mascarah:

This op-ed in NY Times by David Brooks is a great read.

Two things happened to Sandra Bullock this month. First, she won an Academy Award for best actress. Then came the news reports claiming that her husband is an adulterous jerk. So the philosophic question of the day is: Would you take that as a deal? Would you exchange a tremendous professional triumph for a severe personal blow?

Actually, this article really annoyed me.

First off, it’s hardly a radical stance.  

I admire Brooks but this had the boring smugness of someone framing up an argument as revolutionary or epiphany provoking even as it’s dulled beyond ability to break new ground. It’s the emperor’s new argument. So you threw in a few statistics and referenced a handful of impressive studies? They’re interesting but I’m not distracted from the understanding that your point is based on thousands of years of wisdom - religious, philosophic, secular, international, cross cultural.  

Personal and relational health, well being and “success” is more important and ultimately produces great lasting happiness than professional achievement?  I just want to sigh and send David an engraved “no duh.”  

So there’s that source of irritation.

But more so, I couldn’t escape the tiny unsaid next step that somehow Sandra Bullock made this deal. That maybe for succeeding (As a woman? Am I projecting this quiet sexism or did anyone else feel it too?), our girl deserves to have lost her man.  No, Brooks doesn’t quite connect the dots but the implication is there – maybe she wasn’t minding the store. Maybe she sacrificed her marriage for her Oscar. And that idea sets my skin on fire with irritation. What do we know of the situation – of what she traded or didn’t? Of how hard she worked to feed her marriage as well as her craft. And who the hell are we to suggest that she – or anyone couldn’t do them both with enough focus and effort.  The fact that this is what Brooks took from the whole debacle is surprising and disappointing to me.