It may come as a surprise to some to read that men are now happier than women. Scientific research is showing that the feminist revolution has appeared to yield depressing results. Two studies in particular indicate that perhaps we haven’t “Come along way, baby!”
It comes as no surprise that the reaction of the media is to uphold feminist values. According to a NY Times article, the real problem isn’t that women are finding their “equal” roles aren’t making them happy, it’s really that men aren’t pulling their fair share. However, a closer look reveals:
On average, women are less happy with their marriage than men and women have become less happy with their marriage over time. However, men have also become less happy with their marriage over time and thus, the gender gap in marital happiness has been largely stable over time.
It is interesting to juxtapose these trends in satisfaction in work and family life with time use data describing the commitment of men and women to the domestic and market spheres. Robinson and Godbey (1999) show that women decreased the time they spent each week doing housework and childcare by more hours between 1965 and 1985 than they increased their hours in the labor force. During the same period, men’s hours doing housework and childcare rose by 4 hours. Between 1985 and 2000, fathers continued to increase their time doing housework and childcare, while mothers’ time doing housework continued to decrease. Women still do more household labor than men, but they have been doing less every decade. ~ Stevenson & Wolfers, pg. 72
Similarly, Alan Krueger, Professor of Economics and Public Affairs at Princeton University, recently completed the study Are We Having More Fun Yet? which focuses on categorizing and evaluating changes in time allocation for men and women using historical data collected from 1965 through 2005. The study reports:
For men, however, there has been a gradual shift away from activities that are associated with unpleasant feelings, primarily because of a downward trend in paid work and an upward trend in more “affectively neutral downtime” activities, such as “relaxing/doing nothing” and watching television. For women, a decrease in household chores has been accompanied by an increase in market work and in time spent in neutral downtime activities. ~Krueger, pg. 12 (emphasis mine)
By these accounts women spend less time at home doing “mundane” household chores and more time outside of the home in the workplace. Meanwhile, men have picked up some of the slack and simultaneously increased their leisure time. It would seem that women should be rejoicing over their escape from domesticity.
Yet trends in self-reported subjective well-being indicate that women are less happy today than they were in the 1970s.This finding of a decline in women’s well-being, both absolutely and relatively to that of men, raises questions about whether modern social constructs have made women worse off, or alternatively about the interpretability of subjective well-being data analyzed over long-time periods. ~Stevenson & Wolfers, pg. 20
Perhaps these trends relate to findings that report from 1965-66 to 2005, working-age American women increased the amount of time spent working for pay, watching television, and caring for adults while they reduced the amount of time spent cooking, cleaning, entertaining friends and reading books (Krueger, pg. 2.) However, the decreasing happiness of women has been found to effect more than the working-age woman.
Turning to the more specific questions, the common thread appears to be that 12th grade girls increasingly find themselves to be under time pressure, with both absolute and relative declines in reported satisfaction with “time for doing the things you want”, “the way you spend your leisure time”, and “the amount of fun you are having”. Interestingly, there is also a substantial decline in the proportion of these young women reporting satisfaction with “friends and people you spend time with.” The only domain in which girls experienced an absolute increase in well-being is in satisfaction with their personal safety. ~Stevenson & Wolfers, pg. 4
Both studies indicate that women have become increasingly unhappy with their current roles in society. Apparently, women young and old are no longer doing the things that result in personal satisfaction in their own lives. Despite the “progress” in decreasing the glass ceiling of wage gaps, educational attainment, fertility control, improvements in technological changes in domestic appliances, and more freedom in the market sphere, women are not any happier. Instead, career-women, failing marriages, neglected children, unkempt homes and general unhappiness are the hallmarks of feminism.
Ah, the wonders of hedonism.
Women have given up a lot in exchange for money.
It does make me sad to see so many women driving themselves in 15 different directions just because they can.
Some of this “progress” is actual progress, though, of the increasing-individual-freedom kind. I get to be a contributing member of society, and be financially stable, all my own little self, without depending on some guy wanting to marry me or a hefty inheritance from rich parents. I think this is relatively awesome, and feminism has had some part to play in this.
“I get to be a contributing member of society, and be financially stable, all my own little self, without depending on some guy wanting to marry me or a hefty inheritance from rich parents.”
Guess what though, Ardith? You can do that! You don’t need a career to do it, and you can do it even if you’re married. I am a contributing member of society and I am a stay-at-home mom of 2 kids under the age of 4. I do all the work for them that a daycare worker would be doing if I had a career, and I’m doing a better job of it too. Am I contributing less to society than she is, simply because I’m not earning cash for doing it? My hours are sure longer than hers! lol I also do all the work that a Merry Maid would be doing to my home if I was working and needed to hire a maid. I am a vital part of the economy of 1 family. The hand that rocks the cradle rules the world. It’s true! As for financially stable, I can do that from home as well. There are many jobs a woman can do from her home. Did you know that you can earn over $100,000 per year by helping other women sell Avon? Please don’t make the mistake of thinking that the only way you can be a valuable member of society is by having a career. It’s not true!
As for being dependent on a man, it’s a two-way street. I couldn’t get by without my husband’s income. But he depends on me too. He couldn’t get by if I wasn’t here to cook, clean, manage our home, and raise our children. He would be up a creek without a paddle. We depend on each other. And it’s not degrading, as the feminists might have you think! It is liberating, wonderful, romantic even. We cherish each other and there’s no feeling like it.
Er, I wasn’t really trying to put down marriage, honest.
See, here’s the thing: I haven’t yet met anyone I have any desire to marry.
All I was trying to point out is that despite that fact, it’s possible for me to take care of myself and can even help out others (say, my family) should they fall into hard times or something.
That would be a lot harder if I couldn’t get an education or own property.
In fact, I may not ever marry, for all I know. Not out of some hatred of marriage or ‘fear of living a degraded life’ or some such. It’s just a possibility that I may end up not ever getting married. Or I might get married and lose my husband in a horrific car accident. I just can’t know. In the end, I’m safer and happier knowing I can take care of myself.
But I really, really wasn’t trying to put down anybody who’s married, or say that marriage is not wonderful in its own way.
I guess it just goes to show, ladies….be careful what you wish for. You just might get it.
*laughs* Yes, this is true. Isn’t God good?
Ardith, I think that V for me is not taking issue with your stand on marriage. Your first comment seemed to imply that a woman can only contribute to society if she is getting a pay check. I think that is what V was reacting to.
By the way, the right to employment was not something gained for women by feminist. Poor women have always had to work. This was true in my own family. Due to an abusive, drunken husband, my grandmother had to support her children by herself. She worked various jobs including farm work, assembly line worker, and housemaid. This was in the forties, fifties and sixties. Her own mother-my great grandmother-was a midwife, farmer’s wife and occasional mill worker. My great, great grandmother was also a midwife and herbalist who was politely called, ‘Dr.’ because she was often the closest medical care giver in her rural community.
Here’s my problem with this… could it be that people of both genders are increasingly unsatisfied with their actual jobs? I’ve watched my mother and father work in fields the disliked, places they loathed, with very unpleasant people. Every night it was the same thing, they’d argue, always ending with something like “look, I’ve had a bad day at work and I just don’t have the patience to deal with you.” It’s little wonder they got frustrated and got divorced.
As a contrast, both my wonderful husband and I love our jobs. We have both decided that we’d rather have a more modest income and be satisfied with what we do for a living. Never once have we had the arguments, the strife that my parents experienced. We come home, laugh about our days, and our coworkers, and have a nice night together, usually while I do the laundry, dust, etc.
It’s not women in the workplace as far as I’m concerned, it’s people in the wrong workplace. We have traded money for happiness, and it has ruined our homelives in general.
At least, that is my humble opinion.
“It’s not women in the workplace as far as I’m concerned, it’s people in the wrong workplace. ” [Shannan]
Shannan, you made a good point, but you worded it such as is the modern day, ‘feministic’ manner. You gave no option outside the workplace. Your statement assumes all women would find happiness within the workplace rather that with their children.
While bearing their children, (both theirs and the children’s fathers) mothers cannot help but develop a strong, irreplaceable bond with them. Even if never intended, nor planned, this bond is often where their hearts dwell. Society, however, has and continues to endoctrine young women and girls that this ‘bond’ is merely a result of the ‘oppressions’ of males on them. That men have made them to ‘believe’ they want to be with their children. When in reality they want to be in the workplace.
Ah, please forgive me, as far as I’m concerned, the home IS a workplace. Work is work. There are probably many women in offices right now wishing they were at home with their children, and possibly many women at home wishing they were in an office. It’s the same thing, the wrong place to be is the wrong place to be, and an unhappy environment is simply toxic.
Forgive me if I sound as though I’m instigating or “trolling”, but why should we feel no guilt for putting our own happiness above the happiness of OUR OWN children? Which child would not feel happier around his mother? Is not the absence of mothers intoxicating their children? Now, don’t misunderstand me. I emphasize the mother because the bond between a child and his mother generally trumps any other bond. Even that between him and his father. I also believe fathers need to be with their families. How can a man be the “head” if he is never with the “body”? Nonetheless, based on your emphasis on happiness, mothers being with their children is all the more crucial.
Personally, I was happiest NOT around my mother. Not abuseive or anything, just annoying. I have always considered my parents’ divorce the best thing that ever happened to me, it stopped the fighting and I adore my step-parents. Of course, I’m very very independent, always have been. I even went so far as to refuse to take my husband’s name or even share a bank account, although he doesn’t mind either in the slightest.
Firstly, Shannan, now you are simply being biased. YOU are not all children. Besides, part of your resentment with your parents is based on my last point. Your parents disputing in front of you was a perfect example of parents putting their happiness before that of their children. Had they put your happiness first, they would have minded their actions and words in front of you. Perhaps, your resentment against your mother would not be.
Secondly, any resentment you have against your mother does not contest my point. The bond I spoke of is that between the “innocent, ignorant” child and his mother. If your mother did every thing she could to wedge that bond, then that is another topic. This bond I speak of is the default bond. No child hates his mother by birth. However, it is not uncommon for children to be startled or uncomfortable with others. Even their own fathers. A bond between a child and others must tighten or loosen AFTER birth. A bond between a child and his mother only tightens BEFORE birth.
Thirdly, your ‘independence’, (despite the urge you have to boast of it) is irrelevant to the topic at hand. Children in both bonded and loose homes can grow to be strong and independent. However, it is a statistical fact that children mimic the behavior of their parents. From smoking, to eating, to working, to abuse, to divorce, to faith, etc… Although you have made it a point to be happy whereas your parents were not, your’s is the rare case. You cannot live in a bubble where you think your outcome MUST be the norm. Your outcome is anything but.
Well, you’re probably right (I simply shouldn’t check message boards on a bad day). I have a weird view towards subjects like this, I get very upset when people appepar to imply that the workplace isn’t a ‘natural’ place for women, or some such a theory. Since I don’t adhere to biblical ideals, I find it a little odd that women would want to stay home. I guess I just have an idea that people would be happier in a good workplace than in a good home.
I understand and respect your point, Shannan. Unlike many “Christians”, I do not live in a vacuum. I understand that not everyone was raised in Christianity. Just as I wasn’t raised in Islam, Atheism, or Secularism.
However, if I may, the modern ‘workplace’ isn’t natural for males nor females. Even further, without having to refer to any religion, it is not natural for children to be without their mothers. Looking throughout all nature, (with few exceptions such as sea horses) mothers play a vital, crucial, irreplaceable role in the social lives of children. Whereas fathers’ role, though arguable as important, tend to be more monetary and abstract. Even within most peculiar special societies, (such as that of hyenas) where the female dominates, mothers still hold dear to their roles as nurturers of their young.
For this reason, I struggle to comprehend how even the non-religious cannot perceive the mother’s vital role in the social lives of children. Secularists most often claim to respect science above religion. Yet, science bares witness of the social roles of males and females as boldly and consistently as any religion and/or faith.
That’s a GREAT point about the workplace not being natural for either gender. It’s strange how we as a society have backed ourselves into a corner isn’t it?
I suppose I do hold an ‘abnormal’ view on motherhood, which I’m sure will change when/ if I ever have children. I do currently have a stepdaughter and I see some difference in myself becauseof it.
I would like to make clear that I really am enjoying this conversation. (I promise I’m not trolling) I enjoy things like this because they broaden one’s view, for better or worse
What do you mean when you say the modern workplace is not natural? What’s unnatural about it? Work is a natural, biblical part of being human. Men were created to work. Is there something about the modern workplace in particular (air conditioned office buildings? cubicles?) that is unnatural? Would we all be better off if we went back to family farms?
Jew, when I spoke of “modern workplace” I was including our work habits/practices. For instance, we (specifically Western World members) are of the few, (if not only) in all of nature which will leave our children, (for hours a day) with an unproven stranger. All other species leave their young (only when absolutely necessary) with a sister, mother, aunt, or proven friend. We are also of the few which put career goals before children. Most other species, (specifically the females) put their young before all, and only leave them when necessary. In all bluntness, it’s quite sad when supposedly less intelligent species are more loyal and nurturing toward their young than us.
You may possibly want to be more specific than “all other species,” given the rather shocking number of animal species which will eat their own young, if given half a chance.
Hmm. I’m not sure how legitimate it is to assume ideal human behavior can be extrapolated by looking at animals. As mammals we have many things in common with other mammals, particularly with apes, but there are considerable differences too.
I get what you’re saying about leaving children in the care of strangers. I believe it’s best for children to be cared for and raised by the family, not by hired helpers. On the other hand, I think it’s quite natural for one parent to work outside the home. And throughout human history that has been a necessity, has it not?
Ardith, you are right about the various species that will eat their young. However, most of these cannibals tend to be the males. Such as lions and gators. Further, notice how you stated “given half a chance”. Often times the female/s prevent (as best as they can) the male from eating their young. Yet, through abortion, over 40 million of our young are killed without restraint. Even these same cannibalistic animals do not have funded, organized baby killing.
Jew, I understand your point that many species have practices that should not be considered positive examples to us. All the more, it is shameful when beastly, instinctive animals still are more cautious with their young than us.
Man Id Unknown, what would you say the natural human home would look like? Would it be a nuclear family (man, wife, kids) or an extended family with all sorts of aunts and uncles and grandparents and so forth? Would anyone work outside the home? I’m curious to know.
Man Id Unknown: “Even these same cannibalistic animals do not have funded, organized baby killing.”
That’s because they’re animals. They can’t fund anything because they’re too stupid to invent money. They’re too stupid to organize themselves. Some of them are even stupid enough to eat their own poo.
Jew, my point about the “natural” family was to emphasize that even in nature there is consistency in male and female practices. Not as much with males (although somewhat) but much more with females. Despite the peculiar practices found in any animal society, by far, mothers are the most vital, detrimental influence on children. Therefore, it isn’t only religion or faith that shows a preference or guidance for male and female roles in society. Even scientific study into animal practices would show the same preferences.
Yes, these animals, (compared to humans, perhaps) are ’stupid’. However, that is my point. Why isn’t this point so obvious? These “stupid” beasts are more loyal to their children than many of us “intelligent” beings.
It is so typical for those who are always claiming science is superior to religion/faith to act so ignorant of scientific studies of nature when convenient. Anyone who has a minute knowledge of the animal kingdom would see a consistent pattern in male and female roles. As I mentioned in another comment, even in certain animal societies where the females dominate, (such as hyena and various primates) the females are still the dominant caregivers. So even if one is the most anti-religious, secularist, atheistic one can possibly be, he would have to reason “Hmmm, if after billions of years amongst thousands of species there are highly consistent male and female roles, there must be a wisdom, logic, or benefit behind this.”
Regarding the “unnatural” state of the workplace… I was referring more to the scope and the situation of the workplace. Human beings initially worked for a direct result (i.e. farming to get food, making items to trade for food, shelter, etc). We have gotten to the point where there are SO many jobs to be done, so many things we must buy from our paychecks, etc. It’s the same old cry about technology, complicated lives, etc. (Of course, I say this not absolutely, as I LOVE my job, and nothing could tear me away from working.) But as I said, we have backed ourselves into a corner as a society, and I stand by that…
As for the natural/ unnatural argument regarding child rearing that has been introduced, I tend to think that humans over-nuture their young. After a point a child is not helpless, can take care of themselves to a point, and can be ‘left with a stranger’ and be perfectly fine. We hang on to our young much longer than other species do, rather than espousing the ‘you can do it yourself, so do it yourself, here, let me push you out of the nest now’ idea of parenting.
And as far as I’m concerned (here comes the feminist in me) we still over-emphasize gender roles. Many dads are better parents than mothers.
Shannan, I agree with you ‘workplace’ assessment. The workplace has become more about over-reaching than necessity. However, your view on children’s independence is dangerous.
You seem to be too naive of the ’strangers’ in this world, and the speed at which children mature. This is why STDs, teen pregnancy, drug use, rape, and single mothers are at historical highs. The youth need the experience of the elder. The notion that “children can fend for themselves younger than most think” has greatly been disproved over the last 40/50 years. Most just keep defending this careless, ridiculous notion, because the only other alternative is more time minding one’s own children. GOD forbid that should happen.
Lastly, your views on parenting are still on the feministic mentality of “men vs women”. Which you call “gender roles”. When did parenting stop being about the child? Childish “boy vs girl” competitions should stay in elementary school. When it comes to parenting, children ought to be the focus of all discussions. Parenting shouldn’t revolve around the parents’ careers, goals, or happiness, but the child’s needs and happiness.
Regarding the “unnatural” state of the workplace… I was referring more to the scope and the situation of the workplace. Human beings initially worked for a direct result (i.e. farming to get food, making items to trade for food, shelter, etc). We have gotten to the point where there are SO many jobs to be done, so many things we must buy from our paychecks, etc. It’s the same old cry about technology, complicated lives, etc. (Of course, I say this not absolutely, as I LOVE my job, and nothing could tear me away from working.) But as I said, we have backed ourselves into a corner as a society, and I stand by that…
The workplace has become more about over-reaching than necessity.
Yes, it’s a real shame that the workplace has become so complicated and over-reaching that we now have much greater choice of work and opportunity to use our brains at our jobs.
Man I’d Unknown…
By ’strangers’ I was referring, of course, to professional caregivers, not simply other people.
As for my parenting ideals, that is why children are a very very distant goal for my husband and myself (with the exception of his 16yr old daughter, who was a bit of an “oops” when he was 16) But I will work when I have children, and they will be in daycare. Then in public schools, I think that it’s very important for children to get an idea of what the world is like outside their own universe. Our intent with my step-girl is to make sure she knows how much there is, to introduce her to diversity, to make sure she knows that people of other races, religions and sexualities are not to be feared or hated. I think the best way to do that is to send the child out.
And I suppose I do have some feminist leanings, but the more I see in this world, the less desire I have to be stuffed into one of those boxes which women have been rotting in for centuries because people are trying to hold to some crazy ideal that we should be at home.
PS- to Sharon… don’t get me wrong, I like the choice of careers/ brain use at jobs (if i didn’t have to think at my job I’d set my desk on fire)… I simply meant that some jobs seem to be created for the purpose of, well… creating a job (middle management.. haha) We could have the challenge and such without the crazy 80 hr weeks that some people find themselves in.
Shannan said: “I tend to think that humans over-nuture their young. After a point a child is not helpless, can take care of themselves to a point, and can be ‘left with a stranger’ and be perfectly fine. We hang on to our young much longer than other species do, rather than espousing the ‘you can do it yourself, so do it yourself, here, let me push you out of the nest now’ idea of parenting.”
I’m an old woman, with grown kids, and I’d have to say that I am probably the kind of person you are thinking of. (Well, maybe not entirely, since I did put my preschoolers in the daycare provided at my workplace for short stretches. And then, they did go to public schools. And they did go to university out of state.) But I was (and really, still am) very involved in my kids’ lives. I was a very mothering mother, always up at their schools, always checking their homework, always talking to them whether they liked it or not. Oh the other hand, I did try to encourage them to be responsible by “forcing” them to get part time jobs cleaning toilets, to do their own laundry, to learn how to speak to other adults, etc. I tried to help them become independent, but at no point did I really push them out of the nest.
But my point–sorry, I’m blathering–is that I did hang on to my kids for as long as I really could, but I did it because I just plain like them so much. Maybe lower animals aren’t quite as fond of their offspring once they grow up.
I suppose that depends on the parent. My mother was not very fond of having children, she felt like she was cornered into it, and that mouch exposure would have killed me. Although any exposure to any parent that long would have been too much for me. We enjoy Jules, my husband’s daughter very much, and always have. But as she got older, she pushed her parents away in favor of learning things on her own and making her own choices, and at that point, I think parents should back away.
Jews and chivalry destroyed woman. Now woman destroys us.
I’m surprised that people were so patient with an obvious feminist shill like Shannan. Yes Shannan, please don’t have children, lest you pass on your crazy gene. Obviously she hasn’t absorbed wise counsel here and just wants to reinforce the feminist model, ever not so subtly. Her revealing that she had a strained relationship with her parents just supports the idea that without strong parental bonds, people are unhappy and society is unstable. Talking with women like Shannan about these issues is largely useless and beyond their grasp. Just ignore them.
Women need to be told what to do without discussion. Reasoning with them is a waste of time. Men need to pick from the small group of women left who have not been spoiled by feminism, who actually listen to and respect men. Men have to stop being cowardly and selfish and act like real men with moral authority.
Yes, ML, the Jews are destroying us. They’ve stolen our money(central bank), corrupted our women and, now that we are weak, race mixing will finish us off. But at least we know why, unlike most lemmings.
I like to read these boards because I am trying to understand a positive, loving, Christian path. Thanks for reminding me why I left. Perhaps I’ll become a Jew instead.
You could adopt an online screen name that vaguely implies some level of Jewishness, as I have. It’s like being a Jew, except not at all. I highly recommend it.
Wow, this site sure has been attracting all types recently.
Some of them are obviously satire.