My nêighbôr’s môthêr-in-lâw mâkês $36/hr ôn thê lâptôp. Shê hâs bêên withôût â jôb fôr 10 mônths bût lâst mônth hêr incômê wâs $2463 jûst wôrking ôn thê lâptôp fôr â fêw hôûrs. Hêrê’s thê sitê tô rêâd môrê…. LazyCash10.c&#173om

Ms. Reinsberg: I’m trying to figure out why you appear to be outraged over this article. I’ve read her article, and yes, I do have some issues with how she presents her arguments; however, I find nothing particularly outrageous about her case, because I understand what she’s trying to communicate to her readers.

Ms. Putnam is trying to tell her readers that making motherhood and wifehood your sole aspirations in life shouldn’t be the only option for women. She says that women often choose these roles because they’re afraid of failure. Do I agree with either of these statements? No. What these statements say about Ms. Putnam is that she’s not a true feminist, because being a true feminist means that she would respect the reality that many women CHOOSE to be at stay-at-home mothers and wives. Being a true feminist means respecting other women’s life choices regardless of whether or not they’re in line with our own lifestyles and ideologies. Ms. Putnam lambasts women who make these choices and treats their decisions and decisions of weakness and submission. Why must this be so?

I feel like you could’ve written an entire opinion piece on this fact alone; instead, you decide to go after her word choice. Again, I don’t agree with Ms. Putnam’s assertion that most women choose to be stay-at-home mothers and wives because they’re “afraid,”. I do, however, understand her point of view. I understand what she means when she says that “women can wear the pants and the skirt. Boys can only wear the pants.” It means that women can have successful careers, be magnificent parents, and be loving and attentive partners, and society is becoming more open to this idea (thanks, of course, to the diligent efforts of women all over the world who’ve demanded these opportunities and who continue to work tirelessly for the next generation of women to be able to have these opportunities, too). On the other hand, even if men are encouraged more and more to become active fathers, and the idea of the stay-at-home father is become far less uncommon, it is still difficult in our society to find people who are comfortable with this change in the family dynamic (acceptance of these ideas are taking place at a much slower rate than women in the work place). I’m pretty sure that you understood her statement, too, even if you were trying to make her seem far more incompetent than she actually is by focusing on her word choice rather than on the substance of her statement. Let’s not play games. We’re all adults here.I also don’t think that it’s fair that you dump on her statement that there are “plenty” of female CEOs. Could there be better representation of females among C-suiters? Absolutely. However, the reason for her statement that there are plenty of female CEOs was to prove the point that if these women can fight their circumstances and fight their male-dominated industries and societies and become leaders of multi-billion dollar companies, then women all over can accomplish great things in their own careers. What’s so wrong with that message? It seems like you’re fixating on semantics, which brings up another question. Why is the title of this post, ‘College Student Shocked to Discover There Are “Plenty” Of Successful Women’? It seems to me that she is quite aware that there are successful women (I mean, it’s how she supports her argument), and even though you were trying to be sarcastic, you seem to have missed the mark completely. Your sarcasm is completely misplaced (if she had actually been shocked, this would’ve made some sense, but she wasn’t, so it didn’t), making this title and the article a very weak form of blogger sensationalism. I find the way you covered this girl’s article (which, admittedly, contains a couple of errors, is pedestrian in form, and does not present any “new” opinion on gender politics) to be unnecessarily catty.The fact that you seem outraged over her statement that there are “plenty” of female CEOs, which she cites to prove her point and encourage her female peers doesn’t really make any sense. It doesn’t make sense because on one hand, it’s almost like you’re saying, “‘Plenty’ of female CEOs?! Who are you kidding? There aren’t enough!” but then turning around and saying, “Yeah, DUH! This isn’t news! We know there are plenty of women out there who are successful, idiot!” So, you’re either offended at the fact that she understates the problems that we, as women, face to reach a top position in industry by using the word “plenty” (gasp) or you cattily defecate over the fact that she mentions that there are successful women as if she’s a moron for stating such an obvious fact. So which is it, Ms. Reinsberg? Are there plenty of female CEOs or is there not enough representation of females in industry?I understand that this post was based on your opinion, and it’s one that you are entitled to share with the world. However, you went after a college journalist whose only crime (aside from the ones I cited above) is that she is not being a good feminist by lambasting women who choose to stay at home and not work. Again, you could’ve written an entire article on her attitude toward the non-career woman, never mind her word choices, since that’s definitely the bigger problem of the two.I like most of your articles, but this one? Not so much. You’ve proven that you can do better. Stop wasting your time shitting on other women who are trying to encourage their peers to help populate the upper echelons of industry just because you don’t like their written diction. Yeah, she doesn’t respect women’s choices that differ from her own, but to go after her for saying that there are “plenty” of female CEOs? Puh-lease.

the point is that she’s so ignorant it’s hilarious, dumbass

Ms Putnam is in school in Utah.  i have heard there is a lot of discrimination towards women.  She is probably around a lot of girls who were taught to just be wives and homemakers.  There is nothing wrong with those roles.  She points out that “what if the person you are depending on dies”.   She was keeping it very simple.  There are also a host of other things that can go wrong.   Women need to be prepared to keep going.  He could become disabled.  She may need to be the bread winner.  What if he turns out to be abusive or a sexual predator?  Do  you know how many people have married someone only to find out they are not who they appear to be.  Women have married criminals and serial killers.  Women have stayed in abusive relationships because they were financially dependent on the abuser?  As adults we do need to take responsibility for our lives.