No Job, No Kids, No Problem!

Journalism has demoralized me far past the point of ambition, of belief in hard work, of wanting anything out of life other than to escape from its grasp. Which is why I hate the women in the article linked to below. Since I don't have money to go back to school or pad my bank account while I try to get in on the ground floor of another profession, this seems like my new dream job.
Click below to read an article from CNN detailing the latest trend of women becoming housewives, even if they don't plan to become mothers:
http://www.cnn.com/2008/LIVING/wayoflife/08/05/lw.nokids.nojob.wives/index.html

Some people might say that these women are a drain on society or uneducated.

As to the second claim, one of the women interviewed has her Masters in English (which, though probably not the smartest--read lucrative--field to specialize in, at least proves she is literate).
And as for the second claim, I feel that it's not as clear cut as it might seem. Many people who criticize such people are probably motivated by jealousy--they too hate their job, but don't have the option to just quit and rely on a spouse.

As for the rest, what is the problem? Americans are notoriously workaholic and disconnected from the way the rest of the world lives. While other developed nations have more vacation time and less possessions, we prefer to buy material trophies to signify success. Living well might be the best revenge in other parts of the world, but in the U.S. it's having the most stuff. So stepping out of our Puritan work ethic world for a moment, what is the problem with wanting to enjoy life and not spend it slaving away at a job that you hate?

Financial freedom for women is one of the best ways to promote equality, so feminists might not be quick to defend these women, but I think that's wrong. As Simone de Beauvoir wrote in "The Second Sex" one of the reasons that women are not equal is because their work is to maintain the status quo, while a man can make tangible strides toward improvement. For example, women were traditionally only allowed to be homemakers, and that job by definition is to maintain the status quo: no one notices that dinner is ready on time, that laundry is done, or that carpets are vacuumed until a woman falls behind, when the negative result is criticized. No matter how well a woman dusts her mantle she will never win acclaim from the neighbors--she can only hope to garner their scorn if she lets the dust sit. Meanwhile, men work outside the home in jobs that are structured with tangible milestones for success: As a man works hard and advances in his career, he earns raises and promotions and gets to exercise more control and responsibility, all of which are outward signs of success that are unmistakable to peers.

What does this have to do with stay-at-home wives? Well, because the domestic was (and the majority of the time, still is) the domain of women, it was belittled and trivialized. And it is not the only thing guilty by association with women. In a male-dominated world, feminine characteristics, like expressing emotion and compassion were looked down upon in favor of more masculine approaches. And despite strides forward, many things seen as 'feminine' are still looked down on. Therefore, it's no wonder that today, when people hear about women staying at home, they automatically trivialize the job of running a house because women's work has always been something to belittle.

Of course, there are exceptions. In today's world, where women can and do have careers outside the home, it seems unfair to me if a man was struggling to support a wife and she continued to be a fulltime homemaker. In such cases, a woman should go out to work like her husband to make ends meet so that the husband isn't unfairly stressed, effecting his health and happiness.

But if a man likes his job, makes enough money to support a stay-at-home wife, and both spouses like the arrangement, why not? If there are any men out there who feel that way too--especially if they look like Christian Bale--give me a call!

Another 'Startling' Journalism Truth

It's about time someone wised up. Or mustered up the courage to tell kids the sad truth.
http://www.observer.com/2008/media/cruel-cruel-summer
I'm just surprised it was the NYO.

Playing With Speak N’ Spell As Child Not Qualification for Journalism Job

This afternoon, as I was reading Gawker, I came across an amazing tidbit of news. And by amazing, I mean horrifying in a funny, man-the-world-of-journalism-is-messed-up kind of way. Some jokers in nowheresville, Ill., decided to make their own county magazine because the mainstream media was just too biased and negative for their county’s tastes. Hence, Cook County Magazine was born. Well, more like a stillbirth. The magazine will never be distributed because there were too many misspellings and omissions.
The Chicago Sun Times reports this:
“I was asked to review it and decided not to distribute it -- not because of content, but errors and omissions in the article" about John Stroger [the man featured in the cover story], Stoger Spokesman Eugene Mullins said. "Judging on grammatical stuff -- something misspelled or that's not a complete sentence -- falls back on the president. And this is a Cook County magazine. I have to find a way to get rid of them. I'm not distributing them.”
Sorry, Cook County. If you want positive news, go read some press releases.You can view the full story here http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/1076365,CST-NWS-mag27.article.

Being dropped like a bad habit

After three and a half years in the industry, I'm going through my first layoff. And believe me, this is hard. The company provided a list of half-assed options for trying to stay employed, but the only real information they had was, 'you are being laid off.' As I try to save my job, my financial future, and my sanity, I'm realizing that what I'm fighting for might not even be worthwhile. I'm trying to hold onto a job that is a figment of my imagination. Journalism is dead. The dream I had of what journalism should and would be when I was in high school is no longer the reality of this profession. I dreamed I would write for Rolling Stone but in reality, I am not Kurt Cobain's daughter (did you hear she interns there? She is 15. Must be nice) so this will never happen. Even if I began writing features at the lowest local community paper and worked by way up the ranks for 10 horrifying years making less than 30k at most of those jobs, I would probably never be granted even an interview for a freelance post. The good jobs in journalism are few and far in between and the job security is even weaker. If you are reading this and you work at a newspaper follow this advice: Get out now!!!! But if you are reading this an you are an exec at a newspaper, I guess you are ok.

The Other Shoe Drops at WSJ

The Wall Street Journal just canned almost the entire South Brunswick office. The copy desk, pagination and monitor desks now cease to exist. But don’t worry. Everyone is encouraged to apply for the new news desk in New York. They plan to cut about 50 positions though, so some people are going to be out of a job.
From the official memo sent out to staffers:
“We will be posting the new editing desk jobs no later than Friday and genuinely encourage all staffers affected by this announcement to apply for these openings in New York. About 50 positions will be lost, but staffers with the highest skill levels and the enthusiasm to acquire new skills will have a distinct advantage during the selection process.”
Which really translates to if you sucked up enough to the right people then you will have a position reserved for you. As for the people we can’t keep, well, good luck trying to find a journalism job.
But at the end of the memo, something even more bizarre is said:
“Our new budget includes an ambitious expansion of our web and international operations, both for the Journal and for Newswires, where we are adding 95 journalists over coming months. We also have secured a generous investment in a state-of-the-art editing and publishing system. “
So they’re going to eliminate 50 jobs and then hire 95 people? What type of economy does News Corp. seem to think they’re floundering in? And hire a state-of-the-art editing system? So the computer will do the editing? I can imagine how that will look.
“JP Morgan investor see there stock sin.”

Bad Practice

Did you ever notice that people are always decrying the lack of ethics in the media or the slipshod reporting? Part of that might be due to the incredibly low wages that journalists are paid (see my previous post "A Lesson To Be Learned") .
But, what annoys me the most is the fact that most often it is other members of the media complaining about how the media has done a bad job. Yes, I think the media has screwed up in many ways--not questioning President Bush enough, devoting too much time to infotainment, etc. These are legitimate concerns. And as a journalist I do my best to not fall into that trap.
But what annoys me is that the people who complain loudest about this are talking heads who do nothing about it, and who actually contribute to the problem. Last time I checked Bill O'Reilly and the other commentators weren't doing anything to promote ethical reporting (in fact, they don't do any reporting at all--they're just reactionaries and its the purview of their assistants to sift through real news to find things for them to rail about). And the world of soundbites in which they live actually hurts the media and journalists' ability to do their job.

A Lesson To Be Learned

How many times have you heard that teachers aren't paid enough? It seems these days that it's a known fact, so much so that it's bandied about without any supporting evidence--sort of like an accepted truth like the earth's roundness or the certainty of taxes.
Now, I'm not here to get into a debate about how much teachers should be paid. But I would ask people to keep in mind that there are other professionals who get the same or even less pay than teachers, but they are never given the same attention. For instance, when was the last time you heard politicians railing for the need to increase the pay of social workers?
Not to mention that in a 2007 report done by the endowed chair for educational reform at the University of Arkansas found that the average public school teacher makes $34.06 an hour.
See the article in The February 2, 2007 edition of The Wall Street Journal: http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110009612
The article makes the point that it's only fair to compare teachers' salaries on an hourly basis because they work significantly fewer hours than other professionals (and nearly all professionals, like teachers, bring work home with them, so it's not fair to argue teacher work secret untold hours on that basis). Of course a teacher's salary looks paltry next a white collar worker's until you realize that teacher gets upwards of three months in holiday and summer breaks, the authors argue.
Except, it doesn't look paltry compared to the salaries of journalists I know. First year teachers make more than journalists with three to five years' experience, and not just on a $/hour basis. They make more money flat out for 9 months of work than these journalists do for 12. I know this from painful first hand experience. I'm not saying they're not doing an important job, but what are we, chopped liver? And let's be honest--something's not going well since the U.S. is slipping behind nearly all other developed countries when it comes to their students' grasp of core subjects like science and history.
Yes, educating children is important for our future, but isn't free speech and a free press important for the future and the present? I've heard enough about teachers' salaries being too low. There are plenty of other professions, including journalism, that deserve a boost before they do.