I came across this article by a woman named Pheobe Maltz Bovy. Phoebe is upset because a 31 year old pharmacist, “Tony”, chooses to spend his money on good times with his friends rather than on rent or a mortgage. Yeah, the guy (and his bank making brother) still live at home with mom and dad, but if that’s something they all agree on, who is Phoebe to judge? She goes on to say that Tony and really anyone else who chooses “experiences over stuff” are sexist.
In Tony’s article, he details all the really super cool fun stuff he does with his bros, and Phoebe thinks this is bad. And sexist, don’t forget sexist. Other than “the obligatory Thai massages” Tony and his friends partake in (Phoebe REALLY had a problem with the Thai massages), I can’t help but wonder if that article was written by a 31 year old female pharmacist who put off a mortgage and kids for her career, and was living for experience over stuff, if Phoebe would have thought it to be the greatest thing evah! I’m sure she would have. Female empowerment instead of sexism.
What I really don’t understand is how Tony’s lifestyle fits in with sexism. Apparently Phoebe feels if Tony doesn’t have a wife and kids, or at least a home ready for them, that’s sexism. Seems to me, Tony is being upfront about how he wants to live his life and what’s wrong with that?
Does Tony not have the choice to live his life as he chooses? Does Tony not have the right to live without the burden of a 30 year mortgage?
PS Safe travels and “break a leg” to our fearless leader and her dancers!
