't pay | Link to this comment | 06-14-06 12:52 PM
161, 164: She just had and end-cap post up on Tapped comparing her position to that of Larry Summers; IIRC, basically the same, but different explanations for why it happens.
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 06-14-06 12:53 PM
I have thought for a while it would be pretty cool to be the bacon-bringer and have a stay-at-home husband
Let's get hitched.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 06-14-06 12:53 PM
I think I would have liked the article better if she had said "this is why there's no shame, but rather pride, in being a serious member of the rat race," rather than being as supercilious and commanding as I found her.
Posted by Tia | Link to this comment | 06-14-06 12:57 PM
Agree with 144 on 141, depending on the firm. At most of the big ones that I know, even the ones that crow about how much "responsibility" they give early on, the first couple years can be pretty useless in terms of training. You might get lots of responsibility, but it might consist of coordinating a million page document production; not the kind of training you want.
That said, it's pretty easy, and extremely common, to get out 2-5 years into it. And if you wanted to clerk, but are punting b/c of a missed deadline (huh? isn't clerkship season in Sept.?), it's becoming increasingly common to clerk after a year or two at a firm (my route), which, in addition to the financial benefit, provides a good opportunity to rethink the whole career path thing.
Posted by ettinauer | Link to this comment | 06-14-06 12:58 PM
Still, she has a pretty hierarchical idea of worth.
Not worth, power. If you think it's important for women in society to have the same access to power as men, then her take is, I think, perfectly accurate -- in our society, power generally comes with money. A better society would be one where it didn't, but we're never going to change anything without getting power first.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 06-14-06 12:58 PM
And what IDP said about her notion of worth, too. I'm not sure taking a tone that actively demeans homemaking, social service jobs, etc. is actually all that good for women, because it makes men less likely to do them.
Posted by Tia | Link to this comment | 06-14-06 12:59 PM
158: Actually, now that I think about it, a hi fi system can decrease enjoyment. For instance, on my parents' system, ($16,000 including a 65" hd screen and surround sound) you can often hear in DVDs the difference between dialogue recorded onset and dubbed dialog. (The difference usually being that dubbed dialog is crisper on the high end, and sometimes there's a bit of noise.) This can be really distracting. Fortunately, this only seems to happen on movies I don't like much anyway. I think I might have even stopped noticing it as much once the novelty of the new system wore off.
Posted by pdf23ds | Link to this comment | 06-14-06 1:01 PM
I think that the absolute difference in enjoyment can never go down on higher-quality speakers
I actually disagree with this. A friend of mine has a pair of Sennheiser HD-600s, and listening to Metallica's "One" through them (with a headphone amp) was actually less enjoyable than listening to it on a lower-quality pair of headphones. The HD-600s were *so* precise that it was glaringly and unpleasantly obvious that the song was multitracked.
Posted by Anonymous | Link to this comment | 06-14-06 1:04 PM
I don't think that's true -- historically, homemaking has been most celebrated when it's been most feminine. Men aren't going to do more housework because we sell them on its being gloriously uplifting, they're going to do it because their wives aren't home yet and they need clean boxers.
If you think about it in labor terms, women are scabs. We've been driving down the market price of housework and social work by being willing to take approval rather than money to do it. She's suggesting that we stop the scabbing.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 06-14-06 1:04 PM
I thought it weird she was praising the quality of comments on Tapped, which I found troll-infested, particularly her posts. Was she being ironic?
Posted by I don't pay | Link to this comment | 06-14-06 1:04 PM
This is old news, but I'm 35 and can only hear up to 14K. Hard to say if it's genetic or too much loud music.
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 06-14-06 1:05 PM
people are cretinous assholes in all other lines of work
Not true. I meet a lot of social workers in my job. And while they can be a little earnest, when you're in trouble or having a problem they pitch right in, advise you exactly what to do, whom to call, how to keep everyone else and yourself calm. It's amazing. I have concluded that I need to take one home with me to have around at all times.
Posted by ac | Link to this comment | 06-14-06 1:07 PM
I'm not just talking about housework, but child care. And I do think male willingness to be the primary child care provider has increased with the lifting of the "women's work" stigma. If Silvana wants a SAH husband, but the world regards that work as empty and boring and low status, even if it's neither empty nor boring, why would he do it?
Posted by Tia | Link to this comment | 06-14-06 1:08 PM
rather, I'm sure it's boring a lot of the time. It just isn't all boring. For that matter, work outside the home is often boring too.
Posted by Tia | Link to this comment | 06-14-06 1:09 PM
I don't know, you think it's the lifting of the stigma or the increased likelihood that the children's mother is bringing home a paycheck sufficient to support the family? Men love their kids, just like women, and neither housework or childcare should be stigmatized -- it's necessary work, and (for childcare) often wonderfully enjoyable. But it shouldn't be fetishized, and the costs of devoting one's life to it should be considered.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 06-14-06 1:12 PM
I meet a lot of social workers in my job.
Counter-evidence will not be tolerated!
Actually, nurses are pretty great, too. But there're fuckers in both fields, I'm sure of it.
Posted by Chopper | Link to this comment | 06-14-06 1:15 PM
Yeah, I think the problem is less that it's stigmatized for men (though it is to an extent) and more that motherhood is overly romanticized and elevated to some sort of quasi-priesthood.
Posted by pdf23ds | Link to this comment | 06-14-06 1:15 PM
I think if it weren't partly the lifting of the stigma, I doubt it would be happening. The man wouldn't take on childcare duties; the man and the woman would both work, and the kid would be in day care.
Posted by Tia | Link to this comment | 06-14-06 1:16 PM
Agree largely with #182. I think much of the problem is that there's a tendency to address society as a whole, and that makes the message inappropriate for some.
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 06-14-06 1:17 PM
Because I've had SAH forced upon me, I've never embraced it as a calling, as I believe Mr. B. has. Still, it can be damn depressing. Also, my wife hates being the breadwinner, and feels she's missing out on all kinds of things, and that things she wants done don't get done.
B, whom I discovered in the aftermath of Hirshman's article last year, has a point that the responsibility for overseeing what gets done, when and how, is very seldom shared. If the breadwinner is still directing the homemaking, and evaluating it in detail, then the double shift is still very much in place. On the other hand, letting go can be very hard. And the communication about this is hard among the best, strong dedicated people. What chance do most people have to get this right?
Posted by I don't pay | Link to this comment | 06-14-06 1:19 PM
In her 1995 book, Kidding Ourselves: Babies, Breadwinning and Bargaining Power, Rhona Mahoney recommended finding a sharing spouse by marrying younger or poorer, or someone in a dependent status, like a starving artist
This needs to be worked into personal ads for both men and women.
Posted by eb | Link to this comment | 06-14-06 1:29 PM
Dear 131,
I considered that potential problem.
From,
Washerdreyer
Posted by washerdreyer | Link to this comment | 06-14-06 1:29 PM
188: It's going in mine for sure.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 06-14-06 1:39 PM
w/d, when the ox-eyed Alamedia began to grace our pages with her graceful grace, -gg-d (PBUH) specifically requested that we not use her full real name in googlable form.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 06-14-06 1:40 PM
I never took that admonition to mean that if we wanted to say "_____________ wrote an interesting post at __________" there would be a problem, but I maybe I misinterpreted. But I don't think so, for a reason my links sort of demonstrate.
Posted by washerdreyer | Link to this comment | 06-14-06 1:43 PM
[singsong]Somebody's comment has a spelling error.[/singsong]
Posted by Tia | Link to this comment | 06-14-06 1:43 PM
Very few people have a chance. Social pressure sucks. I'm not even married yet, and my parents are already starting the 'you're not going to stick our grandkids in daycare are you because we raised you better' and I'm thinking that I'm not sure what my parents were expecting when I went off to graduate school but being a stay-at-home mom never's really been the life goal here.
And I think 180 & 182 aren't in tension. The stigma decreases as women are able to support a family on just their own income, because now staying home is a choice with (in some upperclassish cases, granted) a real monetary cost, instead of a pink-collar one.
Posted by Cala | Link to this comment | 06-14-06 1:44 PM
Well, I wasn't even aware of the identity, and w/d's post sure didn't give me any clues. So.
Posted by pdf23ds | Link to this comment | 06-14-06 1:49 PM
195: The problem wasn't supposed to be people reading here and figuring it out, it was supposed to be people googling [name 1] and getting hits associating it with things written by [name 2].
Posted by washerdreyer | Link to this comment | 06-14-06 1:56 PM
185: Well, the point isn't to stigmatize childcare as unmanly or unwomanly, the point is to make it clear that it's burdensome and poorly compensated. Parents will do it anyway (and, dude, putting your kids in daycare doesn't mean that there are no childcare duties. Daycare=40hrs/week. Kids are around for the full 168.) but women who agree to devote their time to it in a manner that make the pursuit of career impossible are hurting themselves personally in terms of access to power and money, and, if they're more likely to abandon career for childcare than men are, are hurting other women who are trying to gain access to power and money. It's a real cost, and one that gets ignored.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 06-14-06 2:29 PM
94 -- weighing in a little late I would mention that I've heard very, very good things about the Sure E3c and E5c headphones. The ones you link to look similar, but I would check out the Sure earbuds.
Posted by NickS | Link to this comment | 06-14-06 2:37 PM
Daycare=40hrs/week. Kids are around for the full 168.
Trust an attorney to know the precise number of hours in a week.
Posted by Josh | Link to this comment | 06-14-06 2:39 PM
Nah, trust an ex-math teacher to multiply 7x24.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 06-14-06 2:41 PM
That's all fine. She just went further than you did:
"Housekeeping and child-rearing in the nuclear family is not interesting and not socially validated. Justice requires that it not be assigned to women on the basis of their gender and at the sacrifice of their access to money, power, and honor."
(Technically she does not say that, she says, "feminists can't say that..." but I'm pretty sure the implication is that it's all true.)
Posted by Tia | Link to this comment | 06-14-06 2:41 PM
And I'm not seeing much to disagree with in her formulation.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 06-14-06 2:43 PM
200 (twofold Kobe) -- you were a math teacher?
Posted by The Modesto Kid | Link to this comment | 06-14-06 2:43 PM
Which is to say, I certainly don't think it should be assigned to women on the basis of their gender. The first part is more problematic.
Posted by Tia | Link to this comment | 06-14-06 2:43 PM
Peace Corps. It wasn't all hitting people with beer bottles.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 06-14-06 2:43 PM
Oh yeah.
Posted by Anonymous | Link to this comment | 06-14-06 2:47 PM
Because aspects of housekeeping and child rearing are interesting. Aspects of work are boring. And it's not socially validated, true, and she's not socially validating it. Social service work is poorly compensated. But people who are doing it are also doing something important. I don't really accept that the only acceptable path to moral womanhood, or at least the best one, is to try to accrue as much money as possible, even though there are costs associated with not doing so, and I think that is essentially her argument.
Posted by Tia | Link to this comment | 06-14-06 2:48 PM
She's not being concilatory in her phrasing, but she's talking about feminism, not idealism generally. While I'm all for idealistic work for everyone (see my comments warning Silvana about law firms) she's right that women get tracked into childrearing and low-paid service work because they get paid off in a gendered form of social validations: it's okay for you to give your labor away because some man will take care of you -- you don't need money or power of your own. Oh, no one did take care of you? Man, sucks to be you. Good thing women are just so giving that the emotional satisfaction of serving others(your kids) is all you need out of life. Men just aren't decent like that.
Social validation for service work? Sure. The gendered validation we've got now: service is good and fitting for women, men not so much? Bad.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 06-14-06 2:58 PM
For instance, I get the feeling, even though I'm pursuing a career and I selected it consciously to make sure it would provide for my autonomy, because it's kind of academic and kind of social servicey, it probably won't make me as much of a decision maker as others. I can acknowledge that there are costs associated with that, but at the same time I'll be doing work that benefits society in other ways, not inferior to the benefits of me being an advertising exec. I liked her point about women being socialized into the helping professions, and she's probably right that that has the side (main?) effect of keeping them away from power, but it doesn't mean that women who do it are all just dilettantes, or that they aren't doing something that needs to be done. There should be a path toward gender equality that does not include insisting that women become advertising executives.
Posted by Tia | Link to this comment | 06-14-06 2:59 PM
On 172:
Not worth, power. If you think it's important for women in society to have the same access to power as men, then her take is, I think, perfectly accurate -- in our society, power generally comes with money. A better society would be one where it didn't, but we're never going to change anything without getting power first.
I find it very unlikely that women in power are going to be any more inclined to do something about power generally coming from money than men in power. And I don't think Hirschman thinks this either. She's just concerned with making the distribution of power is more equitable.
Posted by eb | Link to this comment | 06-14-06 3:01 PM
isPosted by Anonymous | Link to this comment | 06-14-06 3:01 PM
I understood her to be saying nothing will change until a critical mass of women rise to the top. And that the women who, by education and opportunity are best prepared to do that aren't doing it, for reasons she can't hide her disgust with. And if it's happening because girls, somehow, don't know better, then they've got to be better prepared for what it means to work.
She talking about career paths to power, to the power to change things, just by being there. She's not talking about flakes like me, she's focussed on a narrow strata who ought to be ready if anyone is. And they're not.
Posted by I don't pay | Link to this comment | 06-14-06 3:03 PM
There should be a path toward gender equality that does not include insisting that women become advertising executives.
No, there's not going to be a path to equality that doesn't include insisting that women become advertising executives so long as we live in a world with advertising executives in it. If the path we travel down is to a society where it's understood that women just aren't likely to be in some positions because they aren't interested in money and power, and they'd generally rather devote their lives to serving others because they're just nicer than men, it won't be equality. That may be where we're going, you could make arguments that even if it's not equality, it's not oppression, but it's not equality.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 06-14-06 3:04 PM
she's right that women get tracked into childrearing and low-paid service work because they get paid off in a gendered form of social validations:
That's not the only reason. Sometimes causation is flipped. There are women who "marry well" in order to decouple compensation from work. It may not be the best idea, but it's hardly novel, and if you look at many women in low paying, high prestige jobs, it's not uncommon to find a money-making engine connected to her. There are real problems with this, but, in the couples I know that follow this model (or some form of it), it isn't immediately clear that the man holds all of the cards within the relationship.
I tend not to like this species of relationship, but the ones I know seem to work as well as any other.
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 06-14-06 3:05 PM
LB, I meant "without insisting that all women who are possibly capable become advertising executives or something like it."
Posted by Tia | Link to this comment | 06-14-06 3:06 PM
There are real problems with this, but, in the couples I know that follow this model (or some form of it), it isn't immediately clear that the man holds all of the cards within the relationship.
Sure, almost all forms of sexism can be understood as hurting men as well as women. The fact that men can be damaged by gendered expectations (pressure to earn at a high level; pressure to avoid more emotionally rewarding service work) doesn't make those expectations less objectionable, it makes it more so.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 06-14-06 3:08 PM
I find it very unlikely that women in power are going to be any more inclined to do something about power generally coming from money than men in power.
That seems right.
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 06-14-06 3:09 PM
It's the implication that women making other choices than becoming advertising executives (or such) are not really choosing - sorry "choosing" - but are being duped, that grates.
The 50 percent of census answerers and the 62 percent of Harvard MBAs and the 85 percent of my brides of the Times all think they are “choosing” their gendered lives. They don’t know that feminism, in collusion with traditional society, just passed the gendered family on to them to choose.
Posted by eb | Link to this comment | 06-14-06 3:10 PM
LB, I meant "without insisting that all women who are possibly capable become advertising executives or something like it."
But she's not insisting that. She's not calling for the closing down of social services generally, or of making low-pay, idealistic jobs male-only ghettos. Those jobs should exist, and I assume she thinks they should be filled bymen and women in roughly equal numbers. She's objecting to the assumption that it's right or normal for women who are well-fitted to achieve money and power to walk away from that into a service role where men wouldn't and don't.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 06-14-06 3:11 PM
218: Well, if these choices were free, we'd be seeing a lot more stay-at-home dads with MBAs. The choices are constrained by something -- social pressures? evolutionary biology? I lean toward the first rather than the second, but they aren't free.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 06-14-06 3:13 PM
125, 169: Wolfson, it's not fair for you to keep trying to exploit my NCBC(tm) for financial gain.
Also: WOO Germany WOO!
Posted by silvana | Link to this comment | 06-14-06 3:14 PM
The fact that men can be damaged by gendered expectations (pressure to earn at a high level; pressure to avoid more emotionally rewarding service work) doesn't make those expectations less objectionable, it makes it more so.
That's a good point, but it wasn't quite what I was trying to say. Rather, it seems like marrying well should be a bad path to power for women, and should set up some fairly bad outcomes for those women. (Should not meaning ought.) But, perhaps because I'm still only in my mid-thirties, it hasn't yet. I can't really divide the marriages I'm envious of by reference to that distinction. I can't say the women that have chosen to stay home (or really, work part time) seem less happy, or more subservient, or anything. They seem fine. And being fine seem like the point of getting power.
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 06-14-06 3:14 PM
SCMT, Hirshman's point is that being fine isn't the goal. The goal is to make it possible for other people to be fine, and autonomously fine, without depending on making good marriages.
Posted by Tia | Link to this comment | 06-14-06 3:16 PM
210, 212, 217: I'm not intending to claim that women in power will change the world and bring feministo-socialist nirvana about; generally, women in power will act pretty much like men in power. Just that if you do want to change the world, eschewing the routes to power that now exist is counterproductive.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 06-14-06 3:17 PM
The examples illustrate her point. The one I remember is the husband and wife who start out together at a law firm, he prepares to go on his own as a businessman and she is left claiming cluelessness. You can just feel Hirshman's indignation at the woman.
She isn't all men or women should aspire to these jobs, she is saying if a woman actually lands such a job she should be prepared to try to succeed at it.
Posted by I don't pay | Link to this comment | 06-14-06 3:17 PM
And LB, I really think you're underestimating the degree to which the article was heavily, and I think gratingly, prescriptive. I thought her argument was that educated women have a moral duty to pursue as much social power as possible, and that means doing it by making money.
Posted by Tia | Link to this comment | 06-14-06 3:19 PM
223, 224: Exactly. And there's an aspect of dependency that's not glaring within a successful, happy marriage, but can get really problematic when the marriage breaks down, as a significant percentage do.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 06-14-06 3:19 PM
Hey! Ease up on the advertising execs! (Besides, they really don't have that much power.)
Posted by Chopper | Link to this comment | 06-14-06 3:22 PM
I'm feeling a bit named in this discussion. I did econ in college and I went to all the interviews for investment banks as part of the recruitment drive at my college and I had an incredibly unpleasant experience even applying for those jobs. I'm sure I could have decided against my inclination, against my utter lack of affinity with anyone I met during the process, against all the signs and internal feeling to go ahead with it anyway. But the problem is, it's a year or two years or a whole lot more than that of one's life, and yeah, the greater good may be served by going against one's inclinations and tastes, but it's the individual who has to live it. I suppose that's where a lot of this breaks down.
Posted by ac | Link to this comment | 06-14-06 3:23 PM
Well, if these choices were free, we'd be seeing a lot more stay-at-home dads with MBAs.
I would say they aren't equal, but they're still free, within the constraints of living in a world where no one controls the conditions of their lives. It's fine to say they're choosing inequality and that they should see the consequences of those choices, and to the extent that Hirschman is talking about giving women the ability to make more informed choices I don't disagree. But I don't have much sympathy for arguments that say "you're not really choosing" rather than "don't you see what you're choosing?"
Posted by eb | Link to this comment | 06-14-06 3:23 PM
I thought her argument was that educated women have a moral duty to pursue as much social power as possible, and that means doing it by making money.
Moral duty? Maybe. More that by not pursuing money and power they're holding back movement toward equality (and equality is something which a non-horrible person might possibly not be into. As in my 213, one could conceive of a world that was neither equal nor oppressive.) and hurting other women who do want equal access to money and power.
If you think there's a moral duty to bring about equality between the sexes, than I would agree that women have a moral duty to pursue money and power.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 06-14-06 3:25 PM
I thought her argument was that educated women have a moral duty to pursue as much social power as possible, and that means doing it by making money.
Not educated women in general, not those who may have gone to graduate school, or the Peace Corps, or social work. The women she is talking about went to law and business school and got top entry-level jobs, and then dropped out because they didn't like them, apparently never having realistically understood what those jobs would be about and what succeeding in them would require.
ac's story, which I see in preview, shows a self-knowledge Hirshman finds lacking in these women.
Posted by I don't pay | Link to this comment | 06-14-06 3:29 PM
I think Hirshman is basically right. She's not saying "this is how things should be," she's saying, "this is how things are." It's true that housework and childcare aren't valued. It's also true that women tend not to negotiate salaries as well as men, and to feel guiltier about pursuing money and power, to make excuses for being ambitious in ways that men don't (and aren't really expected to). It's true that assuming the default role of primary housekeeper/childcarer means having a lot less negotiating power within a marriage. And it's true that if women, as a class, want to have the same power that men as a class do, then women are going to have to go after that.
The other thing is, given socialization, even women who *do* pursue these things are probably a lot more likely to feel "guilty" or worry about "balance" or whatever than men do when the shoe's on the other foot. I know that I worry a lot about whether I'm spending enough time with PK, even though he has a full-time caretaker. When Mr. B. was working long hours, dedicated dad and husband though he is, I had to have several cows to get him to make it home by 8 pm for dinner. It's only anecdote, but I think the reality is that women have a lot more ambivalent relationship with ambition than men do, and I think that a bit of hard-assed advice can be better for stiffening spines than a lot of sympathy and validation of the idea that there's more to life than money. Women *know* there's more to life than money--we've been told that all our lives.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 06-14-06 3:30 PM
hurting other women who do want equal access to money and power.
This is the part I have trouble buying. There seems to be evidence that women who do pay (very large) costs--unmarried, or no kids, etc.--do fine within the corporate world. In fact, I seem to recall that their salaries are 104% of similar male salaries. But that seems like the distinction is not gender, but having and raising kids. If you're willing to marry someone who's willing to do the primary childrearing and householding, you'll do fine as a woman, even if all other women choose to be the childrearing householders.
Also, 229 seems right.
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 06-14-06 3:32 PM
a bit of hard-assed advice can be better for stiffening spines than a lot of sympathy and validation of the idea that there's more to life than money. Women *know* there's more to life than money--we've been told that all our lives.
This is absolutely spot-on. This is why I liked Hirshman (although it made me angry, that this is what it takes).
Posted by silvana | Link to this comment | 06-14-06 3:33 PM
But a person only has one life. And there is more than one way to further equality. And there are multiple positive ends that can be served by different careers. I don't have any problem with vigorously pointing out the social benefits of being an advertising exec. if you're a woman, or the costs of not doing so. But I don't think that my goal of helping people lead emotionally stable, fulfilling lives is lesser, or at the very least I have no idea how to quantify the relative goods. B is a minor academic, not a Senator or a businesswoman, but she does a lot more for women's equality than a lot of people. There was just a kind of lack of generosity toward other paths in her article, which she of course she intended, because as far as I can tell, she thinks, at this juncture, there is one good path.
Posted by Tia | Link to this comment | 06-14-06 3:33 PM
229: Oh, we're all living in the same world. I'm working in a firm partially because of a thought process like this: if I'm not going to be a big-firm litigation partner, who is? And I'm not crazy about my job, and I don't think I'm on the partner track (I have time for blogging because I'm underworked. This is not a good sign. It's not the quality of my work -- that gets reviewed as excellent, generally. Is it because I'm less driven than I ought to be -- not as committed to making partner as a man in my shoes might be? Is it because I'm being treated in a sexist fashion? Who knows.), and I'd rather be out saving the world too.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 06-14-06 3:33 PM
231: 'If you think there's a moral duty to bring about equality between the sexes, than I would agree that women have a moral duty to pursue money and power.'
That's not reasonable. There's a moral duty to do something, but not to dedicate your whole life to it, eschewing happiness.
Hirschman's can be insightsful and have a point, and still have an attitude problem.
Posted by David Weman | Link to this comment | 06-14-06 3:35 PM
In fact, I seem to recall that their salaries are 104% of similar male salaries.
We can argue about this stat later, but I looked it up the last time you mentioned it and it's basically crap. The guy 'controls' for a bunch of stuff that makes no sense, IIRC. I'd have to look back to find the link, but it's not respectable social science.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 06-14-06 3:37 PM
I can't say the women that have chosen to stay home (or really, work part time) seem less happy, or more subservient, or anything. They seem fine.
Sure, for now. But if the marriage falls apart, or the husband drops dead, they're fucked. Being "fine" for now isn't the point of power; the point of power is to ensure security over the long term--and, as LB says, to help others. Since when is feminism (or any other political movement) supposed to be about, "hey, I'm fine, so I don't care about the system"?
I do think there's a case to be made that those of us who are way educated owe society something. If those of us who'll be "fine" if we stay home do so, then there's very little pressure on anyone to take into account the realities of childcare, work hours, the career arc, and so forth--the argument just ends up being, "well, women should stay home--look, even these Harvard grads are doing so because they know how Important Motherhood Is."
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 06-14-06 3:39 PM
My grandmother was an advertising executive (in the cosmetics industry), actually. She never married and raised my dad by herself. No one's quite sure how she did it; she always claimed not to have done anything special. As she moved up in advertising, her employers were pretty open about unequal pay: her salary was good "for a woman." This was in the 40s, 50s, and 60s. After a few decades of that she ran a charity for a few years, then moved near, and then in with, my parents to help them raise my sister and I. Since both our parents worked, she did pretty much all the daytime childcare: making breakfast and lunch, taking us to and from school, etc.
Posted by eb | Link to this comment | 06-14-06 3:40 PM
Hirschman's can be insightsful and have a point, and still have an attitude problem.
Just another of those insufficiently winsome feminists. (This really isn't aimed at you, David, I just think it's behind a lot of the negative reaction she's getting and you said it most clearly. Although Tia's close with "There was just a kind of lack of generosity toward other paths in her article, which she of course she intended, because as far as I can tell, she thinks, at this juncture, there is one good path.")
She's saying that women who 'choose' service over money and power for gendered reasons are hurting her and other women who want money and power, and are hurting progress toward equality. I think that's true, and I don't think there's a way to say it nicely that doesn't involve not saying it.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 06-14-06 3:40 PM
No person, man or woman, is obligated to try to succeed at those jobs. But men and women ought to arrive in those jobs equally prepared to do them.
Posted by I don't pay | Link to this comment | 06-14-06 3:41 PM
I know that I worry a lot about whether I'm spending enough time with PK, even though he has a full-time caretaker. When Mr. B. was working long hours, dedicated dad and husband though he is, I had to have several cows to get him to make it home by 8 pm for dinner.
I used to be sure this was socialization, but I'm a lot less sure about that these days. I've just seen several friends, all of whom were the hard-chargers in their relationships, dial back post kids. It's bizarre, for me and (interestingly) for them. And they uniformly seem befuddled that their husbands are relatively OK with not seeing the kid for a week. Of course it could still be socialization, but it was a dramatic and eye-opening experience for someone watching from the sidelines.
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 06-14-06 3:43 PM
Hirshman herself is an academic (now retired). She's not saying there's only one thing women should do--she's saying there's only one direct route to changing legislation, and that's being in the position to write it. Those of us who don't pursue that can write the checks. Organizations like Emily's List, which are run by and depend on the deep pockets of women with money, make a big difference too.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 06-14-06 3:43 PM
The problem is that there are power disparities everywhere, not just in the corporate world. When I look at the public interest organizations I'd love to work at, the powerful people there are men, too. I think what she's trying to say is that there needs to be a trickle-down approach rather than a trickle-up approach (the education system has been basically equalized, but it doesn't matter because women with advanced degrees are dropping out of the workforce).
I took her advice to be saying that if you are trying to choose between money and not money, and you're torn, go for the money. If there's no reasonable "money" option that you're considering, it doesn't seem like she is saying that you should forget that and only go for a "money" career. Her advice has to be framed as a response to the women who were on the career path to money/power and eschewed it for something else. That may still be bad advice, but I don't think she was saying money is the only path for everyone and it's your moral duty to follow it.
Posted by silvana | Link to this comment | 06-14-06 3:43 PM
I do think there's a case to be made that those of us who are way educated owe society something.
The strange thing is that this is exactly the kind of attitude I take Hirschman to be trying to kill, and the attitude that guides women to helping careers, or whatever. If you're a hard-charger, do it for yourself. It's going to require a fair bit of selfishness, and anyone that tells you that there is some hidden goodness motivating you is giving you happy talk.
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 06-14-06 3:47 PM
The question raised by the article is why they were able to get so far without having faced-up to what they wanted. But the man next to them is not so conflicted. I would be, but men in general, men in those jobs appear not to be. The women need better preparation, and earlier steering and career advice.
Posted by I don't pay | Link to this comment | 06-14-06 3:49 PM
LB, I am making a substantive point about her broad prescriptive goals, which you endorsed, saying women have a moral duty to pursue other goals. Even if she didn't make that point, and that's how I took it, you just did. I don't expect her to be winsome.
(I disagree that her response is framed as narrowly as silvana and IDP are taking it, since she's explicitly deprecating taking a lower paying, lower status job.)
Posted by Tia | Link to this comment | 06-14-06 3:51 PM
"pursue other goals" s/b "pursue power and money"
Posted by Tia | Link to this comment | 06-14-06 3:52 PM
I read Hirshmann as responding to a) highly educated women in a narrow range of power-suit careers: banking, law, the like who b) dropped out upon having a family AND c) framed their dropping out as their feminist choice. The sort at 28 who says "Feminism was supposed to be about being free to make my own choices and I'm choosing to stay home [and enter in the Competitive Parent Olympics]. I didn't like working much anyway. I'm still a feminist."
I read her response as saying that's about as convincing as my great-grandmother insisting that she was really free to choose the corset, and that new bloomer style was so ugly. And trying to get women to consider: if they want to make the workforce such that there is a truly free choice between staying home and working (pleasant hours, good childcare, etc), that change is going to happen not by the dropouts, but by the women who stay in and advance.
I didn't see at all her saying that a good feminist must be a lawyer or banker; just that if you've dropped out of one of those careers, recognize that decisions are made by those that show up, and you're not showing up, so you're giving up a lot more when you make your so-called free choice to stay home.
Posted by Cala | Link to this comment | 06-14-06 3:52 PM
247: No, she still does have a measure of idealism. It's just that power jobs are idealistic:
Posted by eb | Link to this comment | 06-14-06 3:52 PM
Plus, the other thing is (and I was thinking this reading Silvana's should-I-be-a-lawyer angst), *any* job is going to have frustrating, shitty things about it. The law will, and so will social services. I think part of what's frustrating for idealists is realizing that being idealistic can still mean you end up hating your job. Whereas if you hate your job but earn good money, you have a lot more options.
Obviously no one should do something they hate or aren't suited for. OTOH, if you've been dedicated enough to X subject to get through college and graduate school studying it, you obviously have both the dedication and the interest to make a go of it.
And I've agonized about all this stuff myself, as you know. I know it isn't easy. Sometimes I've found that men make way better mentors, b/c while women will sympathize, guys will focus on the practical questions of how to prioritize and move into a better situation.
Posted by