Feminist never was happiness
I recently read an article in the Mormon Times (h/t Kaimi) about feminism and happiness. Even though I know that Beth Palmer writes for the Deseret News, a Church owned and unabashedly biased “news” source (no, I’m not biased, I’m not. I swear), I thought I’d give it a chance.
Unfortunately, (or is that fortunately? ) she lost me in the first paragraph when she said that feminists want to be “just like men”. I think she could have done a little research on feminism before she hit publish if she wanted to keep my attention. But then, I don’t know if I’m her intended audience.
I could say much on this subject but I think you guys cold do a better job.
What are your thoughts?
It’s definitely a very thought-provoking article. Why exactly is it that women are unhappy and unsatisfied? The modern woman has quite the dilemma - if she stays home with her kids, she’s viewed as useless and wasting her life. If she focuses on a career instead of family, she’s “coldhearted.” If she tries to do both, she’s stressed and exhausted.
Comment by skippy — November 2, 2009 @ 5:22 pm
I never looked at feminism as the “ticket to happiness”. Has it been for me? Yes. But not the only ticket. But all feminists ever wanted was equality in exactly the areas she says she’s grateful for, i.e. equal pay, educational opportunities, and career advancement. Are there more extreme variations on that theme? Yes. But they’re still aimed at equality and not happiness.
I’m also disappointed that she fails to mention the inequities that still exist in our expectations between men and women. I would think this contributes to women’s alleged unhappiness. While the child and house care gap between men and women is shrinking somewhat, in general, women are still expected to hold down their day job and the jobs of care provider and housekeeper. If their stress levels are still higher than men’s, their happiness levels are likely to be lower.
Another assertion I take issue with is that just because women have careers, they’re expecting all their happiness to derive from them. I have a job, and hope to have a career someday. And having a job makes me happy. I like working. But I also realize that my job isn’t permanent. Ultimately, my base happiness level depends on my ability to maintain relationships with those I care about. Other things like jobs, hobbies, salaries, are just icing on the cake if I can get them.
Comment by Lessie — November 2, 2009 @ 5:25 pm
I thought the article had some interesting questions. (She did’t exactly say “feminists want to be “just like men”").
Do we think women should be happier now than years ago? Do we think that opportunities in education and employment should have increased happiness? Do we think that choices that then make it easier to leave a bad marriage/relationship should be making women happier?
Anecdotally we all know it does. We know the women who have left the hellish marriage so of course it means that women must be happier.
But if women aren’t happier overall, why not?
Very good questions. I have anxiety issues. However, I do really well in a crisis and you can totally count on me. I am often a better hostess for a last minute meal (and i enjoy it more) than one that I took all week to agonize over.
When someone told me once that anxiety was about choice it made sense to me. Choices aren’t just freeing, choices mean that we might make the wrong choice.
We are lucky to live in a country where we have choices. However, those choices make us wonder if maybe we should be making better choices. That we would be happier if we had chosen a better spouse, or lived in a better apartment, or had a better job. We take time to compare our choice and expend time and energy wondering if we need to change our choice and whether we made the right choice and how to go about making a new choice.
All of this stress can contribute to less happiness.
I’m not saying we shouldn’t have choice. I am just saying that as an mild anxiety sufferer, it is interesting to see that I can agonize about mistakes and choices but when there is no choice I can simply get on with the business of my life, meeting challenges and being happy.
Comment by jks — November 2, 2009 @ 5:58 pm
I hate that the article didn’t address how flawed that Time study was. It basically just compared how many women described themselves as happy back then vs. how many women described themselves as happy now. I don’t think you could take any single demographic anywhere and find a group of people who *says* their happier now than *said* they were happier then because the whole of society has shifted.
For one very basic example, this generation of men and women are more free to share their feelings. Even the not so pleasant ones. We go on Oprah and write memoirs. The greatest generation? Not so much.
For women today, we are free to say what makes us unhappy so we can do something about it. Before feminism? They had to just suck it up and deal with it, so what would they gain from saying they weren’t happy about things?
Comment by Reese Dixon — November 2, 2009 @ 6:09 pm
Research isn’t the problem. It’s that there are as many definitions of feminism as there are feminists, and some, undoubtedly, hold opinions that can easily be construed as “wanting to be like men.” I’ve certainly met my share.
Comment by jimbob — November 2, 2009 @ 6:26 pm
The author of the article says about feminism, in her first paragraph, that “its initial tacit implication that in order for women to have worth they had to be just like men.” What? What? What? I love, actually, how this is such a perfect example of the “straw man” fallacy. Who are these women=men feminists of which she speaks? Anyone? You hoo? You, with the flannel shirt, uh, woops, sorry. They don’t exist. They’re as mythical as unicorns. (Sorry, all you unicorn lovers.)
Comment by djinn — November 2, 2009 @ 6:28 pm
OK, jimbob, why did these women want to be “just like men?” What does that mean? Does it mean they expected the same pay for the same work? Heavens. Does it mean that if they did the same quality work they should receive the same promotions? Does it mean they thought they should get to wear pants? Hints, please.
Comment by djinn — November 2, 2009 @ 6:31 pm
How would I know? Underlying father issues? You tell me.
Comment by jimbob — November 2, 2009 @ 6:36 pm
Sorry for not being clear, what led you, jimbob, to believe that these women wanted to be just like men? Less shaving required?
Comment by djinn — November 2, 2009 @ 6:41 pm
Doesn’t she say immediately after that “just like men” comment that it’s not as simple as that? One could take a simplistic view of the rebellion from the trappings of motherhood as wishing to be just like a man. There is still a sense that a feminist would have to defend herself a bit if she was a sahm…she choose it, it’s best for their family, definitely not because society expects it of her…etc. (it happens all the time on this board). The fourth wave post says we need to move past that, but some people defintely haven’t.
Maybe It’s not a question of whether women should get the same pay, but whether the emphasis on career has made women happier. The option of career is great (and necessary), equal pay should be a no brainer.
I also don’t think it’s as simple as all that…there are many a comoplicating issue in a survey asking about such an ambivalent qualitfier as “happy”.
Comment by britt — November 2, 2009 @ 6:46 pm
I don’t know, I’m pretty sure I read that right but if you say so…
oh, this post isn’t about my analysis, it’s about yours.
enjoy.
Comment by mfranti — November 2, 2009 @ 6:49 pm
I didn’t find the article particularly compelling.
First of all, how does someone measure happiness? I think Reese said it well in #4 that maybe women just didn’t talk about their unhappiness.
Secondly, there are so many other factors that have changed society. It almost seems like she implies that feminism has made women more unhappy.
What I get from her opening paragraph is that she feels the power women got from the feminist movement somehow contributed to their decline in happiness. I think there may be some truth to what #1 and #3 said, but sticking two independent trends together and claiming a correlation doesn’t necessarily mean that there is a cause and effect relationship.
I guess to get a full understanding of what Ms. Palmer is talking about, I’d have to take a look at the Time study myself.
Comment by Theolina — November 2, 2009 @ 6:57 pm
I’m relatively sure that Beth is employed by a web publisher in Boston, MA, and not the Deseret News, except perhaps as a spec columnist.
Comment by Rob Perkins — November 2, 2009 @ 7:04 pm
re: “feminists want to be “just like men”.
Well, I consider myself a feminist, but the only time I’ve ever
suffered from penis envy is when we’re working out in the
field and husband can just whip it out when he has to pee and
I have to walk back to the house for the same condition.
Comment by Betty Jo — November 2, 2009 @ 7:06 pm
I take issue with all of these headline grabbing “happiness” research stories. Because the lesson I have learned from reading them or watching the morning show “news” stories is I am more likely to be less happy than married women, than younger women, than single men and apparently non-feminist women in the past - just to name a few. How do you measure happiness? As others have stated, social and cultural influences would impact responses far more than any feminist influence, I suspect.
Also, I have to say that women like the author of that article make me crazy. They are enjoying a career that was traditionally occupied exclusively by men, made possible by feminists who demanded equality but don’t believe in feminism beyond an empty acknowledgement (”grudgingly”!) that maybe it opened some doors in the past with the implication that it isn’t necessary now. Just a pet peeve of mine.
Comment by soulfusion — November 2, 2009 @ 7:06 pm
How could she know how women felt before feminism? Were there surveys done of women’s views in say 1890? Heck, even the 1950s, what did women think of the various questions they would conceivably be asked?
I think the question to be asked is this. If you had a choice to have the rights and freedoms that feminism has given you taken away and life go back as it were before the feminist movement, would you take that option? Let’s just see how many women would prefer that.
As a husband of a professional, hard working woman who is an executive, I can say that both she and I could not be happier than we are now with our roles and relationship, and that we both would find life in the “old tradition” unbearable and wrong.
Comment by Dan — November 2, 2009 @ 7:13 pm
The most ridiculous thing about this article is that it doesn’t even try to mention any of the other factors that contribute to happiness.
I’d say the feminization of poverty has a lot more to do with rising unhappiness in women than having access to more choices.
I also like Reese’s point about how we describe/talk about our feelings.
Comment by Natalie K. — November 2, 2009 @ 7:14 pm
djinn,
#6,
maybe the women with short hair wearing jeans?
Comment by Dan — November 2, 2009 @ 7:15 pm
That is if there is indeed any such measurable rise in unhappiness. Which I’d need hard research to back up before I accepted.
Comment by Natalie K. — November 2, 2009 @ 7:17 pm
I think Natalie K at 17 has a great point. One of the most influential factors that led me to pursue a career was my mother telling me to get more education so that I would have options and flexibility. The better education I have the higher a salary I can command for less time worked. My mother was forced to work due to situation (my dad often being unemployed or underemployed) and did not have the luxury to choose to stay at home or even the luxury of pursuing a career given her limited education (which was a result of limited options presented to her as she started college).
In the somewhat (upper?) middle class debate of whether it is better for mothers to stay at home or to work outside the home, this lack of choice for women with less education and less means rings hollow because for many women, there simply isn’t a choice (and I know there have been comments to this effect on this blog in the past).
Comment by soulfusion — November 2, 2009 @ 7:21 pm
What I liked about the article:
*That she didn’t say feminism made people unhappy, but said that happiness doesn’t come from political movements.
*That she admitted feminism has done good things that everyone should be grateful for.
What I didn’t like about the article
*That it didn’t look at the study critically (most of the reports she cited drew erroneous connections, and overstated the actual results).
*That it set up a strawfeminist, instead of citing actual feminist writings.
*The last thing that rubbed me the wrong way was that she indicated that women are less happy now because we’re spending less time serving other people. This fails to recognize that compelled ’service’ isn’t the sort that brings happiness or satisfaction.
Comment by Starfoxy — November 2, 2009 @ 7:59 pm
I thought it was a good article, and I agree with the overall premise: we can’t have it all. Something HAS to give in order to make way for the other.
There are obviously exceptions to the above generalities (there always are), but if you want to have a great career, you won’t be able to dedicate the requisite time to being a great parent. If you want to be a great parent, you won’t be able to dedicate the requisite time to make your career great.
I have purposefully left my description gender neutral. Men also have to make the SAME choice.
Comment by hcl — November 2, 2009 @ 8:15 pm
I don’t think most women want to sell the flesh of their future babies for money. Instead, I think it is very hard for most women to find a good man. One who will put her first above all of his other dreams and desires. We live in a time where women must get an education and a good job to survive. It is the women who suffers more during a divorce than the man. That should be addressed when one is talking about happiness.
Comment by Javelin — November 2, 2009 @ 8:22 pm
soulfusion; the idea of a stay-at-home-mom is not exactly a myth, but has a class aspect that is hardly ever acknowledged. Only upper class or extremely upper class women ever got to just raise their kids, except that those rich women hired poorer women to do that child raising for them. Staying at home with your kids seems to be a brand-new phenomenon treated as a historical fact. Not so much.
Comment by djinn — November 2, 2009 @ 8:24 pm
When they say history they mean the good old 1950’s, because women were deleriously happy then…
Comment by Kristin — November 2, 2009 @ 8:39 pm
Kristen, are you really implying that women weren’t thrilled, thrilled! to vacuum in their pearls, while waiting for their man? Hmmmpf. (I clutch my pearls, and flounce off, stage left, uhh, right.)
Comment by djinn — November 2, 2009 @ 8:48 pm
So is this unhappiness specific to the feminist population because I know lots of unhappy feminists, stay-at-home-moms, working women, working moms, students, the list can go on….
Comment by shannon j — November 2, 2009 @ 9:05 pm
#3 “but when there is no choice I can simply get on with the business of my life, meeting challenges and being happy.” Women that did not have the right to vote didn’t feel that way. And frankly its the same concept as why “they” say women are so unhappy. Just too many options. I just am so flustered I don’t know what to do! No really not trying to be rude but that statement is indicative of the same type of thinking of the anti-feminist groupies. AND #22 lets not fool ourselves MEN are not at this point faced with the same choices. Until men are just as active in the home(cook,clean, chores,) then we can say they must make those same choices. My Husband being one of those Men who is looking forward to being a stay at home Dad. BUt I do think it’s a bit of a myth that in order to be successful you must sacrifice your family.
Comment by CZ — November 2, 2009 @ 9:42 pm
Gee,and I thought the happy houswife was happy because of the uppers ? Black Beauty’s anyone?
Comment by Jillian — November 2, 2009 @ 9:47 pm
and before uppers it was laudanum, no?
Comment by mfranti — November 2, 2009 @ 9:53 pm
Re 29, Just last night on Mad Men, Don told Betty to “go take a pill and lay down.” We all have our solutions.
As for unhappy feminists - I feel perfectly content… As long as I ignore the fact that if something happens with my kids I am the one who will be expected to handle it or blamed if something falls through the cracks. Women are given less control over, but more blame for the people in their lives.
That may not have made sense, but I am focussing all my energy on the Phillies right now.
Comment by Eris — November 2, 2009 @ 10:02 pm
But this is true for men and women… I think the reason this would make women unhappy (rather than both sexes) is because of the guilt of leaving something behind, and we can’t get rid of the guilt without getting rid of the gender expectations that underlie it.
Comment by Enna — November 2, 2009 @ 10:13 pm
What a load of rubbish.
The underlying inference of the whole article and the ’study’ Palmer is discussing, that feminism was and is about happiness, is utter tosh.
Feminism was and is about social, political, economic, et al justice, not happiness. To even conceive that happiness was or is the goal of feminism is to not have a clue about the history of feminism.
Comment by barmy stoat — November 2, 2009 @ 10:23 pm
I’d be much less happy if feminism never existed and I still had to exist as some man’s property and a not-quite-human-being.
Comment by Lorian — November 2, 2009 @ 10:23 pm
I think the point of the article, as has been in some of the other discussions, is if the gender gap has been narrowed significantly where this justice has been largely achieved WHY aren’t women more fulfilled and happy in their lives.
Simplistic? To be sure.
Comment by hcl — November 2, 2009 @ 10:36 pm
“As a husband of a professional, hard working woman who is an executive, I can say that both she and I could not be happier than we are now with our roles and relationship, and that we both would find life in the “old tradition” unbearable and wrong.”
Dan, its this hyper-judgementalism of the feminist movement that I find most off-putting (and in this case its one step more bizarre as its coming from a man). It isn’t enough to be content with one’s own status, but there seems to be a need to thumb our nose at others who live in that “old tradition,” which is clearly so dastardly and “wrong.” While you might retort that it’d only be wrong for your particular relationship, your tone (as much as one can have one online) belies such a clarification.
But to the next problem with feminism; its obsessive need to obtain stature in society. One woman might be a high-powered executive, a housewife, an attorney, or a janitor. Whom among these four is the best, or the most “successful?” Well, we don’t really know, because in the end, none of these job titles really even matters. This is where I respect Beth’s article, and where I think she is right. At the end of the day, the personal bonds we’ve formed with others and the service we have rendered to others (including, dare I say it, even our own kkkkids) will carry much more significance than the placard that we hung outside our cubicle. The more time we spend focused on ourselves, the less time we have to focus on other people.
Comment by WJ — November 2, 2009 @ 10:44 pm
Here’s the line of the article that makes me want to throw something:
“Perhaps the problem is that ever since feminism helped give women greater access to more worldly roles, we’ve collectively spent a lot less time losing ourselves in the service of others.”
Huh???!!
Because we’re educated we’re serving less? Or because we have choices we’re choosing not to serve… whom? Or maybe because we’re working we’re not serving? But what of the huge amounts of service that the women educators, engineers, lawyers, judges, doctors, and professionals in general give to others? And what of the huge service that working and non-working women still give to their families?
OK. Someone go find me a study. I claim that the amount of service women are giving to society has gone WAY UP in the last 40 years. I just need some statistics to prove it. Way way up. Way up. It must, with all the choices and flexibility and Education women now have.
But even let’s suppose not. MEN have been working this WHOLE TIME! So they’re serving others less?? — By this logic. And yet they’re getting happier? No, Beth Palmer. We need to talk. You are wrong. You are very very wrong.
Comment by JessicaS — November 2, 2009 @ 10:44 pm
Gender expectations aside, I have had to sacrifice being a great parent because i work 50-70 hours a week. Do I make up for it in other ways? I try my damndest to be on my “A game” when I am at home, but I can’t fool myself: I am not the primary caregiver in the home. THAT is a sacrifice.
I don’t know how single working parents do it. God bless them, because it is a tough row to hoe. My wife was recently off taking care of her mother (undergoing chemo for lung cancer), and I had the kids to myself for two months. EVERYTHING fell to me. My legal practice suffered. My parenting suffered. I had two full-time jobs, and the one that I couldn’t get fired from didn’t have a salary. It sucked.
Of course, the kids being the resilient little boogers that they are, adapted and we survived.
I would not claim, however, that we — or my job — thrived.
Comment by hcl — November 2, 2009 @ 10:45 pm
In a psychology of women course in college we studied how the attitude of women in America in the 40’s and 50’s was intentionally manipulated through the media. With the nations men overseas for the war in the 40’s they needed women out of their homes and in factories to fill the void. “Rosie the Rivitor” was born to glamorize this new role and make abandoning rigid traditional gender roles socially acceptable. After the war in Europe ended and men came home their jobs were being done by women … and many of those women did not want to give up those jobs. So another media campaign was launched and women were depicted as deleriously happy while vacuuming, cooking, etc. Television shows and advertising vigorously pushed this agenda.
29 is exactly right - many women who weren’t getting with the program were prescribed “mothers little helper”. I don’t trust any poll numbers coming from that time period because the systemic manipulation of women was so extreme and complete. The acceptable choices for them during that post-war era seem to be either to “be happy” or be labeled mentally ill if they weren’t. Wanting to keep the job they enjoyed made them a bad person who wasn’t “supporting the troops” when the whole country was on a total high with the end of the war and those returning troops were returning heroes.
Comment by Twisp — November 2, 2009 @ 10:45 pm
“OK. Someone go find me a study. I claim that the amount of service women are giving to society has gone WAY UP in the last 40 years. I just need some statistics to prove it. Way way up. Way up. It must, with all the choices and flexibility and Education women now have.”
No study is needed on this one. You have more options, yes. you are likely more educated than your female forebears, yes. You have more hours in the day than women in the 50s, ye…er, no. Unfortunately, there are still only 24 hours in a day, 1/3 of which you are sleeping (except for you working execs who only get 1/4), and you have to choose how you will allocate your energies during that period. So no, it “mustn’t” be up just because of the added choices and flexibility and education provided to women in this age. I think hcl put it succinctly and fairly. If we put more time into one endeavor, another endeavor must suffer.
Comment by WJ — November 2, 2009 @ 10:59 pm
In agreement with and expansion upon JessicaS’ post # 37:
Why must we “lose ourselves” in the service of others in order to be fulfilled? Why can’t we serve others and be served by others as needed, with no need to “lose ourselves” in the process? Or, if we must “lose ourselves” in the gospel sense, in order to better “find ourselves,” then why is it only women who must “lose themselves” in service to others? Why is this not a universal value? What has it got to do with feminism?
Comment by Lorian — November 2, 2009 @ 11:00 pm
WJ, I think part of Jessica’s point is that working in a career does not preclude being of service to others. We can be of service to others in every aspect of our lives. Why discredit the service each of us, male or female, can do in the context of a career?
Comment by Lorian — November 2, 2009 @ 11:01 pm
#42: That’s right, Lorian. And not just careers. Many women have been able to serve as volunteers much more effectively in the communities because of their educations. There are many more women politicians now. You may not call that service, but many of them got into politics to serve their communities. This was rarely an option 40 years ago.
And as others have pointed out, working or not, much of the service done in families still falls upon women.
Yes there are still 24 hours in a day, but no, women aren’t serving less during that time than they used to, even if they are making different choices than they used to make.
Comment by JessicaS — November 2, 2009 @ 11:10 pm
Lorian, I agree that working in a career does not preclude being of service to others. I also try to be, and am sometimes, of service to others in my own career. But certain efforts are simply more important than others (and are often context-specific, as life circumstances can differ dramatically). But I think there is generally a significant and qualitative difference between service given out of a desire for financial remuneration than for service given simply because it is the right thing to do. Financial remuneration is mostly about us, job status is mostly about us, and while this sometimes produces positive byproducts (or service, if we’re calling it that), I believe this is generally of a secondary quality and efficacy than that done out of more selfless motives.
And I can’t really explain (or fully understand) why. You asked why we have to “lose ourselves.” My thought is, I’m not quite sure why, but the big guy told us we should, and for some reason, when I do, it is incredibly satisfying. Much more satisfying that what I produce busting my hump at the office each day.
Comment by WJ — November 2, 2009 @ 11:13 pm
And yet, WJ, there are careers which are now open to women, such as medicine, which allow women to be of service to their communities in ways they could likely never achieve through volunteerism or homemaking. Not to say that a homemaker’s job is less “important” than that of a doctor, but your statement that there is a qualitative difference between service given for remuneration (implying that such service is of less value at an esoteric level than service volunteered) rings false to me.
We have this view that women are more noble if they are uncompensated for their efforts, but few men are expected to be so “noble” in their pursuit of being of service to others.
Comment by Lorian — November 2, 2009 @ 11:17 pm
How about the Bureau of Labor Statistics?
This report only covers volunteering from 2004-2008, so doesn’t really give a historical perspective. However, do note there on page 2 that women are volunteering significantly more than men every single year. And yet they’re not as happy?
Maybe they aren’t getting lost enough? Maybe the service is just to impress their neighbors? (Since it isn’t for remuneration.)
No. Even if you aren’t counting doctors and teachers and child advocates and nurses and engineers and other professionals as serving, because there is a paycheck, women are still serving more than men.
So where is the happiness?
Comment by JessicaS — November 2, 2009 @ 11:20 pm
OK. Let me summarize. Beth Palmer thinks feminism is bad because “we’ve collectively spent a lot less time losing ourselves in the service of others”. The implication is that service makes us happier. But as the report from the government shows, women volunteered “at a higher rate than did men across all age groups, educational levels, and other major demographic characteristics, as in previous years.”
But the men are happier.
Comment by JessicaS — November 2, 2009 @ 11:25 pm
Um. Feminism is awesome is awesome and all that.
But can I get a little shoutout for the boys in Philly who just TRASHED the yankees?! WOOHOO!!!!
Comment by Natalie K. — November 2, 2009 @ 11:33 pm
There are some feminists, on and off this board, who seem to want women to emulate the worst traits of historical cultural masculinity. Selfishness, irresponsibility, lechery. To be more specific, they seem to want women to be like 1970s men. No surprise since 2nd wave peaked in the 1970s.
Comment by Christian — November 2, 2009 @ 11:40 pm
Lorian, “Not to say that a homemaker’s job is less “important” than that of a doctor,” and yet, I think you managed to say just that.
And to the contrary, I do not subscribe to the notion that “few men are expected to be so “noble” in their pursuit of being of service to others.” I believe the same standard applies to men.
The subject of this discussion reminds me of a Sunday School lesson a few weeks back, taught by a “successful” (though male — so no doubt, using mind control techniques) attorney. He described, briefly, the tremendous experiences he has had providing legal services to his clientele. Then he talked in greater detail about some of his pro bono cases, which he acknowledged has had a far more profound effect on him (and the recipients) than anything else he has done in his career. Imagine that. When his brief run here is over, he will likely look back on his life and these are the memories he will find most valuable. My hunch is his relationships with his family members will also be at the forefront of his mind. Those are the things that will matter most. However, I acknowledge this is not a study, just an anecdote.
Jessica, the light-heartedness with which you mock the doctrine of “losing oneself” (e.g. “maybe they aren’t getting lost enough?”) is enough to make me question the foundation upon which your argument rests (though, of course, only if we are speaking in a gospel sense, otherwise, I have to go elsewhere for my material).
Comment by WJ — November 2, 2009 @ 11:45 pm
Lorian, I deeply respect your opinion. I admired your observation:
“which allow women to be of service to their communities in ways they could likely never achieve through volunteerism or homemaking.”
Here is the situation:
I attended a state conference with a 5 hour workshop on ethics. Our group presented 4 of 5 responses to the scenarios that were well reasoned and referenced law and ethics (RCW and professional Code of Conduct).
We presented our responses well and at the end of our session the presenter, who is also the chair of the Admissions & professional Conduct Advisory Committee approached me and asked if I would serve on the Advisory Committee to provide input to their committee on cases that are brought forth by the state attorney general on ethics.
I declined stating that my caseload was high and complex due to the success of some of my regional programs, which have doubled in class size (e.g. hearing impaired programs for students with coclear implants using an oral-auditory approach).
He asked if I could author something. I am unsure of how to publish, but agreed to co-author with a Doctorate level friend of mine, who is more familiar with copyright and publishing. My experience is from the trenches, from the schools, so how to research and present a professional paper is higher than my current skill level.
The position is voluntary, although considered a political benefit.
My husband disagreed, stating that I should make him the priority and showing some concern that I would not be available, due to travel obligations that come with the position.
He barely acknowledges when I am in the house. I spend half of my time looking for some item he has misplaced or hearing how I need to take care of some domestic issue that our hired help can resolve.
My children are successful adults and on their own.
I really don’t know what to do at this point. Please advise.
Comment by Jo — November 2, 2009 @ 11:45 pm
Twisp 39 - this is what I have been thinking about, too. I think the portrayal of women in the 50s as the happy homemakers was largely created by men who wanted them to be happy homemakers - the men who controlled the media.
Comment by Stephanie — November 2, 2009 @ 11:45 pm
Jo, is your husband using excuses to get you to pay attention to him? Is he feeling neglected? I am just wondering because my kids do that to me: when they are feeling a little neglected or like they haven’t received their fair share of attention, they make up things that they need my help thing - things that they would normally just do on their own.
Comment by Stephanie — November 2, 2009 @ 11:48 pm
should have said “that they need my help doing”
Comment by Stephanie — November 2, 2009 @ 11:49 pm
Now that my euphoria is at manageable levels….
I really do have to agree with the few above who have pointed out earlier that the big thing missing from our above discussions is class.
Class, class, class.
First of all, single poor mothers. How is working 40+ hours a week (at least), coming home and cooking dinner, getting the kids to do their homework and go to bed, NOT service?
And while we’re sitting here valuing the type of service that doesn’t receive any monetary compensation….. I’m very wary of lauding this too highly. Serving for free is another “privilege” of the rich. Sure, they choose to do it, and it’s certainly better than other things they could do with their time; but it is a privilege. Poor people are often completely shut out of service. I couldn’t even always participate in all of my church service projects as a youth because they sometimes required funds for materials or transportation. It drove me crazy that I was never able to call dozens of incredibly qualified women to be in my YW Presidency because they had absolutely no free time to give. One woman in particular just pained me. She was a true matriarch. A refugee from Liberia, taking care of around 8 kids (some hers, some nieces and nephews), getting up to commute an hour and a half to work every day, by bus, to work in a food factory that was kept at refrigerator temperatures, suffering incredible pain in her joints from standing constantly and being exposed to the cold, then coming home and actually caring for those kids. She is an INCREDIBLE role model for any teenage girl. But her example can never be shown outside her family, because society doesn’t reward her adequately enough to make service feasible. I actually thought seriously about proposing to my bishop that we offer her a stipend of sorts for taking on a time-consuming calling. This would enable poor people to be much more involved in their ward communities. And, it would help diminish the damaging social relationships that are created by a purely one-way giver-receiver situation.
I don’t think we need to “lose ourselves” to find happiness. I think we need to topple the oppressive system that destroys human development and funnels the resources necessary for life to the powerful. Sure, sure, happiness is an internal thing, and we all love that patronizing image of the humble, happy poor person. But guess what…. if you don’t have to worry about having chronic pain because of your intense physical labor, dangerous neighborhoods because of high rents, troubled kids because of dangerous neighborhoods, piles of mess in your home because of an absolute lack of free time, and disrespect from the society that thinks you must be doing something wrong to have all these problems, you’d probably have a lot better chance of finding happiness.
UGH! Now I’ve gotten myself all worked up, so I have to go find some crazy anti-Hillary Clinton group on Facebook where I can just plain old argue with people and be mean to release the tension I feel.
Comment by Natalie K. — November 2, 2009 @ 11:53 pm
Women have made great in-roads into the workforce but we have not shifted the home front to be equal opportunity at the same pace. Men have a portion of the burden of their traditional gender role (bread winner) lifted with the income their wives or partners earn. There is little social pressure for men take on an equal share of the domestic duties their wives. In fact when a man does take on what should be considered a fair share when their partner is working he’s treated like a celebrity. What we’ve ended up with is women working full time jobs and also shouldering the majority of the responsibilities of home and children.
No big surprise men are happier.
Comment by Twisp — November 3, 2009 @ 12:01 am
That’s a pretty good summary, Twisp.
Comment by Stephanie — November 3, 2009 @ 12:02 am
And, maybe more families could afford to have one parent stay at home if employers hadn’t been slashing wages for the last 25 years. Productivity is going up, up, up, wages are plummeting. The only reason family income hasn’t taken a freefall in the last few decades is because women went to work. More families now rely on two incomes to meet the same standard of living that one wage-earner could provide in earlier generations.
Basically, I think capitalism has a lot more to do with declining rates of happiness than feminism. If anything, feminism has cushioned the blow by allowing women to help with family support.
Comment by Natalie K. — November 3, 2009 @ 12:05 am
so i spent some time writing a comment that looks just like twisps excellent #55. only mine had references to some of the luxuries of two incomes that men typically (but not always) get to enjoy. think of the fun stuff like x-boxes and motorcycles and big fat plasma tv’s
so while women may get to enjoy similiar “items” they still have the double burden of caring for the home while lifting the financial burden of men.
like ms. twisp said, no big surprise men are happier.
Comment by mfranti — November 3, 2009 @ 12:08 am
#49 - WJ - can you please take your condescending comments somewhere else? Just because the blog has the word feminist in it doesn’t mean the administrators of this blog or the readers of the blog are anti-male or believe that males are evil or “use mind control techniques.” You obviously have some preconceived notions about feminism and need to check those at the door. And knowing Lorian through her comments, I highly doubt she believes that women doctors are worth more than homemakers.
Comment by Risa — November 3, 2009 @ 12:10 am
WJ, I was not intending to mock the doctrine of “losing oneself.” Rather, I intended the comment to point out the ridiculousness of Ms Palmer’s argument.
If women are serving more than men, then why aren’t they experiencing the same happiness levels of men? Obviously it is more than just hours of service.
I do not believe Ms. Parker’s conclusion that feminism has caused women to serve less, but I do not have data for this. To me, common sense says that a more educated woman can serve more, and therefore feminism has led to more service, not less. Recent talks by prophets have confirmed this belief of mine that education leads to a higher ability and quality of service. Obviously, WJ, you did not see the connection between education, feminism, and service that I did. I apologize for not making that more clear.
I definitely do believe that service leads to increased happiness, to some extent. However, since women are already serving more than men, Ms Parker’s conclusion that women need to serve more to experience the same levels of happiness as men must be flawed.
May I point out that “when you are in the service of your fellow beings you are only in the service of your God” actually also has no reference to happiness — at least immediate happiness. Sometimes service sucks.
Comment by JessicaS — November 3, 2009 @ 12:10 am
Natalie K — #54: Very nicely said.
Comment by JessicaS — November 3, 2009 @ 12:12 am
Wow, Jo, that’s a tough situation to be in. My gut response is that you promised to be faithful to your husband, but not to do things for him that he could do for himself, at the expense of doing thing for others that you feel are of benefit.
I don’t know if your husband is the kind who can talk things out (kinda doesn’t sound like it), but I think I’d lay it out on the table for him and tell him I loved him very much and would always be his wife, but that there are many, many things he can do for himself and probably should. If that conversation failed to make a difference, I think I’d lovingly let him figure it out on his own. He is a grown-up, and the only way he’s likely to learn to behave like one is if he is compelled to do so (just judging based upon the scenario you described, and fully admitting that I don’t have both sides of the story).
It’s difficult to break out of comfortable modes, and if he’s used to being taken care of, it will likely be painful for him to find a new path, but my feeling is that it could ultimately be more fulfilling for you both, assuming he is someone who is capable of learning new ways and is committed enough to you and to your happiness to allow for change. Communication is key, though.
My 2 cents, for whatever it’s worth.
Comment by Lorian — November 3, 2009 @ 12:17 am
#60 - Risa:
Thank you, Risa. You’re exactly right.
And WJ, I specifically stated this in my post to which you are referring. Please feel free to read my words before responding to what you think I’m saying.
Comment by Lorian — November 3, 2009 @ 12:20 am
Christian, I’ll take that as an insult. I’m sure others will too.
Comment by mfranti — November 3, 2009 @ 12:22 am
Incidentally, WJ, I’m not denying the value of volunteerism, either. But the attorney you reference in # 50, for instance, would never have had the chance to represent those fulfilling pro bono clients had he not BEEN an attorney in the first place. The doctor in my scenario might very well volunteer some of her time in free clinics in Tijuana or Africa, and might very well find fulfillment in being of service in that capacity — but she would never have been able to offer herself in that manner had she not been allowed access to becoming a professional physician in the first place.
No, being a doctor or a lawyer is not intrinsically more “worthwhile” or “of more value” than being a homemaker. But there are all different kinds of fulfillment and service, and, as I recall, the original point to which I was responding was the suggestion that women who pursue careers are “of less service” to others than women who keep house and raise children as their primary pursuit. And I disagree.
Comment by Lorian — November 3, 2009 @ 12:28 am
mfranti #65, and Christian — Ditto mfranti’s post, assuming you meant “feminists like mfranti and Lorian,” which your nebulous post leaves quite open to interpretation. Maybe you’d like to narrow it down a bit?
Comment by Lorian — November 3, 2009 @ 12:30 am
Christian, I thought we had made such progress. You are very swiftly trying the patience of those around you.
If you have complaints about individuals, please refer to those, but after everything we’ve discussed in the past, I am not going to tolerate much more of your “board mentality” talk.
Name one person who wants women to emulate what you describe. One. If you can’t then you’re just insulting all of us with no basis in reality and I’m not going to stand for it any longer.
Comment by Reese Dixon — November 3, 2009 @ 12:32 am
Jessica, #62 - Thanks! Is it too painfully obvious that the roots of my feminism come from growing up with a single mom?
Comment by Natalie K. — November 3, 2009 @ 12:41 am
“feminists like mfranti and Lorian,”
Good heavens no. Never heard either of those two say anything of the sort.
Comment by Christian — November 3, 2009 @ 12:56 am
I was not making a complaint about individuals, Reese. I actually like some of the individuals that have taken that position, even though I disagree with them. I’m not offended; I just disagree. Since you want me to give an example, Derek just 2 weeks ago was saying (in response to Balmy Stoat’s remarks about serial monogamy) that we could celebrate certain behaviors that we condemn in men, because it brings balance of some sort. Now Derek’s an exceptionally agreeable person, and I can’t imagine complaining about him. I simply disagree with him on that point.
Comment by Christian — November 3, 2009 @ 1:06 am
And I like Balmy Stoat, too.
Comment by Christian — November 3, 2009 @ 1:07 am
I’ve run into so many Mormons who have a similar view to feminism, when in fact, if they knew more about it, they would realize its ideals are supported by the principles of the Gospel. And to think that even women have this view. Sigh.
Comment by Michelle Glauser — November 3, 2009 @ 1:07 am
How in the world did what I said get aimed at Lorian or mfranti? Even when Lorian and I quarreled last week I would never have pinned that on her.
Comment by Christian — November 3, 2009 @ 1:12 am
Exactly, Michelle. I think so many young women now have been raised with the combination of relative freedom to be who they wish and do what they find fulfilling, while at the same time having been fed a steady diet of “antifeminist backlash,” such as Rush Limbaugh’s demonization of “feminazis,” and so they end up with this kind of knee-jerk response of, “FEMINIST? ME??? NEVER!!!” without ever really stopping to consider what feminism actually means and how much it is responsible for the choices and freedoms they take for granted.
Comment by Lorian — November 3, 2009 @ 1:14 am
Lorian, what you just said kind of reminds me of Americans who never stop telling the rest of the world how grateful they all should be to America, for saving them from the Soviets and so on. Sure, that’s one way of looking at it, but it’s not the only way.
Comment by Christian — November 3, 2009 @ 1:25 am
Michelle, I don’t think it’s that simple, though. Feminism can mean a lot to many people, and for some, that has meant leaving the Church. Therefore, I’m not sure it’s fair to completely fault people for having negative reactions to feminism because very often, feminism includes negative reactions to the Church. YES, there are many principles that are consistent with our doctrine, but as the other post about the clash some feel w/ faith and feminism shows, it’s not always that pretty. There are those on either end of the spectrum that feel irreconcilable differences between the two.
I do think that it’s frustrating to see feminism reduced to man-hating, though, although there are probably those types out there somewhere (maybe?). Essentially all of my experience with those who call themselves feminist really doesn’t reflect that mentality.
Comment by m&m — November 3, 2009 @ 1:55 am
And actually, fwiw, I think that feminists would be able to help reduce the misunderstandings about their points of view if they would listen to the concerns that people have about feminism. So, for example, the concept of feminazi is, of course, inaccurate and degrading. But, on the flip side, I have seen perspectives of “non-feminists” dismissed in degrading and patronizing ways as well. It can cut both ways.
Comment by m&m — November 3, 2009 @ 2:00 am
So, for example, the concept of feminazi is, of course, inaccurate and degrading.
Or at least the response to that is to those who are SO extreme that they really don’t reflect what I think feminism is generally about. (I’m sure there are those people out there who are so intense about this that they are man-haters and irrational about their approach, but I don’t like it when conservative talk showish kinds of people dismiss all feminists like that in one fell swoop. There is too much complexity and worthwhile discussion that can take place on these important issues for that kind of bashing.
Comment by m&m — November 3, 2009 @ 2:02 am
WJ,
#36,
There was nothing hyper-judgmental about my comment. Forgive me but in my eyes, the “old traditions” tends to have a negative stereotype after literally hundreds and thousands of years of abuse by the man in the relationship over the woman. Not every relationship in the “old tradition” is abusive, but most are. The abuse is not overt and blatant, such as physical abuse, but more of the small and simple things, that the woman needs to learn that her place is below the man. That’s abuse, in my view. I realize of course that within the church, this is not taught as a principle, and for the most part, within our church, women are treated fairly well. But this is not the norm within our society (or any society on this planet) that practices or preaches the “old traditions.”
I really wouldn’t care whether my wife was an excellent janitor or an excellent professional, but I will not detract my profound admiration for what she has done in her life all because of her own skills and talents. This is where the difference lies with the “old tradition” and the so called “feminist” movement. I don’t feel a fear that my wife’s professional abilities detract from the strength of our family.
Comment by Dan — November 3, 2009 @ 7:13 am
I think she’s distinguishing between two kinds of feminism: perceived and actual. She’s not saying feminists want to be men, but that, rather, being a girl–and enjoying everything the traditional gender role implies–doesn’t mean being less. “Real” feminism is being treated equally–to use her example, having your work be valued equally.
The fact is, plenty of so-called “feminists” really do want to be men. I saw this a lot in law school. It’s a pretty well-recognized psychological mechanism: sometimes, we attempt to gain power over our oppressors by adopting, for ourselves, the symbols of our oppression. For example, the gay pride movement adopting the pink triangle, which was, as I’m sure you all know, originally used by the Nazis to mark homosexuals out as pariahs. Now it’s a symbol of inclusion.
Likewise, many women confuse the message of feminism (which, to me, is that we can be and do whatever we want) with the idea that “girly” women–women who fit the traditional mold–are somehow less, and to really claim our power as women, we need to change.
I went to law school with a number of women who absolutely refused to do anything that might seem “girlish”. They were, in fact, offended by the idea that they might like, or want anything different than the boys. Instead, they wore men’s suits, smoked cigars, and made boob jokes. That, to them, was feminism.
To me, it was letting down the sisterhood. I’ve been in practice for a couple of years now, and I have to say, professionally (two or three notable exceptions notwithstanding) my gender has never entered into it. I’ve never felt one way or the other about my supposed “inferiority” in the workplace, and the occasional sexism I experience has never slowed me down. But I can see how it would make some women so angry that they’d begin to see their gender as a burden, rather than an asset.
Comment by CJ — November 3, 2009 @ 7:51 am
Jo (51), that makes me really sad for your situation. I hope that you find a way to do the things that you love and still work on your relationship with your husband. It seems like so many of the problems we run into in our relationships is because of our own insecurities, and attempts to hold others back because of our own fears. I hope your husband will be able to support you and your choices, Jo! He reminds me a lot of my dad from that statement…
Comment by Enna — November 3, 2009 @ 9:07 am
I want to be TREATED as well as men are treated. I want the type of service that men receive in restaurants and stores. I want to be taken seriously when I apply for jobs. I want people to respect my opinion about their technical equipment, because I *DO* know what I’m talking about, and I definitely know more than my male counterpart (but they’ll ask him anyway, because he’s the “IT guy”). I want access to the old boy’s club that still exists, even today.
I don’t want to wear men’s clothing, though, or have all unisex restrooms. That’s where the antis are wrong.
Comment by Moonbeam — November 3, 2009 @ 9:08 am
Lorian,
You asked why we must “lose ourselves” to “find ourselves” and what that has to do with feminism… (somewhere up there…)
This is actually one of the doctrines of the church that I really love, but I don’t think it has anything to do with feminism or women in particular. Christ was talking to men when he said it, and I think the gender expectations the church fosters (women=nurture) has moved us to a place where women are expected to serve, men to provide. I disagree with that cultural movement, but not with what I think the doctrine Christ was teaching is - that all people will find their true selves in giving up selfishness, greed, pettiness, etc. and embracing love and kindness and selflessness. I also think that it directly leads us to more happiness.
Comment by Enna — November 3, 2009 @ 9:10 am
And speaking of happiness…
I’ve gotten the impression from several points above that we’re talking about a very superficial happiness here. I’m thinking particularly of Natalie’s comment in 54. I don’t disagree with your points about class, but I perhaps would spin it just a little differently.
Although wealth does open up opportunities to serve (boards, PTA, politics, etc.) the example of the matriarch and her service is just as real and just as valuable as any more visible services (the pro bono lawyer, for example).
All this is absolutely true, but again, there are just as many different challenges to happiness in being wealthy.
I guess my point is, I think class changes the opportunities for service, and it changes the types of challenges you face, but I don’t think wealth or poverty is any better at bringing or removing happiness in and of itself. To me, happiness is a very internal thing that you can only really get when you learn to separate it from your circumstances and those around you, and all things that you don’t have control over. If your happiness depends on those, it will always fail.
(Natalie, I don’t mean to pick on you, your post just really stood out to me. I love your comments!)
All that being said, I think twisp (56) gets my vote for the best explanation of why there is disparity between men and women in self-reported happiness.
Comment by Enna — November 3, 2009 @ 9:19 am
I don’t understand why we need to categorize service into this neat little lump (never involves money, not in your own home, easer for rich people to do this…).
IMO serivce is an attitude. I can dutifully change diapers and mo p floors or I can serve in those activities.
I can mindlessly make copies and prepare a brief or I can serve.
It’s not a matter of poor people can’t or only people who aren’t being paid, or only on thursday between 2 and 3. People in prison can serve. People with not a minute to spare in their day can still serve and brighten the lives of those around them. I’m not implying we shouldn’t be trying to extend ourselves out of our little circles-we absolutely should. I do think service and loosing yourself is happiness.
Feminism has done some wonderful things..but ANY ism or political movement or fight, by it’s very nature (we’ve seen religion do this) can make the focus you and your rights or needs. It would take vigilance to keep it service and not selfish and victimish.
It reminds me of Viktor Frankyl in a concentration camp choosing to serve and love.
Nurture can be service, providing can be service or it can be a trapping drudgery.
Traditional lifestyles can be service or a cultural trap, so can having it all, a career or any achievement.
Comment by britt — November 3, 2009 @ 9:41 am
CJ’s experience (77) is similar to mine. Several feminists at my law school could easily make seasoned truckers blush. (I’m sure that’s sexist in some way, so I’ll apologize in advance. Also, it’s probably offensive to truckers, so I’ll send a mea culpa to them too.) FWIW, I haven’t noticed the same trend in practice, suggesting to me that a woman can do “quality work” and “receive promotions” while “wearing pants” in corporate America without becoming what’s worst about American men.
Comment by jimbob — November 3, 2009 @ 11:26 am
Wow Dan, not all in relationships in the “old tradition” are abusive, but most are? I wasn’t sure how I felt about WJ’s comment and then you said that, and completely proved him/her right. Living in SLC in a vary “old tradition” area the women who are not treated with the same level of respect with which they treat their husbands are very few and far between. You might say there is no way for me to really know that, and that’s true, but niether do you, and it discounts the deference with which I see husband’s treat their traditional wives all of the time.
I actually loved CJs comment, because feminism is so many things to so many people, and I have personally known women on both ends of the spectrum, from man-hating-penis-enviers (ooh, I’m starting a club with that name! After all, someone has to stand up to the chauvinist bastard Spanky and his He Man Woman Haters Club) to judgemental-stepford-ninnies. I don’t think either is a “straw man” because I have honestly met more than a few on both sides and every time I come across one I snuggle down right where I belong, in the middle.
Comment by Racy — November 3, 2009 @ 12:02 pm
I think one might be able to claim that women are more dissatisfied today than they were in prior generations. But satisfaction and happiness are not necessarily the same. Our grandmothers (or great-grandmothers) might not even have considered that they should have the same opportunities as men, that they could be defined by something other than their relationship to men and children, that they could be something other than “the little lady behind the man,” or that they had just as much right to decision making in a relationship as a man. When one is not consciously aware of a possibility, one tends to be more content with the options of which one is aware. But I think we can find plenty of evidence that just because women were content (resigned?) with their lot in life doesn’t mean that they were necessarily more happy. As Stephanie shrewdly pointed out, the widespread conception that women were happy in traditional roles and relationships is as least as much a part of deliberate PR and propaganda by those who benefited from the status quo as it is any objective measure.
Now that women are aware of alternatives, they are more likely to be dissatisfied with traditional constraints and relationships. But is that a bad thing? Dissatisfaction creates the motivation to change, to chart a new course, and to find what will bring real satisfaction and happiness. It’s no surprise that this doesn’t automatically result in happiness. Liberty never does. All liberty does it allow people the opportunity to pursue happiness. They may make the wrong choice, pursue the wrong thing. But when one is constrained to certain arbitrary options, one is pretty much guaranteed not to find happiness.
I think one other possible reason why research indicates women are more dissatisfied and men more satisfied/”happy” with the results of feminism is because the job of feminism is only half done (in a manner of speaking). I’m becoming more and more convinced that the work of feminism can never be complete without a corresponding revolution in the realm of masculinity. As was noted in the post by Shelah about Michael Chabon’s book, and as we’ve discussed in other recent threads (I believe Stephanie made some great observations about this as well, and Twisp’s #56 is great) the standard for fatherhood is abysmally low. Until there is a complete reeveluation and restructuring of the roles and perceptions of men to match feminism, no matter how much good feminism does, women will be put at a disadvantage.
As to service, I agree that service is a crucial part of happiness, and that we can bring an attitude of humility and service to most anything we do. I would submit, however, that once again the gender roles play a role in twisting this. Women are expected to be more service-oriented, and men are expected, in a manner of speaking, to be more selfish (the stereotype justifies them being more aggressive in pursuing more authority and reward, for example; an aggressive demanding businessman is admired, and a man who forthrightly asks for a promotion or raise is respected for being a “go-getter”). It should be no surprise that women are less satisfied with service when they feel coerced by social pressure to participate in service in ways their male counterparts are not.
Comment by Derek — November 3, 2009 @ 12:14 pm
Racy, I think Dan’s point, as I read it, is that the way spouses relate to each other, in what we’re calling “traditional” marriages, was abusive, not the ROLES that they filled. In other words, the man was seen as the head of the wife, able to command her, and she was expected to joyfully submit to him. Having one parent stay home while another works is not abusive. But having one partner dictate life for the other is.
Relationships where the man works and the woman stays home don’t by default have those abusive undertones, but they often did in the past. It’s not the roles, so much as the attitudes, that I think are the problem.
Comment by Natalie K. — November 3, 2009 @ 12:17 pm
Enna #80 - Just to clarify, I understand the gospel concept of losing oneself in order to find oneself, being buried with Christ in order to rise with Christ, etc., but I was attempting (perhaps unclearly) to point out exactly what you are saying, that this is not a concept which is confined to women. Women do not, as a gender, need to “lose themselves in service to others” in a way that men do not, in order to find happiness, fulfillment, or any of the things discussed on this thread. Jesus’ comments were meant for everyone, and have little to do with a discussion on women’s roles in society except insofar as they apply equally to everyone, regardless of gender.
Comment by Lorian — November 3, 2009 @ 12:30 pm
I guess the problem I have is in the difference between the words *often* and *most* when talking about relationships about which we know next to nothing.
Comment by Racy — November 3, 2009 @ 1:14 pm
Derek, this reminds me of a beautiful quote by Ursula K le Guin: “What she had begun to learn was the weight of liberty. Freedom is a heavy load, a great and strange burden for the spirit to undertake. It is not easy. It is not a gift given, but a choice made, and the choice may be a hard one. The road goes upward toward the light; but the laden traveler may never reach the end of it.”
Comment by de Pizan — November 3, 2009 @ 2:03 pm
Racy,
Natalie in #90 explained it how I see it.
Comment by Dan — November 3, 2009 @ 2:21 pm
Christian, my students have to create a Wikipedia page as part of their informative research unit. When you say something like, “some people say” (”some feminists say…”) without citing a source, Wiki calls it using “Weasel-Words.” If you can’t cite an *actual* person who is *actually* saying such a thing, your argument is reduced to an unsupported propagation of stereotypes, which is not only useless, it’s… well, weaselly. Like fmhLisa said (in this post or the last one I read…), it’s easy to argue against “straw-feminists.” It’s not terribly useful to *reality,* though.
Comment by Kerry — November 3, 2009 @ 3:12 pm
I’ve only had time to read about half the comments, so excuse me if I’m being repetitive .. .
I wonder what those who use these happiness numbers as a critique of feminism think of the numbers that show that childless women are significantly happier than mothers? Sorta undermines the argument that “traditional” womanhood is the key to happiness.
Also makes me wonder if to a certain extent “happiness” (whatever we mean by that) is beside the point. Of course I want to be happy, and I honestly think there is a distinct possibility that I would be happier without my kids, they are a lot of work, and pain, and a huge drain on my emotions and energy. But given the choice between my kids and “happiness” I’d still pick my kids.
Incidentally, given the choice between equality and “happiness “, I’d pick equality.
I remember reading something about these happiness numbers in Salon(?) a while back. I think someone has written a book on the subject lately, or something. I should find the link but I’ve got to get off the computer, but any how, I remember thinking that the poll results were compelling and disappointing and sad, I want to look into it further. It did seem to me though that the conclusions the author had drawn from the numbers were both over broad and based in some basic faulty assumptions.
Comment by fMhLisa — November 3, 2009 @ 4:38 pm
Yes! Bingo, Kerry! This is my point exactly!
Christian, you and I have gone round and round and round about this whole “board mentality” thing. If you have an issue with something someone says, you need to cite it. You have made a habit of discussing “this board” as if it is one monolithic thing with one perspective, and then saying how you disagree with something we say.
It is insulting. It is poor communication and poor debate. It puts words in our mouths we do not agree with or even understand where they’re coming from.
I know Derek, and he is one of the most responsible feminists I’ve ever met. If he is your best example of this behavior, then you have misread his point. And that shows another problem with divorcing actual statements from your references. No one has any way of going back to what you’re talking about to see if there was a miscommunication. They just have to take your word that somebody said what you say they said.
I think you’ll agree after our marathon discussion that someone else can’t be entrusted to get your point right. Assumptions happen, misreading happens, particularly on the internet - tone is confusing.
You need to interact with what is actually happening on a thread or have some links to back things up. Coming in and making a statement like that “some people….” or “this board….” will no longer be tolerated.
Comment by Reese Dixon — November 3, 2009 @ 4:58 pm
Reese #97 - Good point, Reese. Wherever possible I always try to cite the post # and poster’s name to which I’m responding in my comment. Maybe this would be helpful to you, Christian, or helpful to those who might otherwise misunderstand your comments.
Comment by Lorian — November 3, 2009 @ 5:01 pm
CJ (81) and a couple of others referred to women - specifically in law school - who try to act like men and are thereby letting down the sisterhood. After three years in law school and about 9 years in practice, I have observed all types of women lawyers. And yes, some dress like men and tend to act like men but I don’t always attribute this to their brand of feminism. I believe it is more a bi-product of personality. Do you remember tomboys? I was one. I hated wearing skirts and dresses as a kid. I loved playing and watching sports and just plain got along better with boys than with girls.
Women are often in the damned if you do, damned if you don’t position of being viewed as too manly (loud, outspoken, opinionated, confident) if they act one way or too girly (quiet, frilly dresser, etc.) if they act another.
As a lawyer at a large law firm, I have sat through a number of seminars and discussions regarding women in the workplace that run the spectrum. When I was a junior associate we had a presentation wherein we were essentially told not to remind anyone that we were women with examples like “don’t talk about your kids” (no one had any) and don’t bring in baked goods that reinforce stereotypes. Turns out, that was a really bad place to work as a woman. More recently, a particularly interesting seminar discussed how many so-called male attributes such as assertiveness are viewed positively in men but the same attributes are view as a negative in women (ie, assertiveness = bitchy). I do not go looking for instances to cry sexism but I have encountered it. There is still inequality between the sexes in the legal field and many other professional fields for that matter. My natural personality is aggressive - a “red” personality if you will. That makes me a great lawyer but not the most “girly” of girls because I am neither meek nor submissive. I think the legal profession draws all types of personalities, but especially a lot of women who might be viewed as more “manly.”
This is long and a bit rambly and off topic but this hit a hot button with me.
Comment by soulfusion — November 3, 2009 @ 8:16 pm
Studies of happiness levels show that people who win the lottery are happier for a while, then they return to their baseline level of happiness.
see:
http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/01/09/the-secret-to-happiness/
That said, there are plenty of studies that show the perception of self determination is a significant predictor of happiness. Feminism has opened a lot of doors for women to make choices for themselves that were not available even 40 years ago when I was in university the first time. I, FWIW, am grateful for the changes, and happy for my options, and absolutely thrilled for my daughters, daughters-in-law and granddaughters who have choices I never dreamt women would get.
And Jo-my counsel-write, teach, stretch. I’m fairly certain you would not have received that invitation if you were not very well qualified. Your husband will find the [whatever] as soon as you quit finding it for him. Renegotiate the partnership. Privileged folk just have to give up some of that power sometime. If your son was treating your daughter like that, would you put up with it?
Comment by Karen — November 3, 2009 @ 8:31 pm
[…] survey findings that American women are less happy now than women were 30 or 40 years ago drew criticism from the feminist bloggernacle. The MT author, well aware of the biases of both her readers and her […]
Pingback by Feminism, Sex, and Happiness « Course Correction — November 3, 2009 @ 9:10 pm
I found that many of the examples of sexism I have seen (under 30 used to be in academia, but now a happy sahm who never wants to go back to academia) are not straight out sexist. You just get this feeling and believe it is, but there is no actual proof. Like how of the last 7 faculty hires, 6 were men. Well, at the interview stage, half of those interviewed were females and the staff could tell gender from names, so obviously it was not a gender thing. Each woman just had something lacking in her that was apparent during the interview- like a lack of leadership ability or didn’t seem enthusiastic enough or committed enough or was too nice to enforce discipline in a lab, etc. And the dept chair and dean of science are both woman, so obviously sexism couldn’t be part of it. And yet, as I listened to people discuss the candidates and saw the end results, all I could think was, I think what the female candidates lacked were penises. But how can you convince people of that when nothing is stated directly and tone can hardly be subejctively measured?
Comment by Tami — November 3, 2009 @ 9:34 pm
In skimming over the comments, I had missed that Christian had referenced me.
re: 71
I would be curious as to what I specifically said. I remember asserting that we should eliminate the various double standards in which women are condemned more for certain behaviors than men typically are in society, and I may have insisted that society should embrace and value the feminine traits and values which are often derided in men. But I’ve never suggested we celebrate negative behaviors in women to bring some sort of balance.
Comment by Derek — November 4, 2009 @ 9:40 am
I think people (male and female) have the best chance at happiness when:
1) they find things they like doing and learn to be good at them.
2) they spend most of their time in supportive environments
where their partners,coworkers, families or others appreciate their
work, acknowledge their contributions, and praise their efforts.
3) when they ask for help they get it, and don’t feel they must be alone in their struggles.
4) they understand that into every life comes some periods
of just plain old hard slogging. So, they don’t dwell on the hard
times, but push through them with confidence that better days will come.
5) they try to be nice to each other. It’s amazing how “catching” such behavior is.
6) they work at letting go of resentments. We can’t, it seems, avoid them, but we can release ourselves from them as fast as possible.
7) they learn to laugh or at least chuckle. A lot.
I don’t think happiness has anything to do with labels. It has a lot to do with empowerment.
Comment by Betty Jo — November 4, 2009 @ 11:01 am
This is only one example, but comparing myself with my mother-in-law, I am a much happier person at the same stage that she was in 25 years ago and I think so much of that has to do with the equality in marriage that my husband and I have that she didn’t have in her marriage. My husband remembers his mom crying all the time and being so upset with his dad, but not feeling like she could confront him because he was the “head of the household.” She felt powerless. He wasn’t abusive or mean, just unwilling to try to understand her needs because she was a subordinate to him. But my husband and I are feminists and have a much healthier relationship because we are equals. And even now, I believe she would be much happier if she had been able to develop a career and an identity separate from her family because she’s suffering from empty-nest syndrome and still just follows along with everything her husband wants, even though she has her own wishes. The frustrating thing for me is that even though she voices those wishes, he blows them off and she is still powerless. So, I don’t know, I can’t really fathom why someone could say feminism itself has caused women to be less happy. It just doesn’t compute.
I totally agree.
Oh, man, I have 3 daughters now and I definitely get envy when we are at the park and suddenly, legs are crossed and hands are clasped and she swears she didn’t have to go 5 minutes ago, but we have a 20 minute walk home and “I’m not going to make it!” Little boys can go anywhere, but my little girls would rather pee their pants than squat behind a bush. This one little detail is the only thing that really upsets me about the differences between the sexes and makes me think life is unfair.
Well, that and painful periods monthly for 30 years. Everything else, I’m cool with. It was funny because recently I was talking to my MIL about the Left Hand of Darkness and how cool it would be to be able to experience both maleness and femaleness and be a mother and father and my FIL just about had a panic attack when she agreed and he said that he has never ever ever wondered what it would be like to be a woman. It just really made me sad for him. And for her.
Comment by jen — November 4, 2009 @ 2:18 pm
Some feminists are men, duh!
#102You said:
Unfortunately women are passed up for promotion all too often. We have along way to go to overcome our sexist past.
I am a man, and I consider myself a feminist. I also would say that things are getting worse not better for the feminist movement. I also happen to think we as a society have a long way to go towards understanding gender.
And, it seems as a church, at times we are unfortunately fostering some of the social creation of gender.Does Christ want a dichotomous church?
I don’t happen to see gender as a dichotomy. I also don’t happen to see in the Biblical teachings of Christ any teachings/lessons about the social creation of gender do you?
Comment by S — November 5, 2009 @ 11:11 am
This thread specifically asks for our thoughts on a particular topic. Like Lorian, whenever possible I cite the discussion number. But here, the relevant discussions that come to mind have occurred over more than a year, and some of them involved rather inflammatory arguments that I didn’t think anyone wanted resurrected here.
I also think that it was very clear that I was not referencing feminism or this board as a single monolithic whole.
Comment by Christian — November 6, 2009 @ 10:55 am
I retract my comments in #106, I didn’t mean to be inflammatory if it came out that way. I am interested in understanding gender, and I don’t think there is a polarized way to define it is all. I think men need to become less socialized towards agression. My comments probably didn’t fit in too well for this thread. I’m sorry.
Comment by s — November 8, 2009 @ 4:23 pm
[…] mfranti over at feminist Mormon housewives called attention to a little article in the mormon times which begins by asserting that feminism tacitly implies […]
Pingback by post-gender: on having it all and happiness, too « The Exponent — November 16, 2009 @ 2:13 am