Monday, March 11, 2013

The title of this post wasn't very nice...*

*I decided to edit this post and the title after three readers (see comments below and my next post) pointed out that it was quite offensive. (3/11/13)

I generally stand by my words, though I also apologize and can change easily. And unfortunately I often have reasons to regret my words because ADHD causes me to be very impulsive -- I'm getting better at this. In any case, here is the original title, which was a comment on Penelope Trunk's blog by this random guy (more below) and which piqued my interest: "There’s an old film about a kid who had a mother like Sheryl Sandberg. The first word in the movie? 'Rosebud'.”

I haven't read this week's Time magazine cover article yet. Because of my blogroll and Penelope Trunk's post, I knew what it was about even before I pulled it out of my mailbox tonight as we got back from a weekend trip.

I like what Penelope Trunk had to say about it and I can't wait for Laura's take on it too. But for me, what Steve Y. wrote on his comment to Trunk's post and that I cite above decided to use in its entirety as my blog post's title is pretty interesting regarding the effect on the children of parents (not just mothers, but parents in general)  who may not give their children the attention they need... which may not be the case with Sandberg, let's hope!

next paragraph deleted.

Maybe I'll have more to say after I read the article, maybe not.

3 comments:

Anjali said...

But Sandberg claims that she's home every day for dinner at 5:30...Perhaps she put in the crazy hours a few years ago, but she doesn't any more. Trunk is sort of basing her post on an assumption (that Sandberg doesn't see her kids) that isn't true.

Not that I'm defending Sandberg-- I don't care at all for a message about how women don't work hard enough when she has an entire staff to care for her family's needs.

Anonymous said...

What an offensive, offensive, comment and post. Sandberg's children will turn out just fine.

I come from a long line of very successful professional career women. We are role models to our daughters as our mothers and grandmothers and so on were to us. We are strong and resourceful and independent. My mom is awesome. My sister is awesome. My grandmother, rest her soul, was awesome, as was her mother before her. And all my aunts and great-aunts and cousins are well-adjusted and accomplished.

And I will note that George W. Bush had a stay-at-home mom.

Btw, Citizen Kane was fiction. Perhaps if Phoebe Hearst had been able to have a job, her son would have been less likely to think he could buy women's love. Or maybe his life after he was an adult can't be blamed on his mother, even though I know it is popular to blame all adult's problems on the mother.

This passive-aggressive "oh, mayyyybe her children will turn out ok" is one of the lowest blows the patriarchy can throw. You should be ashamed of yourself, as should Steve Y.

Anonymous said...

Wow, I think that's harsh and unfair and not at all progressive or productive. And I am a stay-at-home mom. Not at all what I would have expected to hear from you either :(