Posted on 10/24/2009 9:29:31 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
"The woman's movement wasn't about happiness." That judgment, attributed to feminist Susan Faludi, seems to be the blunt assessment shared by many other women. As numerous recent studies now indicate, a remarkably large percentage of women describe themselves as increasingly unhappy.
This issue came to light last month in a fascinating essay by Maureen Dowd of The New York Times. Dowd, whose columns often reveal the nation's Zeitgeist, cited the fact that a number of major studies indicate that "women are getting gloomier and men are getting happier." She asked: "Did the feminist revolution end up benefiting men more than women?"
A very similar set of questions arises from TIME magazine's current cover story and special report, "The State of the American Woman." As the cover of the magazine explains, "A new poll shows why they are more powerful - but less happy."
Reporter Nancy Gibbs traces the vast changes brought about by the feminist revolution. "It's funny how things change slowly, until the day we realize they've changed completely," she observes. As she documents, these changes are easily visible in contemporary America:
In 1972 only 7% of students playing high school sports were girls; now the number is six times as high. The female dropout rate has fallen in half. College campuses used to be almost 60-40 male; now the ratio has reversed, and close to half of law and medical degrees go to women, up from fewer than 10% in 1970. Half the Ivy League presidents are women, and two of the three network anchors soon will be; three of the four most recent Secretaries of State have been women.
Along the way, Gibbs also traces more fundamental changes. With remarkable understatement she simply notes "the detachment of marriage and motherhood" among other transformations. "Women no longer view matrimony as a necessary station on the road to financial security or parenthood," she explains.
Nevertheless, "Among the most confounding changes of all is the evidence, tracked by numerous surveys, that as women have gained more freedom, more education and more economic power, they have become less happy."
Gibbs cites a growing body of research that documents this trend toward unhappiness. In "The Paradox of Declining Female Happiness," [pdf file] published in the American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, economists Betsey Stevenson and Justin Wolfers explain that women in the 1970s "reported higher subjective well-being than did men." Now, the opposite is the case.
The big question raised by these studies is this: Has feminism produced unhappiness among women? That question is inescapable when seen in light of the historical context. The great transformation of society by feminism took shape only after the 1970s. As a political and social movement, feminism has been stunningly successful. In the span of a single generation, the society has been overwhelmingly transformed. But, over the same period, women report themselves less happy, especially as compared to men.
As Gail Collins notes in her new book, When Everything Changed: The Amazing Journey of American Women from 1960 to the Present, the pace of this transformation has been absolutely stunning. "The cherished convictions about women and what they could do were smashed in the lifetime of many of the women living today," she observes. "It happened so fast that the revolution seemed to be over before either side could really find its way to the barricades."
Nevertheless, Collins, also a columnist for The New York Times, concluded: " The feminist movement of the late 20th century created a new United States in which women ran for president, fought for their country, argued before the Supreme Court, performed heart surgery, directed movies, and flew into space. But it did not resolve the tensions of trying to raise children and hold down a job at the same time."
These tensions have erupted as flash points in our national conversation over recent years. Some feminists have accused women who decide to stay home with their children as "letting down the team." Gail Collins cites Marlyn McGrath Lewis, director of undergraduate admissions at Harvard University as saying, "It really does raise this question for all of us and for the country: when we work so hard to open academics and other opportunities for women, what kind of return do we expect to get for that?"
The essays by Maureen Dowd and Nancy Gibbs both raise the fundamental question of feminism - Has it led to greater unhappiness among women? Dowd and Gibbs remain committed feminists. Nevertheless, as Dowd notes, feminism has served to increase the burdens upon women, even as it promised to open doors.
Sadly, most feminists seem incapable, given their ideological commitments, of asking the hardest questions. "Progress is seldom simple," Gibbs explains, "it comes with costs and casualties, even challenges about whether a change represents an advance or a retreat."
In reality, feminism was never only about opening doors for women. In order to make the case for the vast social transformation that feminism has produced, the feminist movement aspired to nothing short of a total social, moral, and cultural revolution. Along the way, feminism redefined womanhood, marriage, motherhood, and the roles for both men and women.
Nevertheless, it appears that most women are uncomfortable with this total package. Instead of producing a vast expansion of happiness among women, the feminist movement must now answer for the fact that women, by their own evaluation, appear to be less happy than before the revolution.
The reason for this is probably quite simple. Women are in the best position to evaluate, not only what feminism has gained, but what it has lost. Maybe Susan Faludi is right - The women's movement wasn't about happiness. Adapted from R. Albert Mohler Jr.'s weblog at www.albertmohler.com.
___________________________________________________
R. Albert Mohler, Jr. is president of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky. For more articles and resources by Dr. Mohler, and for information on The Albert Mohler Program, a daily national radio program broadcast on the Salem Radio Network, go to www.albertmohler.com
i like staying home, also , but people give you sh*t about it sometimes.
And I do get defensive, i admit it.
If I had to grow the flax, sheer the sheep, spin the yarn, grow the herbs, stay ahead of the rats and vermin in the house, make the clothes, can the food, knit the sweaters, milk the cow, churn the butter, feed the chickens, etc. etc. etc., I would be cleaning the house and doing the wash and finding time for the kids just as I am now, and working a lot harder than I do practicing law.
Women’s lives are always busy and over committed, and that is the way it is.
Feminizm was and is about ugly women getting revenge on everybody.
YOU have the MOST important JOB in the Country. PERIOD
I don’t think popular public opinion was much in the suffragettes favor either back then. I’m sure they were the unwashed, bra burners of their day to a great many people.
Look, I’m not saying I like the dyke aspect of the women’s movement, or the radical eradicate men side either. I’m just acknowledging that ground was gained for women. I’ll not throw the baby out with the bathwater.
Amen to that!
Very simple. You cannot live life ignoring reality, inventing your own or going along with one that is no reality at all, AND deny every God given instinct as they come along, and expect to be happy or fulfilled.
You'd be depressed or unhappy, too, if choosing what you wanted to do (staying home with your kids and making a home) was treated with derision and scorn by society, including women who go around mouthing off about "choice".
At least in the first instance (going against what society expects), you could do what you wanted, even if it was difficult. Versus so many women and families stuck in the economic trap of the woman having to work to keep the (often broken) family afloat.
Proof of this is that the Women's Movement, which wants to socialize anything and everything, has not lifted a single finger to help stay-at-home-mothers find investment opportunities or to save toward retirement. There are no 401Ks for stay-at-home moms, for example.
It's never about women who choose to stay home; never about women's health issues unrelated to abortion (finding ways to insure SAHM, for example); never about women's economic issues unrelated to working outside the home; never about women's education or edification unless it is tied to working outside the home.
The Women's Movement may have started out as a way to empower women to be able to achieve in any sphere, but quickly became a way to boost women who work on the backs of those who choose to stay home.
So many women in their 20's see this and refuse to call themselves "feminists", because it conjures up such nasty images. This should cause those at the forefront of feminism to pause and reconsider, but it doesn't. They simply blame those women who refuse to get on board and call them "brainwashed", then go about their business as usual.
Public opinion was very much against the suffragettes, largely because of the violent nature of their protests.
They get all the publicity because of that, but it was the suffragists, not the suffragettes, who actually got the vote for women.
No, they really didn’t. If you didn’t marry you were the ‘old maid’ and what could you do?
Tomatoe, tomahto. I’m appalled that anyone had to ‘grant’ me the right to vote. Period. But not before black men, who weren’t even considered human then.
Women God’s beautiful gift to man but how does it work?
“It was about replacing “having” to work at home to “having” to work outside the home”
Yes and look what has happened. The economy is now DEPENDANT on the 2 income household.
Women that WANT to stay home and Raise a healthy family CAN’T without MAJOR Sacrifices.
WOW talk about a bait and switch...and women fell for it.
Oh I don’t know. Get an education. Start a business. You know.......use your God given talents to make a meaningful and fullfilled life.
(generic you)
All libs are angry and filled w/hate.
Pray for America
But then we’d be the unhappy woman who just needs a man in her life. You see? No win either way.
I just really want to know where this article’s author gets his numbers. ‘A lot of women’. What does that mean? Where are the specifics?
A lot of men seem to be profoundly unhappy.
They don't seem to be finding satisfaction in subverting their maleness to pushy, nasty women.
I occasionally listen to Dr. Laura. I find her to be a bit shrill, but one thing I will say is this - so many women and men call in to thank her for her books (The Proper Care & Feeding of Husbands; The Proper Care and Feeding of Wives; The Proper Care and Feeding of Marriage). Having read them, they are largely about restoring respect and reverence to traditional gender roles within marriage.
There seems to be a huge "need" in men and women for men to regain and retake their traditional places as head of household and as head of the family.
Come on, don’t buy into the ‘all women are victims’ line here. No-win situation.
How ‘bout being a conservative white guy in today’s world. We’re the problem for everything. Nobody out there has our backs. Nobody bends over backwards not to fire us. They don’t care if they say offensive things to us, we just better take it and not say anything back. God forbid we fight with our spouse, we get a domestic violence charge slapped at us and get put through the ringer by female divorce attorneys sponsored by any number of womens’ groups. Made indentured sevants to the govt via child support services that only serve to make things worse between the ex’s. Women still have choies to stay at home or work, even without kids. Nobody rips them for that, men have never had that option without negative connotations. The whole unequal pay issue, after factoring the levels of jobs, time off for maternity, etc, changes the gap to only a couple cents difference.
When do we get our support group? When do we get our march? When do we get a bunch of non-profits out there representing our interests? We’re less than equal, having less acceptable choices available, but always portrayed as more than equal.
And can we just finally stop this whole stupid trend of tiny women somehow kicking the crap out of huge guys in the movies and tv? It’s just ridiculous.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.