Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Happy Homemakers

By Caryl Rivers and Rosalind Barnett, Women's eNews. Posted March 30, 2006.


A controversial study recently found that women are happier in their marriages when men are the bread-winners. What gives?

Share and save this post:

      

      

Share on Facebook       

AlterNet Social Networks:
follow us on twitter
find us on Facebook

More stories by Caryl Rivers Rosalind Barnett

Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

Are homemakers happier in their marriages than working women? Are wives happier when their husbands are the major breadwinners? Is too much equality between men and women bad for marital happiness?

A new study suggesting yes, yes and yes has won inordinate attention. New York Times columnist John Tierney looked at the study, and a few weeks ago concluded that women "want their husbands to be providers who give them financial security and freedom."

Around the same time, in an op-ed column in the Los Angeles Times, Charlotte Allen, co-editor of the InkWell blog for the Independent Women's Forum, cited the study as proof that "the more traditional a marriage is . . . the higher the percentage of happy wives." The story also buzzed around the blogosphere and was fodder on some cable shows.

Here We Go Again

Here we go again. Last November, we looked at the weak data behind a media outburst about men not liking smart women. Before that we looked at all the guff about women at elite universities wanting to just say no to careers. Meanwhile, we seem to have the ongoing job of reminding the other news media that despite its devotion to the idea that the male of the species is an unregenerate chore boor, the actual research shows him helping out more and more around the house.

Now some in the news media are once again latching on to a flawed study offering bad news for ambitious women.

Published this month in the sociology journal Social Forces (University of North Carolina), the study by W. Bradford Wilcox and Steven Nock of the University of Virginia is based on data from studies in the early 1990s. The findings are so atypical that the study is what's called an "outlier." As columnist Ellen Goodman reports, when sociologist Scott Coltrane of the University of California-Riverside used the same data set, he found no difference in marital happiness between homemakers and working women.

Over the past 15 years, some 20 studies have looked at the association between women's employment and earnings and their marital happiness. These studies have involved different samples of people and different methods of arriving at results. But they all tell the same story: Employed women are as happy (and perhaps happier) in their marriages as non-employed women and having an income generally improves a woman's marital happiness.

Failing Marriages an Indicator

The divorce rate is another important indicator. Do working women's marriages fail at a higher rate than those of homemakers? No. In fact, as University of Michigan sociologist Hiromi Ono found in 1998, a woman is more likely to divorce if she has no earnings than if she does in fact earn money. Other researchers find that the higher the household income--whatever the source--the higher the quality of family life and marriage.

Studies researching the same subject have drawn different conclusions. But reader beware: black-and-white conclusions can't be fairly drawn. The Virginia study found wives happier if their husbands were the breadwinners. Other research disagrees. Some 42 percent of today's married women outearn their husbands. Are these marriages falling apart? Not according to the divorce data. These marriages are as stable as those in which husbands earn more.


Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »

Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
UnWell-Behaved Woman
Posted by: terradea on Mar 30, 2006 4:37 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Yes, and studies show that women who have an IQ of 100 or less or had lobotomies are happier than women who are intelligent. And these same studies show that women with IQs under 100 enter into traditional marriages at a much higher rate than women who are intelligent. Finally, studies show that conservative social scientists who do studies such as these have IQs under 80, as a general rule.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

News Flash: People Are Different
Posted by: anothername on Mar 30, 2006 4:40 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Qualifying statement: I have not seen the study/studies.

I find the commentary on this topic as appalling as the alleged results. Apparently, one size fits all, but I have several questions:

1) Were there control groups (e.g., lesbian couples, gay couples, men who stayed home, singles who did not work versus those who did work)?

2) Was there consideration for outside activities the "happy but not working" women might have had? Rural women are stressed often, regardless of working or not, because they have few outside options for socialization. Rich wives in metropolitan New York who do not have to work still spend their days socializing with other women and some men and may even do rewarding volunteer work.

3) Was there consideration for whether the women who decided to let the husband earn the money liked or did not like their jobs, if their jobs required decisions, and the preference for wanting to make decisions? I have encountered people throughout my life, men and women, who have chosen to become Catholics because they enjoy the fact that the church will make their decisions for them.

4) Were the women finding the jobs they wanted difficult to locate or the jobs offered to them less stimulating than working with their husbands as a traditional wife? Did the study ask if the women would still make the decision if other economic conditions/opportunities existed?

5) Why are women, and men, not celebrating that we have reached a point where a woman (and hopefully a man) can make a decision as to what her life will be? Is the study saying that women must stay home? Is the study saying that women must listen to their husbands? Is the study saying that women must even be married? No. If anyone pays attention to the study in terms of her or his own choices, then it is that person's choice and she/he was looking for some small indicator of which choice to make.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Please forgive UVA and UNC for having such corrupt researchers
Posted by: maxpayne on Mar 30, 2006 5:34 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It makes me even more embarassed that they have to stoop to this kind of skewed "research" just to reinstate oppression. Besides, common sense clearly indicates that if the wife is employed, the husband has to do far more work to make ends meet and he better have LOTS of fringe benefits as he'll need it if he has to be the only bread winner.

And yes, again another rightwing attempt to get paid gullibles to feel happy about voting against their own economic interests !

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» i totally agree Posted by: sln70
» Correction to my post Posted by: maxpayne
Only wealthly women could be happy
Posted by: wbblack on Mar 30, 2006 5:46 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If this study was true only wealthy women could be happy since most poor and working class and many “middle class” women have to work. Even though there are more two earner families, real income for families is less than it was in the 1970’s.

WBBLACK

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

So, you can find a "study" to support your bias?
Posted by: Sojourner on Mar 30, 2006 6:05 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
No wonder the hard sciences laugh at the claims for "social science." True, when the hard sciences are examined closely, they get pretty soft.

One thing wrong with current human existence is poll takers. We have seen enough studies that show the way the question is asked-phrased will determine the span of the answers. (I like that study, because it suits my bias, which is: Another thing wrong with current human existence is that without poll takers, some journalists would have to remain silent. I vote for that.)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I don't know if smart women are less happy...
Posted by: medstudgeek on Mar 30, 2006 6:12 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I think they did make a study showing that smarter women are less likely to get married (and, conversely, smart men are more likely to get married). This fits the stereotypes: men don't want to marry a woman who will make them feel stupid. Conversely, many women want a 'winner', someone they can look up to. Intellect is not the only measure of this (money usually is far more important), but it is one measure.

The real problem with fighting for equality is that the behavior of one gender depends on the behavior of the other: men act like greedy, competitive jerks at least in part because they know it will attract women. Conversely, women act like braindead ditzes because they don't want to threaten men.

One of the advantages of a large lefty movement (besides fighting for social justice, etc.) is that you can find other people who don't want to play the predominant social game.

Now, of course, the feminist question: nature or nurture? Is this not the effects of a patriarchal society that forces women into subordinate roles? Well, yes, at least in part. The problem is (A) how do we get from here to there, especially when there are such heavy penalties associated with deviating from the norm? (B) i am not so sure that gender differences do not have biological bases. We know men and women have different hormonal levels at least, and we know those hormones have receptors in the brain. We know that women's behavior changes with differing levels of hormones. So at least some differences are probably biological and ineradicable. (We could mess with the biology, but that's really dangerous: we could wind up making people sterile, and there are all sorts of side effects associated with taking the wrong sex's hormones, as any transsexual could tell you.)

That doesn't mean patriarchy is necessarily inevitable: many Scandinavian countries have much more female representation in government, for example. Even if we couldn't make it all the way to 50-50 we could make it a lot closer than we have now.

And there are men who prefer smart women. But I hope you like Stargate. ;)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Phony is as phony does. Posted by: Sojourner
» Yup, you're right! Posted by: medstudgeek
» RE: Yup, you're right! Posted by: morticia
» RE: Yup, you're right! Posted by: medstudgeek
» RE: Yup, you're right! Posted by: morticia
I'd also like to add that we wouldn't expect lefties to be happy.
Posted by: medstudgeek on Mar 30, 2006 6:24 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I think it's pretty clear that political views are partially determined by personality type as well as sex, race, class, etc.: how you view the world depends both on how you view life in general (personality type) as where as where you are in the world (race, sex, class). The definition of a leftist, practically speaking, is someone who opposes the predominant power structure. What sort of a personality type does such a ridiculous, from the evolutionary standpoint, thing? Obviously someone who tends to be (a) dissatisfied with the real world and (b) fixated on an ideal world rather than the one that currently exists. This is why there is so much focus on theory, and so many doctrinal disputes (remember Trotsky vs. Stalin, communist vs. anarchist?) among leftists (although the current base in academia may be part of that too.) So yes, I think lefties are less emotionally healthy. Look at those conservatives happily playing their moronic ball games with each other...

Does that mean that leftism is wrong, however? Does it always pay to look on the bright side? There's this very American idea that optimism=right and good, and I happen to disagree. The world is going to hell: global warming, environmental destruction, corporate control, and I think that more people need to be unhappy right now. We are in serious trouble.

George Bernard Shaw said it best: "The reasonable man adapts himself to circumstances, the unreasonable man expects circumstances to adapt themselves to him. Therefore all progress is made by unreasonable men."

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Just another example of the media bias against women
Posted by: janvdb on Mar 30, 2006 6:34 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If the study shows bright, well-paid successful women are happier, live longer or whatever, it gets ignored.

If the study shows stupid, highly fertile, low-paid women who cater to the male ego are doing better, plan on hearing all about it all over the media for months and months.

With little obscure rebuttals containing the actual data tucked away in alternative spots on the web.

Bias. Plain and obvious.

The society. The media.

Society and the press has been biased against women for centuries, remains so and is likely to be that way for the foreseeable future.

What a revelation!

So, if you read it about "women" in the corporate media, take it with a great big fat block of salt -- it's probably wrong.

Jan VanDenBerg

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» deja vu all over again Posted by: Lizbuzz
Market Feminism at its most blatant
Posted by: Jasonix on Mar 30, 2006 6:39 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There is a real feminism that's concerned with women's rights. This is desperately-needed movement that addresses equality in the workplace for women who choose to work, domestic violence, the plight of women in India, Saudi Arabia, and other nations. Then there is Market Feminism, a corporate-sponsored movement that seeks to force every single person in the U.S. into the workforce in order to increase consumption and productivity. Which type of "feminism" does this article represent? I think the answer's pretty clear.

Check out the book "Is the American Dream Killing You? How the Market Rules Our Lives" for an interesting look at how the Left and the Right work together to ensure that real life is squashed and ruined by greed.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Weak Points and no refs and
Posted by: dancerkc on Mar 30, 2006 6:40 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I don't like getting my info just from the article. There are not references to the study itself. I want to do my own looking and my own evaluations of their work. Where can I find this report?

The basic premise I am given in this article about the report doesn't work for me. I don't know whether I am getting an accurate assessment of the points of the study. I was more or less okay with this until an empathic statement by these authors about what we "can't possibly know." Then my flags went up.

"You can't possibly know how attentive the husband is unless you collect data from the husbands, and these researchers did not do that."

Maybe. However, as I read this article, this study seems to be about women's perceptions of themselves and not a comparison either of separate attitudes or a comparison of perceptions. At the same time, the study, by its nature, would almost have to be a comparison of both roles, both perceptions and facts on the ground such as incomes (objective, as long as no one lies) and chores (which would be skewed in reporting as soon as you start asking them to count who does what).

The sense of what is under control (whether from oneself or from another, partners or "higher" power) or what doesn't need to be under control would be factors in satisfaction. But those satisfaction factors can vary widely depending on perspectives.

However, I feel that my ability to understand the report and whether I am interested in paying attention to it is limited to "pundit knowlege" - basically a topic on which I still know little or nothing except what I get from this article which is clearly making arguments (and it is all I am seeing).

So, after reading the article, I still feel ignorant about the study. The overall questions these authors have seem like good questions but I don't know how well they answer or challenge the actual study because I am not seeing the study.

The mere idea that a report is radically different from existing literature should not by itself dis-qualify it. That is usually what is so attractive. The preponderance of other published views certainly would put the weight on established wisdom, unless established wisdom says we were all created in seven days. Anyway, like those gasbag pundits I seem to be sounding off anyway. Unlike those weekend gasbags, I won't be getting paid for my public ignorance.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Are Homemaker Dad's Happier Than Those With Careers?
Posted by: adjwilli on Mar 30, 2006 6:42 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I think anyone who can afford to be the homemaker regardless of being a man or a woman is generally going to be happier.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Happy homemaker Posted by: BlueTigress
Who cares if they are happy?
Posted by: stormchilde1975 on Mar 30, 2006 7:03 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I don't understand why so many people conflate "happiness" with "good". Taking happiness in an unethical state of affairs makes that state of affairs morally worse, not better.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

what is a happy population?
Posted by: evermind on Mar 30, 2006 7:49 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The proper way of looking at these is "there is no (statistically significant) correlation between these two properties." What does it mean for "married women to be happy" as a population? Do all married women get upset simultaneously? Nope, thus the use of statistics to correlate trends in populations. Statistics is a well-founded set of tools that's misunderstood and misused a wee bit.

In the next episode of PseudoScienceMan, molecular biologists will be searching for the gene that pre-determines some people to be happier as a bread-winner. Could it be sex-linked? Find out next time!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

can't say about happy women but...
Posted by: rickcreswell@yahoo.com on Mar 30, 2006 7:57 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
My wife makes more than I and I'm happy. I've stayed home with the kids and work part time. It feels like freedom because it's not quite so traditional.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

...why?
Posted by: bettsoff on Mar 30, 2006 8:20 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm uncertain as to why I'm still reading stories on this study. It's been debunked and rebutted for weeks now.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

goofy
Posted by: Gregor on Mar 30, 2006 9:20 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Having been on both sides of the working, not working, happy bad marriage, happy live-in boyfriend. I would say this study is a bit too "one size fits all". In my experience in the working world you can skew any statistics to suit your argument. We live in a society that always accepts what "experts" say and so gives away our own power. Women are happy if they aren't suffering--Just like MEN! Gee, ya think? But usually men don't do any of the household planning or take on extra responsibilities and it takes a big fight to get them to do any of that. So that creates unhappiness. And being at home is absolutely mind numbing, even if you enjoy being with your kids. But at least when you are home you aren't stressed trying to do two or three jobs from the working place. They say men are stepping up to the plate...But it takes a special guy to handle all the abstract management that women do to keep all the balls in the air of family management. So through the years I have come to realize that marriage itself is an archaic institution only there to protect children and raise children. I think the French idea of living together and still receiving child care benefits from the government for the support of the children is so much more civilized. Marriage is overrated and overglorified in this country.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Another viewpoint
Posted by: cyberfactotum on Mar 30, 2006 9:36 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Read Intimate Communion , by David Deida. It gives a whole new model for masculine and feminine and explains, perhaps, why the old style way of happy women homemakers and working stiff men breadwinners tended to be oppressive, why the opened-up in the 60's necessary quest for equality often tends to result in ballbuster women and ball-less men, and how there is a third way of living and acknowledging and embracing the differences in the nature and polarity of feminine and masculine that just might be a wiser way to live.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I don't like to work
Posted by: badkitty on Mar 30, 2006 10:32 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There's a reason why it's called work, it's not fun and you often get to spend time with people who really aren't very nice. I stayed home with my son until he was 14 (usually only working while he was in school) and loved it (but then, I wanted to raise him myself and didn't have any problem with not taking vacations or not consuming more than I absolutely had to) . I like to cook, sew and garden, and frankly, for me, taking care of a house and family is a full-time job. Now I work full-time, often making more than my husband (and I have the benefits), making enough to put my son through college, and I spend much less time cooking and gardening, and sewing is out of the question. What really makes me angry is not that women want to work, take care of the house, and raise the kids with not enough help from their husbands (that's their choice), but the fact that the economy is such that families are forced to have two incomes just to survive. Perhaps many people in one earner families (by choice) are happier because they're under less financial stress.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

thudson56
Posted by: thudson on Mar 30, 2006 10:51 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Oh, for heaven's sake! What person, male or female, would not, at least some of the time, have a happier life if they did not have to go out to a job? For women, who often work 2 jobs in reality - doing most of the housework after coming home from a full time job - it may have a greater impact.

So, I guess the real question is are women happier who only have one job instead of two? That's not a hard question to answer for anyone, I would think.

I'll worry about the results of this study when they start asking the same question of men who are supported solely by their breadwinner wives.

A study like this tells us nothing except what we should already know from common sense. Given a chance not to work, in an emotionally healthy enviornment, we will not go outside the home to work. This is not true of everyone, of course, but a good majority, I'm sure.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

One Man Away From Welfare
Posted by: Lizbuzz on Mar 30, 2006 3:52 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I came of age in the 1970s, when it became permissible, and even desirable, for women to go out and work. The women older than I was, and even many of my peers, believed their role in life was to take care of the family and leave breadwinning to their husbands. They stayed at home and did little to develop their job skills.

This scenario worked out fine until unforeseen circumstances happened--an untimely death or divorce--and suddenly these women realized they had been living one man away from welfare. They weren't happy women then.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

How silly!
Posted by: jmoore on Mar 30, 2006 6:27 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
How silly that people think this actually means something. I am in a very happy marriage--I am the primary breadwinner while my husband works out of his home studio and deals with the kids. I know I would be stark raving miserable if I stayed home while he brought in the bucks, and only slightly less so if we both worked killer hours. Maybe I consciously chose a partner who would gladly conform to my preferred lifestyle, but whatever the reason, it works well for us. Studies like this only serve to give the patriarchy something to quote when they want to oppress women.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

is the converse true?
Posted by: cold2touch on Apr 3, 2006 7:20 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In other words: maybe men would be happier in marriage if women were the primary bread winners ...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Yes it is
Posted by: tragula on Apr 3, 2006 7:38 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Stay at home father here. Of course the converse is also true. Viewing studies like this as a defense of traditional arrangements is silly. The point is that marriages run better when one partner has a close eye on the domestic front/kids.
Whether it's the mom or the dad.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

choices
Posted by: nikster on Apr 10, 2006 2:33 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Why does being a homemaker make you oppressed? It's a choice. Actually a smart one because not everyone wants to be superwoman. I like being there for my family. My husband likes it too because he doesn't have the pressure of coming home from a hard days work to cook and clean. I don't have the pressure of working all day then coming home to work all night and leave the kids by the wayside. Yeah, I am happier for it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]