ONTD Political

Does freedom make women unhappy?

5:54 pm - 05/27/2009
Image and video hosting by TinyPic

Liberated and Unhappy
By ROSS DOUTHAT

American women are wealthier, healthier and better educated than they were 30 years ago. They’re more likely to work outside the home, and more likely to earn salaries comparable to men’s when they do. They can leave abusive marriages and sue sexist employers. They enjoy unprecedented control over their own fertility. On some fronts — graduation rates, life expectancy and even job security — men look increasingly like the second sex.

But all the achievements of the feminist era may have delivered women to greater unhappiness. In the 1960s, when Betty Friedan diagnosed her fellow wives and daughters as the victims of “the problem with no name,” American women reported themselves happier, on average, than did men. Today, that gender gap has reversed. Male happiness has inched up, and female happiness has dropped. In postfeminist America, men are happier than women.

This is “The Paradox of Declining Female Happiness,” the subject of a provocative paper from the economists Betsey Stevenson and Justin Wolfers. The paper is fascinating not only because of what it shows, but because the authors deliberately avoid floating an easy explanation for their data.

The decline of the two-parent family, for instance, is almost certainly depressing life satisfaction for the women stuck raising kids alone. But this can’t be the only explanation, since the trend toward greater female discontent cuts across lines of class and race. A working-class Hispanic woman is far more likely to be a single mother than her white and wealthy counterpart, yet the male-female happiness gap holds in East Hampton and East L.A. alike.

Again, maybe the happiness numbers are being tipped downward by a mounting female workload — the famous “second shift,” in which women continue to do the lion’s share of household chores even as they’re handed more and more workplace responsibility. It’s certainly possible — but as Wolfers and Stevenson point out, recent surveys actually show similar workload patterns for men and women over all.

Or perhaps the problem is political — maybe women prefer egalitarian, low-risk societies, and the cowboy capitalism of the Reagan era had an anxiety-inducing effect on the American female. But even in the warm, nurturing, egalitarian European Union, female happiness has fallen relative to men’s across the last three decades.

All this ambiguity lends itself to broad-brush readings. A strict feminist and a stringent gender-role traditionalist alike will probably find vindication of their premises between the lines of Wolfers and Stevenson’s careful prose. The feminist will see evidence of a revolution interrupted, in which rising expectations are bumping against glass ceilings, breeding entirely justified resentments. The traditionalist will see evidence of a revolution gone awry, in which women have been pressured into lifestyles that run counter to their biological imperatives, and men have been liberated to embrace a piggish irresponsibility.

There’s evidence to fit each of these narratives. But there’s also room for both.

Feminists and traditionalists should be able to agree, for instance, that the structures of American society don’t make enough allowances for the particular challenges of motherhood. We can squabble forever about the choices that mothers ought to make, but the difficult work-parenthood juggle is here to stay. (Just ask Sarah and Todd Palin.) And there are all kinds of ways — from a more family-friendly tax code to a more accommodating educational system — that public policy can make that juggle easier. Conservatives and liberals won’t agree on the means, but they ought to agree on the end: a nation where it’s easier to balance work and child-rearing, however you think that balance should be struck.

They should also be able to agree that the steady advance of single motherhood threatens the interests and happiness of women. Here the public-policy options are limited; some kind of social stigma is a necessity. But a new-model stigma shouldn’t (and couldn’t) look like the old sexism. There’s no necessary reason why feminists and cultural conservatives can’t join forces — in the same way that they made common cause during the pornography wars of the 1980s — behind a social revolution that ostracizes serial baby-daddies and trophy-wife collectors as thoroughly as the “fallen women” of a more patriarchal age.

No reason, of course, save the fact that contemporary America doesn’t seem willing to accept sexual stigma, period. We simply don’t have the stomach for permanently ostracizing the sexually irresponsible — be they a pregnant starlet, a thrice-divorced tycoon, or even a prostitute-hiring politician.

In this sense, ours is a kinder, gentler, more forgiving country than it was 40 years ago. But for half the public, it’s an unhappier country as well.

source
Page 1 of 2
<<[1] [2] >>
keeni84 28th-May-2009 01:03 am (UTC)
LOL.
angry_chick 28th-May-2009 01:05 am (UTC)
No, freedom makes us see ugly pricks like you for what you are.

And you're single as a result of it.
lunchboxghost 28th-May-2009 11:40 am (UTC)
THIS
hey_its_michael 28th-May-2009 01:07 am (UTC)
If women are not as happy as they should be in today's world, maybe it is because it seems men in heterosexual relationships do not pick up as much slack as they should. I still don't understand how so many husbands get away with doing so little around the house while the wife also works a full-time job but still does more in the way of child-rearing and house care.
fieldofdreams 28th-May-2009 01:08 am (UTC)
I agree...I love my parents, but they have that sort of relationship...it's not bad but I watch the interaction, my mom does everything, granted, my father works crazy hours (nights) so during the day he's sleeping, but my dad can't cook and he doesn't clean anything.
fieldofdreams 28th-May-2009 01:07 am (UTC)
Because women were so fucking happy when they didn't have the freedoms of today...
moron.
lavenderfrost 28th-May-2009 01:09 am (UTC)
I know, right? They weren't happier, they were just TOO FUCKING TERRIFIED to admit to being unhappy and upsetting their fathers/husbands.
lavenderfrost 28th-May-2009 01:08 am (UTC)
...



AW, HALE NAW.
me_and_jimmy win28th-May-2009 01:15 am (UTC)
lol not only do I share the same expression as this gif. I also love the show.
binarywords 28th-May-2009 01:19 am (UTC)
we ain't getting any younger here.
jeunelis 28th-May-2009 01:08 am (UTC)
Who the fuck is this clown?
ladypeyton 28th-May-2009 06:34 pm (UTC)
The token Conservative pundit at The Atlantic.
evildevil 28th-May-2009 01:09 am (UTC)
so... we should turn these "liberated" women into submissive sex slaves to bring them happiness?...
paris_of_priam 28th-May-2009 01:26 am (UTC)
From the looks of him, I'd say he's probably confusing real world women with Green Orion Slave Girls, from Star Trek.

apocalypsos 28th-May-2009 01:09 am (UTC)
erunamiryene 28th-May-2009 01:11 am (UTC)
Edit: I think I read this guy totally wrong, actually. Never mind.

Although I would like to say that the perception of single mothers as either dirty whores or sluts who put out for anyone, or that they're just out looking for a rich babydaddy to take care of their kids and pay all their bills really fucking irritates me. I see that shit ALL THE GODDAMN TIME.

Edited at 2009-05-28 01:13 am (UTC)
hey_its_michael 28th-May-2009 01:13 am (UTC)
Perhaps he means stigma as in single parenthood should be undesirable?

I mean, if he means that for most people it isn't a great thing, he'd be correct and I think we should encourage people to take advantage of all of their options so that they have children when they really feel they are ready.

However, that stigma SHOULD NOT (IMO) extend to those single mothers (and fathers) who choose to have a child as a single parent, and who are financially and otherwise responsible enough to do so.
madame_mage 28th-May-2009 01:13 am (UTC)
*snorts* its clear to me he hasn't been laid in a decade.
me_and_jimmy 28th-May-2009 01:13 am (UTC)
*snort* I just finished reading The Stepford Wives,just thought I'd share, it seemed appropriate. The "women" in that book were "happy" too.

electra310 28th-May-2009 01:13 am (UTC)
Well, I already knew this guy was an asshat, but he sort of nails it down by saying at the end "Sure we could ostracize men for abandoning the family instead of screaming about promiscuous teen girls and welfare queens, but that would be SEXIST, lolololol."
wishwishwish 28th-May-2009 01:14 am (UTC)
more like ross asshat
de_wood 28th-May-2009 01:17 am (UTC)
I kept reading it that way unconsciously.
binarywords 28th-May-2009 01:15 am (UTC)
hom0phone 28th-May-2009 01:21 am (UTC)
My friend and I used to do that in AOL Chatrooms, circa early middle school.
deevee45 28th-May-2009 01:21 am (UTC)
I'm willing to listen to some of these points... for example, I definitely thing that work-life balance is out of whack in this country. Women have found they have to work to provide for their household, but they still are left with the cooking, cleaning and nurturing when they get home. We do not have a society where child rearing is made easy, for either single or traditional households.

I definitely don't agree with most of the reasons he says women are unhappy, but if indeed the polling indicates that women are more unhappy today, we probably should have a healthy conversation as to why that is.
me_and_jimmy 28th-May-2009 01:38 am (UTC)
I agree with you. I think part of the reason women are more unhappy if this poll is true, is because maybe women are more honest with themselves as a whole now days because we are allowed to be "unhappy" and then there has to be other factors...the economy comes to mind. Just a thought.
darthweez 28th-May-2009 01:24 am (UTC)
popehippo READ: ICON28th-May-2009 01:25 am (UTC)
laurie_springs 28th-May-2009 01:26 am (UTC)
They were talking about this on The View yesterday. I STILL don't get what the point is supposed to be.

Edited at 2009-05-28 01:26 am (UTC)
de_wood 28th-May-2009 01:34 am (UTC)
I've read it over a few times, and I still don't understand it.
mhael SEE THIS, ASSHOLE??28th-May-2009 01:27 am (UTC)


THAT'S A MOTHERFUCKIN' PLATE OF GODDAM COOKIES I BAKED YESTERDAY, ALL BY MY MOTHERFUCKING, FEMINIST, STAY-AT-HOME-DAD SELF, FOR ME, MY CHILDREN, AND MY FEMINIST, BREAD-EARNING WIFE! AND YA KNOW WHAT? SHE LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOVES THEM! SHE ATE THEM WARM OUT OF THE OVEN AND SQUEED WITH GLEE OVER THEIR AWESOME CHOCOLATELY CAPPUCCINO-CHIPPED GOODNESS! SHE'S ONE HAPPY BITCH GODDAM, AND I, SIR, AM LUCKY TO HAVE BEEN CHOSEN BY HER.

PS.
AND YOU CAN'T HAVE ANY, YOU KNUCKLE-DRAGGING HALF-WIT. FUCK YOU!
germli Re: SEE THIS, ASSHOLE??28th-May-2009 01:28 am (UTC)
:(

Can I have some please?

OMG I'm so hungry now.
celtic_thistle 28th-May-2009 01:28 am (UTC)
OH YES, WHITE MAN, TELL ME HOW UNHAPPY I AM. I SHOULD BE BAREFOOT AND PREGNANT AND HAVE ALREADY HAD TWO KIDS BY NOW. HOW DARE I GO TO SCHOOL OR LEARN. I SHOULD JUST PRETEND IT'S 1850 AND GET BACK IN THE KITCHEN.
box_in_the_box ROSS DOUTHAT'S RESEARCH MATERIAL:28th-May-2009 01:31 am (UTC)
mhael ROTFLMAO!!28th-May-2009 01:39 am (UTC)
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAGH! THE EVIL! IT BURNS! WHY MUST I KNOW WHY THAT IS FUNNY??
trumpydoesmagic 28th-May-2009 01:42 am (UTC)
Photobucket
rawbery79 28th-May-2009 07:29 am (UTC)
AHAHAHAHA, THAT IS SO PERFECT.
jwaneeta 28th-May-2009 01:45 am (UTC)
CONCERN TROLL
kleinerbar 28th-May-2009 01:46 am (UTC)
AHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA ok, sure dude, you're the expert
Page 1 of 2
<<[1] [2] >>
This page was loaded Apr 21st 2014, 7:17 am GMT.