What Feminists Want For Women And What Women Actually Want For Themselves
They are often two very different things.
Christina Hoff Sommers writes in the WaPo about how out of touch feminism is with so many real women:
Feminism needs to take women as they are, not as it wishes they would be. In a 2013 poll, Pew asked American mothers about their "ideal" working arrangement. Sixty-one percent said they would prefer to work part-time or not at all. Catherine Hakim, a sociologist at the London School of Economics, found similar preferences among Western European women. As journalist Tina Brown said, "There are more tired wives who want to be Melania sitting by the pool ... than there are women who want to pursue a PhD in earnest self-improvement." When women want the "wrong" things, feminists tend to write it off to entrenched sexism and internalized misogyny. But it's 2016, not 1960. Why not credit women with free will and respect their choices?
I don't want to be a housewife or a mom. (The only way I'm having kids is if one breaks into my house and hides for a few hours.)
However, I understand that this is what's fulfilling for a lot of women, and I think that Christina Hoff Sommers is exactly right in pointing out this realistic picture of what women want from Pew.
They don't want this stuff because of sexism -- they want it in spite of feminism. Because women evolved to be the mothers of the species, and physiology and the psychology that ensues are major drivers behind what women want.
Sure, there are individual differences (like in how I don't want to be a mom and really can't even be bothered to "cook" anything that takes more than a flop in a pan or a push of a couple of buttons on the microwave).
But we have evolved sex differences, and despite Lawrence Summers being met with a witch burning for floating that notion, they drive our choices down often-predictable male-female lines.
I am a housewife and a mom. And I love it. And I am a feminist. I am not sitting by a pool (though I do take the kids to the pool sometimes), I am taking a break from making phone calls for getting things in place for our upcoming sabbatical.
One thing that a lot of people, including some feminists, forget to consider is that womens' work is considered less valuable in many cultures, regardless of what that work is, not because it is not important work, but because it is done by women. We see this in hunter gatherer societies where women provide the vast majority of the food, but it is less celebrated than the contributions of the male hunters. We see this in developed societies where fields that were predominantly female and low status become higher status when more males work in them, (such as computer programming), and the reverse, where fields lose status when women start being the majority (as in some biology fiends).
When it comes to SAHPs, because this is work traditionally done by women, it has less value. At the same time, though, people complain about helicopter parenting and kids not being allowed to play outside any more. Well, back in the day when there were more adults at home instead of empty houses, kids ran around outside more. This is a societal change that appears to be a direct result of the loss of this work.
In addition, a lot of SAH spouses provide elder care. Imagine if all the people who look after the elderly for free didn't any more, what would that do for insurance premiums?
There are also personal benefits. Being able to do my grocery shopping and errands during the week. Being there for the meter guys and chimney sweeps. Being there with my kids and doing stuff with them.
But I would encourage people to reconsider the role and worth of traditional womens' work.
Remember, it is not that women are forced to do it because it is low status. It is low status because it is associated with us. This needs to change.
NicoleK at December 6, 2016 1:36 AM
Back in the 70s and 80s, I imagined the second wave of feminism. Boy, was I wrong! I imagined flexible workweeks and shorter hours for both men and woman so that both could have a more balanced life and be there for the children. I imagined great preschools and one parent off in the mornings while the other had afternoons off. Families would have more free time and a better income.
It seems to be the opposite. More people in the wirkfirxe translates to more competition and people working more hours. Parents can't make it on one income anymore. Movement is going one way. Woman are working more but it is rare to see the push by men to get the benefits of the traditional woman.
Jen at December 6, 2016 4:34 AM
"(The only way I'm having kids is if one breaks into my house and hides for a few hours.)"
Now I know what to get Amy for Christmas. Mwahahaha!
Ben at December 6, 2016 5:30 AM
1. Most feminists that talk down to SAHMs do not have a life. w/o that "superiority" they have nothing.
2. Jen, creating a "family" environment (earning money, taking care of everyone, etc.) has never been easy. Your "I thought it would be different ..." says more about youthful thinking and media driven falsehoods than it does about society. You were fooled by being told what you wanted. No one living in reality ever said it would be easy.
3. Excluding really dumb stupid idiotic boy/men, no one (excluding young and professional feminists) thinks Moms are unimportant or that's it best for them to go at it alone (See Dan Quayle comments about Murphy Brown and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Negro_Family:_The_Case_For_National_Action ).
Bob in Texas at December 6, 2016 5:33 AM
You misunderstood human nature Jen. The generation of wealth is a status marker and a secondary sexual characteristic in most men. So men end up working less when either they've given up on ever having sex again or when they have enough wealth that more generates insignificant gains.
You also have the problem with female hypergamy. Women want men who they view as superior to themselves. So when women enter the workforce men have to work that much harder to maintain their relative status. If they don't then the women leave them. NicoleK is right that women's work is viewed as lower status. But that is a female driven phenomenon. Men don't really care. It is women that setup this dynamic.
You see this even in individual lives as well as society at large. When you have couple who 'equally share' the housework you have problems. When I vacuum half you vacuum half, I cook MWF you cook TThSa, et al you are getting a divorce. And she is initiating it.
Maybe not 100% of the time. But at least 95%.
Ben at December 6, 2016 5:43 AM
From 2011, in the Wall Street Journal (I posted this elsewhere - now, you have to subscribe to the WSJ to read it):
"Where Have The Good Men Gone?
"Kay S. Hymowitz (conservative) argues that too many men in their 20s are living in a new kind of extended adolescence."
A letter in response to Hymowitz:
"If a modern, successful woman wishes to know why men are such failures these days (“Where Have the Good Men Gone?,” Review, Feb. 19), perhaps she should look in the mirror.
"I’m a white male, heterosexual, Christian conservative Republican, Vietnam veteran, married 38 years with four kids. When I was young, we were supposed to get busy and stay busy, get part-time jobs, finish high school and, if qualified, go on to college and beyond. We were taught that it was our responsibility to take care of our families, which meant a wife and kids. All that began to change in the 1960s when women became “liberated” and were given equal access to what had been a man’s domain. Like it or not, there are only so many jobs to go around. Given quotas, young men in the workplace no longer had an even playing field.
"There are many other factors contributing to young men being overgrown post-pubescent losers: a lifetime of leftist, feminist indoctrination in the schools, a cheapening of the proper meaning of the male-female relationship and the suspension of the draft.
"Miss Kay S. Hymowitz (I hate that phony term 'Ms.') asks nothing of women, so let me do the job for her: When are women going to accept their God-given roles of being wives and mothers? Men and women are different; let’s keep it that way. Feminists may not like my prescription, but then again, they don’t like men from the get-go."
Andrew J. MacDonald, Fanwood, N.J.
(Me) I'm sure not most conservatives are this dense nowadays, but WHEN are the rest of them going to take off the blinders and acknowledge that even if every woman in the world WANTED to be a housewife, it would make not the slightest difference in the fact that if a housewife loses her husband (in any manner), she can't go down to the employment center and apply for a new one?? Don't men like Andrew care about that? Do they not care about their daughters' survival, for that matter?
lenona at December 6, 2016 7:04 AM
What modern feminists want is unearned power.
Stay-at-Home Moms represent a dynamic in which men go to work and are breadwinners. The SAHMs accept men in what the feminists consider the power position (modern feminists under value "women's work" too). Therefore, they are the enemy.
Notice how few modern feminists studied engineering or finance or mathematics, or any other complicated and demanding field. Yet they demand that the standards of these programs be lowered so the ratio of women studying them is higher.
Notice how few of them started in entry level positions in demanding fields. Modern feminists are not willing or able to climb the ladder. So, they write books and articles about a hypothetical glass ceiling keeping women (mostly them) from the top of the field instead of it being mere chance or even an inability to perform at the level required to reach the top, the same problem that keeps many men from reaching the boardroom. Nope, gotta be male patriarchy.
Jane Fonda was an actress. Gloria Steinem was a journalist. Hillary Clinton's degrees are in political science and law. Elizabeth Warren's degrees are in speech pathology and law (her ex-husband was an engineer). Barbara Boxer's degree is in economics; she worked as a stockbroker and a journalist. Naomi Wolf's degree is in English literature; she worked as a journalist. Susan Faludi was a journalist. Lots of journalists, but not a STEM graduate in the bunch.
Conan the Grammarian at December 6, 2016 7:18 AM
Not to mention that, in an overpopulated world, we HAVE to make room for the lifestyles of those who don't want children - and many men and women don't want to marry either, so it should be no surprise that it's somewhat harder for women to find mates who are willing to support would-be housewives or even part time housewives. In the same vein, there's a recent book by journalist Rebecca Traister: "All the Single Ladies: Unmarried Women and the Rise of an Independent Nation." She talks (in part) about single women as a political force.
From you-know-where:
"...Traister discovered a startling truth: the phenomenon of the single woman in America is not a new one. And historically, when women were given options beyond early heterosexual marriage, the results were massive social change—temperance, abolition, secondary education, and more.
"Today, only twenty percent of Americans are wed by age twenty-nine, compared to nearly sixty percent in 1960. The Population Reference Bureau calls it a 'dramatic reversal.' All the Single Ladies is a remarkable portrait of contemporary American life and how we got here, through the lens of the single American woman."
lenona at December 6, 2016 7:23 AM
Quoth Ben:
Sounds like an idea for a sitcom: Ten-year-old waif claims squatters rights in Amy's house, completely charms doggie and boyfriend, and on top of all that, she can cook, too!
Old RPM Daddy (OldRPMDaddy at GMail dot com) at December 6, 2016 7:53 AM
She's full of shit. 80% said full time or part time. 52% said part time or not at all. Also full time and part time in the upper echelons of working adults has a very different meaning than blue collar. Full time is usually closer to 60 hours. High end professionals is even higher. Lawyers are expected to work 90-100 hours. In some healthcare fields you are expected to be on call for extended periods. So you are "home" but not in any meaning full way. You could be doing an on location overnight. So sleeping but working at the same time. So in many professions a 40 hour week is part time. Oh and as these positions are generally salaried you don't get paid extra for more time it's simply expected.
The numbers are completely different for single moms. Which as a general rule fall into the lower tiers where money is a priority over quality time.
When a Doctor, corporate attorney or business women says part time she means 40-50 hour work week. I've lived in both the Greater NYC area and the greater Boston metro area. Both were the same.
I've seen better analysis from a drunk preschooler.
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2013/08/19/mothers-and-work-whats-ideal/
http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2013/05/29/breadwinner-moms/
walter at December 6, 2016 9:29 AM
lenona (remember this is not personal),
Your two posts simply repeat the feminist litany w/o acknowledging that the personal choices of many women are done freely.
You and feminists fail to grasp that men have nothing to do with what women choose to do. They can choose any field they want, go to any school they want, and, if they can get a job, are given an advantage over others for promotions.
That a large percentage choose to work in traditionally female jobs (nursing for example), get married, have children and ultimately SAH is their CHOICE.
SAHMs ACCEPT that this (SAH) is the best choice for their children. It is not a conservative's choice for them in today's world so it's their personal choice. It's been that way for centuries for very logical reasons and a conservative promoting those reasons does not negate them.
AFA the SAHM "replacing" her husband. That's the push for insurance (death/disability) purchases and those Moms that have none of the above start shopping for men ASAP if they are smart. (Government help is not a replacement husband for the smart ones.)
Church activities, Parents w/o Partners, and other social groups are a big deal to widows and widowers with kids. Dropping the kids off at the mall, with Grandma, or leaving them at home is acknowledged to a very poor second choice (unless you are a feminist?).
Welcome to the real world where most women can not tell Brad Pitt to take a hike because they do not like his parenting skills.
Bob in Texas at December 6, 2016 10:01 AM
Most men are happy to accept the role of bread-winner and even work overtime or 2 jobs. Women have to make a choice but which ever way they choose it seems they are unhappy about it. The sniping between SAHM and working moms never ends. Each thinks the other is wrong. And no woman wants to be the breadwinner--sure recipe for divorce.
cc at December 6, 2016 11:20 AM
In situations in which the wife is the primary or sole breadwinner, she has to give up the wife/mother role, and many women are unwilling or unable to too this.
A study I recently read about said that women who chose to be the primary breadwinner are happier in their marriages than women who inadvertently became the primary breadwinner.
Women interviewed for the article who were in the primary/sole breadwinner role reported finding themselves nitpicking the work their husbands did around the house, from how they loaded the dishwasher even to how they did traditional "guy" stuff like chopping wood or working on the car.
Guy Ritchie said of his divorce from Madonna, the primary breadwinner in their relationship, "that one's never satisfied."
One woman in the article said she never heard her father question how her mother ran the household, but she can't accept without comment anything her househusband does in running the household.
Another said she felt that every day when she closed the front door and went to work that she was turning her house over to someone incompetent to manage it.
A different article reported findings that many women resent their husbands when they get to spend more time around the children and often find critical fault with the husband's childrearing skills.
Conan the Grammarian at December 6, 2016 12:13 PM
Most men don't conceive that they will have a choice. I remember having lunch with three female coworkers and the topic of discussion was working and having children. Two of them had children, so the object of this question was the recently married third. She was asked if she would continue to work after she and her new husband had kids. She replied that she would.
When I pointed out that men are not asked that question and do not usually have a choice in the matter, they looked at me as if I'd grown an extra head and it was speaking in ancient Aramaic.
Conan the Grammarian at December 6, 2016 12:18 PM
Most men don't conceive that they will have a choice. ... When I pointed out that men are not asked that question and do not usually have a choice in the matter, they looked at me as if I'd grown an extra head and it was speaking in ancient Aramaic.
Huh? I've always known it was a choice, and for me a very poor one. If "most men" don't realize that, they haven't been paying attention.
Kevin at December 6, 2016 12:22 PM
Feminism is like communism.
Works in theory, but not in practice because it fails to account for human nature.
Isab at December 6, 2016 12:30 PM
> though I do take the kids to
> the pool sometimes...
Moms.
> When it comes to SAHPs, because
> this is work traditionally done
> by women, it has less value.
No, it has less value because nearly anyone can do it.
Look around you; Nearly anyone does. On Montana Avenue and every other wealthier neighborhood in our nation, parents hire inexperienced, uneducated workers who don't even speak the same language to raise their children... Only a tiny fraction of whom grow up to be serial killers.
Maybe it ain't that big a deal, so it pays less.
Crid at December 6, 2016 12:35 PM
NicoleK wrote:
At the same time, though, people complain about helicopter parenting and kids not being allowed to play outside any more. Well, back in the day when there were more adults at home instead of empty houses, kids ran around outside more. This is a societal change that appears to be a direct result of the loss of this work.
I think the societal change has little to do with parents at home and everything to do with modern parents' perception that the world at large is a malevolent force just waiting to kill or rape Mik'ayhla or Jaxxen.
Kevin at December 6, 2016 1:30 PM
Your two posts simply repeat the feminist litany w/o acknowledging that the personal choices of many women are done freely.
________________________________
I never said they weren't. (Within reason - see below.)
_________________________________
You and feminists fail to grasp that men have nothing to do with what women choose to do.
__________________________________
Not true. Men certainly DO have plenty of veto power when it comes to a woman's "choice" to become a housewife. This is only fair, of course. If a woman has her heart set on such a path in life but she can't convince anyone to marry her, she can't be a housewife - and that's HER problem. (It's probably also safe to say that middle-aged, never-married women who have worked as cleaners all their lives don't enjoy it, as a rule - and were not planning on such a life when they were young; housewives typically(?) want a better home lifestyle than what the average cleaner can afford.) Even if she DOES manage to marry, she can't necessarily find someone who can afford to support a housewife and a kid or two - and even rich men don't necessarily want a full-time housewife, for more than one practical reason.
On top of that, there is no shortage of women who have been harassed out of their jobs by angry, ruthless male co-workers - and who will tell anyone about it who wants to know. I call that influence. (Not that angry female workers who are afraid of losing their jobs to the new male or female co-workers can't be just as bad.)
And Tina Brown's comment "There are more tired wives who want to be Melania sitting by the pool ... than there are women who want to pursue a PhD in earnest self-improvement" is annoyingly vague. There's a big difference between being tired of working hard at a menial job while dreaming of being rich and relatively idle, and being tired of a very skilled job that you really love on some level. You can't lump them together.
And if Walter is right in his comment, well, that makes C.H.S. look a bit suspicious, at least.
lenona at December 6, 2016 1:52 PM
Good point, Kevin, but I think it's just as likely that parents are afraid on some level that when the neighbors' kids are all indoors or in their back yards, playing video games, it's a bad idea to make their own kid roam outdoors without a game device OR an adult, since 1) there won't be any other kids to call/run for help if the kid gets hit by a car, and 2) it's often the bored, lonely kids who get in trouble with the law - such as petty vandalism, for starters. Parents have a growing need to be able to say "I KNOW my kids didn't do it; I can tell you who was watching them at that time!"
So to keep kids out of trouble, away from video games, and to get them the exercise they need, parents now have to put them in adult-supervised activities - and pay the adults as well. Sad. Giving kids their own free-range, uncoached baseball field isn't enough to tempt kids away from electronics.
lenona at December 6, 2016 2:02 PM
lenona, "Men certainly DO have plenty of veto power when it comes to a woman's "choice" to become a housewife."
No real examples in your post but of course marriage requires that both parties understand and agree on what comes first.
The job and all its requirements, other family expectations, religious needs, as well as adult behavior expectations (do you swing or not).
of course Hillary and many other women have had to decide to stay married despite their husband's unexpected juvenile behavior. Men make the same choice for different reasons.
So in a real world your post becomes "Men and women certainly DO have plenty of veto power when it comes to a woman's "choice" to become a housewife." It's not the Middle Ages anymore.
Abuse of authority goes both ways so that's a non-starter for me.
Bob in Texas at December 6, 2016 2:26 PM
On top of that, there is no shortage of women who have been harassed out of their jobs by angry, ruthless male co-workers
Plenty of men too, yet no one calls it sexism
lujlp at December 6, 2016 2:27 PM
This.
==============================
Supply and demand applies to labor as well as goods. When you choose a job or career field that doesn't require a lot of specialized knowledge or intellectual horsepower or one that many people could do with a small amount of training, you won't make much.
It has nothing to with the gender of the people traditionally doing it, it has everything to with whether other people think the job requires advanced skills or knowledge and how much demand there is for the output of that job (e.g., archaeology requires specialized knowledge, but the demand for the output is low).
That's why engineering pays more than teaching. Most college-educated people assume they could teach if they had the time and patience; perhaps they can and perhaps they can't but they know that they have at least an equal education to their child's teachers. In fact, many non-college parents are homeschooling their kids with results equal or better than the public schools produce with their college-educated teachers.
Conan the Grammarian at December 6, 2016 3:19 PM
Why do feminists want more women in STEM fields, but major in Gender Studies?
Patrick at December 6, 2016 4:01 PM
Conan, etc.
Rebecca Traister hasn't herself been single since 2011 when she was 36. Later marriages or partnering, not singlehood may be the best solution, even if single women become a political force. And writing as a profession is both appealing to women and respected by feminists and others.
tom merle at December 6, 2016 6:06 PM
Men make the essential choices of their life paths when they are teenagers. And those choices are two: (1) what general sort of occupation they want to pursue (professional, skilled labor, unskilled labor, government, military, forever student, drugged-up dependent, criminal, etc.), and (2) whether they are going to try to avoid getting a girl pregnant, or just not worry about it. For most men, the rest of their lives will flow from these two choices; they won't have much say in the matter from this point on.
Cousin Dave at December 7, 2016 8:56 AM
God-given roles of being wives and mothers?
What's a childfree atheist to do?
Pirate Jo at December 7, 2016 9:03 AM
God-given roles of being wives and mothers?
What's a childfree atheist to do?
Pirate Jo at December 7, 2016 9:03 AM
Whatever you want?
Which is exactly what I do. I dont expect anyone to applaud my choices, or support me financially, and the flip side of that, is they dont get to criticize either.
Isab at December 7, 2016 11:45 AM
I work in health care and it's mostly women. Almost all of them are trying to not work full time or not work at all. I don't understand it. Then they complain about the men in their lives, that they are financially dependent on. Are women idiots? Why do the continue to put themselves in this position?
Stormy at December 7, 2016 2:12 PM
People are inherently psychopathic lunatics Stormy. They want without end and complain about everything. When men complain in western society they are told to stop being stupid and deal with it. Women are a bit more privileged. While not natural rationality, responsibility, and self control are beneficial for both genders.
Ben at December 7, 2016 6:31 PM
Leave a comment