Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
  • 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.

Are Modern Women Miserable?

By Vicki Haddock, San Francisco Chronicle Magazine. Posted March 13, 2008.


Women can dream bigger than ever before. But social progress has plateaued short of true gender equity, keeping many of those dreams out of reach.

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

More stories by Vicki Haddock

Get AlterNet in
your mailbox!

 
Advertisement

Exactly what does it take to make a woman happy?

One of the first to record her answer to that conundrum was the Marquise du Chatelet, whom history has recollected as the jilted mistress of Voltaire. That is short shrift: The brilliant marquise was a mother, a shopaholic, a passionate lover -- and most significantly, a revolutionary scientist and mathematician who suspended wooden spheres from the rafters of her country estate to test Newton's theories, and who scribbled her insights until the candles burned to nothingness, plunging her hands into ice water to jolt herself awake. Her intellectual feverishness prompted the philosopher Immanuel Kant to sneer that such a woman "might as well have a beard," and Voltaire himself, having received solo title-page credit for a book he privately admitted she practically dictated to him, declared that the marquise was a great man whose only shortcoming was having been born female.

Thus duly boxed in by the gender conventions of 18th century France -- and by an unplanned pregnancy at age 43 that she presciently regarded as a death sentence -- the Marquise du Chatelet brought a unique perspective to a treatise she titled "Discourse on Happiness."

To be truly happy, she ruefully concluded, "one must be susceptible to illusions, for it is to illusions that we owe the majority of our pleasures. Unhappy is the one who has lost them."

So where are we nearly three centuries later? Recalibrate for feminism, which aimed to liberate women from the constricting corsets of sexist roles. Factor in an unprecedented level of education, greater earning power, more economic independence, more reproductive control and access to virtually any career, from CEO to soldier to leader of the free world. In theory, at least, a woman's prospects for happiness have never looked brighter.

Yet the paradox: Two recent studies reveal that a majority of American women are finding the holy grail of happiness more elusive. Researchers were startled to find that women now report less happiness than in the early 1970s; and where they once indicated greater levels of happiness and life satisfaction than men, that's now reversed.

"Aha!" opposing sides in the culture wars declared, glomming onto the findings to bolster their own takes on gender conflict. But this newly identified "happiness gap" is hardly a prima facie indictment of feminism for having worsened the lot of women, given that most women adamantly oppose to a return to rigid gender roles. Nor could it be attributable mainly to the notion that men are slacking while women work a second shift -- full time in the workforce and a second full-time job at home. The results show that women are spending the same number of hours working now, on average, as in the 1970s, although a greater percentage is outside work. As for housework, men have picked up a greater, though still minority, share. Much of the cooking and cleaning is "hired out" or simply goes undone (Americans now spend $26 billion more each year on restaurants than grocery stores.)

Even so, men today report spending less time on activities they regard as stressful and unpleasant than a few decades ago. Women still spend about 23 hours a week in the unpleasant-activity zone -- which was about 40 minutes more than men four decades ago, and now amounts to 90 minutes more than men.

And feeling guiltier in the process.

On a recent morning, one such woman is Lisa Boucher.

A 46-year-old Brisbane resident, she dashes around the kitchen serving breakfast to her 2 1/2-year-old daughter with the phone tucked into her ear as she resolves an urgent snafu on her job as a project manager for a high-end residential construction company. There isn't a minute to spare: She must whisk her daughter to preschool, make a meeting in San Francisco, use her lunch hour to retrieve her daughter and a nanny and deposit them at home, then return to work until almost dark, whipsaw back home, throw together a quick dinner, hang out to play with her daughter, tuck her into bed, then crash -- and, with luck, get sufficient sleep to do it all over again when her alarm rings the next morning.

She feels guilty that it's the nanny who gets to spend so much fun time with her daughter. She feels guilty that she no longer has time for writing or any other artistic expression. She feels guilty when her mother, who she says uses the words "you should" a lot, suggests they are too social, even though they usually take their daughter with them when they go out. She feels guilty about how infrequently the house gets vacuumed, telling her husband, "Yes, the yard looks great, but we live on the inside -- the raccoons live on the outside." Truth be told, she even feels guilty about not spending more "quality time" with the primary catalyst for all that vacuuming: her husband's shedding golden retriever.

"I want to preface this by saying that you're catching me on a really crazed week. I know I'm lucky to have a beautiful, happy kid; a great job; a great husband who pitches in," she acknowledges. "But here's where I am right at this moment: Last night I just turned to him and said, 'You know what, I'm not happy in my life.


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: happiness, women, feminism, gender equity, gender equality

Vicki Haddock is a Bay Area freelance journalist and former Chronicle reporter who has written for the Magazine on the legacy of divorce, the science of criminal profiling and the mysterious death of newspaper heiress Margaret Lesher. E-mail comments to magazine@ sfchronicle.com.

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


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:
Women getting a taste...
Posted by: Smartcookie on Mar 13, 2008 12:28 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
... of what it's like to be a man years ago.

The truth is women have no clue what they did to the family structure by demanding equality. Equalities downside is corporate greed and governments upside: More profits, more people totax: More workers, less wages, as more competition drives wages downs.

My parents lived at work while I grew up, no vacation time, all they could do was buy things. You end up living in a family of strangers who have very little connection to one another and are increasingly alienated.

Welcome to the true version of our obsession with money, power and wealth: You're so busy maintaining your lifestyle and supporting your kids you have no time for anything else.

That's real capitalism for you. I'm sure men of years ago had the same guilty feelings about not spending enough time with their kids, now both men and women are in the same boat together.

Societies ethos and it's obsession with more and more has to change, for every bit of wealth you want you add another weight and more hours of work around your neck.

Funny thing is these people are doing it to themselves and convincing themselves they are more well off then not. They are trying to do the impossible, and I feel sorry for them.

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

» RE: Women getting a taste... Posted by: Smartcookie
» RE: Women getting a taste... Posted by: holojojo
» yes, you too, are a victim Posted by: KaptainSpiffy
» Outstanding post Posted by: joeunix
» every family is different Posted by: undrgrndgirl
» RE: Women getting a taste... Posted by: TheLimit
» RE: Women getting a taste... Posted by: bornxeyed
» RE: Women getting a taste... Posted by: TheLimit
» RE: Women getting a taste... Posted by: luzyrea
Nice bay view
Posted by: maxfactor on Mar 13, 2008 1:02 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Very kosmopolitan starter. The reality looks grim.
Genderbased rolemodeling where women convey ideas to other women usually ends up with things like footbinding, mutilation and psychological torture.
This tight weave of support through suppression makes patriarchical structures feel positively cozy...
The reality of women is such that many prefer to live a parasitic live - If it were a symbiotic relationship the host would get some benefit...

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

» You mean like. . . Posted by: Prairie Waif
» RE: You mean like. . . Posted by: TheLimit
» RE: You mean like. . . Posted by: rickiey
ABSOLUTELY -- good article
Posted by: Democratic Socialist on Mar 13, 2008 1:15 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Yes modern American/Western women seem, on the whole, quite miserable, and that's why I've largely given up on dating, marrying, and even having sex with them since just being around them makes me miserable as well. About the only women I can put up with nowadays are non-American, non-Western women, seeing that they aren't as (on the whole) materialistic, mean, superficial, rude, unhealthy/overweight, bitter, discontented, snide, etc.

Of course you could apply many of those same adjectives to American/Western men, as the "American disease" is not gender specific and definitely afflicts both sexes. Still though, it seems that women have a more difficult time dealing with all the pressures of the modern world described by this article and react by becoming more (openly) miserable and unhealthy in a twisted "misery loves company" scenario. Again, American/Western men are afflicted just the same, it's just that they seem better at hiding and/or ignoring it through the cultural conditioning they have been bombarded by since birth.

On a related note (and I'd like some input on this from anyone here), I recently came to the conclusion that in any given society women are good barometers of economic problems or impending economic problems, i.e. a generalized ill-mood or widespread discontent among a society's women causes recessions, depressions, and other economic problems. Do you all think this theory has any validity? I noticed this beginning a few months ago when all of the current economic turmoil began -- I realized that American women have been even more 'down and out' in the last few months than usual, and I think this has a lot to do with America's horrible economy at the moment. I'm certainly not 'blaming women' for economic problems (since men still run the banks and other financial institutions in all countries around the world), only saying that widespread discontent amongst the women in a society seems to be strongly correlated with economic downturns. Anybody notice this as well?

"A people is not defeated until the hearts of its women are on the ground." - Cheyenne saying

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

» RE: ABSOLUTELY -- good article Posted by: Smartcookie
» On the money - shot Posted by: Bobsays
» As always, Bob.... Posted by: morticia
» RE: On the money - shot Posted by: mjabele
» 21 year old? Posted by: Beck
Cleaning up the mess
Posted by: EJW on Mar 13, 2008 1:46 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm not sure how to say this. The problem is not women, but men. They lie, cheat and steal (taught by our wonderful educational system) .... it's okay as long as you don't get caught. Men run out when it's tough and leave the clean up to women. Women are always putting things back together. The only way a woman can succeed in this society is to play like a man --- that stinks.

Why, Why are men so afraid of women?

In my personal life, I don't pick up after men and if they don't bag their own waste I get rid of them.

I realize that not all men are this way, I know some, but taken as a whole men are just cry babies.

Look at the mess 'men' have gotten us into in the world. Boys playing games.....it's a sad fact.

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

» RE: Cleaning up the mess Posted by: data23
» RE: Cleaning up the mess Posted by: mjglow
» RE: Cleaning up the mess Posted by: data23
» RE: Cleaning up the mess Posted by: VZEQICVA
» RE: um are you a moron? Posted by: notthatsimple
» what do you expect? Posted by: notthatsimple
» RE: Cleaning up the mess Posted by: Badger1492
» RE: Cleaning up the mess Posted by: Logic's Edge
» RE: Cleaning up the mess Posted by: Logic's Edge
» RE: Cleaning up the mess Posted by: 605dave
» RE: Cleaning up the mess Posted by: TheLimit
» RE: Cleaning up the mess Posted by: buzzsaw
» RE: Cleaning up the mess Posted by: bornxeyed
» RE: Cleaning up the mess Posted by: bornxeyed
» RE: Cleaning up the mess Posted by: luzyrea
» RE: Cleaning up the mess Posted by: Fade
» RE: Cleaning up the mess Posted by: luzyrea
» RE: Cleaning up the mess Posted by: Logic's Edge
» RE: Cleaning up the mess Posted by: data23
» Bag their own waste? Posted by: messedup
This is why exported my daughters to the US
Posted by: Swedish liberal on Mar 13, 2008 2:02 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In Sweden it is virtually impossible to combine a career and to have a family life if you are a successful woman. The highest rate of suicide in Sweden is among female physicians, I think it says it all.

The wages in Sweden are in an international comparison extremely low. It means that there are very, very few Higher Educations that pay of in the long term. Further because of the low wages for career women very high taxes it is impossible to purchase help within the household.

So I exported my daughters to the US even though I had paid exorbitant taxes to get "free" higher education. This I now have to pay in the US. As well as having to abandon my own career since my law degree does not cut it in the US. It is a small price to pay for my daughters happiness. They will be able to get very well paid jobs as well as being able to afford help within their households. However one concern I have how thy are going to find partners that are willing to accept women that are smarter and earn more than they. I never did so myself.

When it comes to income equality the situation between women and men in Sweden is even worse than in the US. Women earn 70 % of what mean do however when the statistics has been matched that you compare the same jobs with the same education the inequality shrinks to 3 % i.e women have 97 % of men's wages. I believe this to be true even for the US.

And when it comes to happiness issue, we are measuring relative happiness, not an absolute. Happiness in the 70's is not comparable to happiness in the 00's. The more advanced and richer a society is, the more time its inhabitants have to think about other things than caring for their children, getting food on teh table and roof over the head. It is a question of the Maslowian Hierarchy. In the US a lot of people have time to only care about the highest level self fulfilment. And this is a very tough issue indeed since you will always feel unsatisfied. The solution when a very little elite could reach this level was as Buddha to become a monk, extremely religious.

I find fulfillment in the thought that I have cared for my daughters and hopefully will be able to help then in any way they need, be i babysitting or financial help.

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

» I believe in meritocracy, not socialism Posted by: Swedish liberal
» RE: I think... Posted by: Pirate1
» RE: I think... Posted by: bornxeyed
» You get insurance after 180 days Posted by: Swedish liberal
» Limousine liberals disgust me Posted by: Swedish liberal
» RE: Limousine liberals disgust me Posted by: Swedish liberal
» Um, ACTUALLY, That would be CANADA Posted by: Prairie Waif
pfft! what is 'happiness'?
Posted by: KaptainSpiffy on Mar 13, 2008 2:50 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
that moment before we yearn for the next thing.

that time when we realize we really already have everything we need.

it's when you realize things are as they are, neither good nor bad but as they should be and always have been.

those rarified moments before we are seduced by the hopes in a stolen apple, grasping for the next thing, we eat of it, and offer it to our fellows.

the next thing. the next judgement we offer our fellows, good or bad.

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

As women go, so goes all of us
Posted by: talkville on Mar 13, 2008 2:57 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As in all cultural affairs, concepts such as "happiness" and "misery" are best understood as 'blobs': they have no clear lines of demarcation and they are fundamentally relational (in this article related to gender). "All" propositions (as in "All Women") are not very useful in this regard. Plainly, in our society, SOME women are incredibly and indescribably 'happy'-- in just what this 'happiness' consists is difficult to pin down, but one is more likely to find these women in those of the 'upper echelons' of society; but not exclusively so: I've known some women of extremely modest means who are living fulfilling and rewarding lives. It all depends upon each individual's standards and definitions.

But 'happiness' and 'misery' don't sit side-by-side: each implies the other. As actual states of be-ing these are dynamic feelings and thus transitory. And they rest on conditions of existence. And the conditions of existence, especially but not exclusively, with regard to women in this particular society are on balance inimical and definitely not in favor of any kind of 'happiness' for a woman (nor a minority, nor a worker)-- the most likely condition of persons is this 'misery' which is the other face of happiness.

So, as with gender also race and also class. On the ground are the conditions of existence for each: equity, justice, dignity; indeed, better ways of living. I wonder exactly what CLASS of interests are working most against these?

And just as with 'happiness' and 'misery', race, gender and class do not sit 'beside each other' as conceptions: they imply each other. And once again, they depend on conditions of existence. Just what CLASS interests work against these?

Some decisions are strictly personal and subjective; others depend on what is outside of us and these require organization and collaboration in this 'highly competitive society' of ours. Fact is, large number of women are in the economic realm because of two things: necessity, and the fact that it is cheaper labor for the capitalist and thus conducive to more profit. Perhaps women could address taking a little 'virtuousness' out of Necessity? Labor rates must be made transparent and persons paid for the labor they perform - man or woman. A capitalist has no concern if one is a woman or a man; accepting work for less is their one and only criterion. As for more privileged relations (rather than those of rights) such as 'connections', 'family', etc. well, that's a whole other story!

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

» RE: As women go, so goes all of us Posted by: penobscotdziekuje@yahoo.com
» As minorities go, so go all of us Posted by: daniel347x
Addicted to busyness and complaining.
Posted by: kepstein7777 on Mar 13, 2008 3:40 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I think a lot of women thrive on this stuff. They're happy being unhappy.

They love telling each other how busy they are, how the world needs them so much, and demands so much of their time. They love telling everyone how lazy and stupid their husbands are, and how they need to do everything themselves if they want it done right...how there is just not enough of them to go around.

It's the thing to do. If your life isn't overscheduled and out-of-control, or if you can't make a good case that it is, then you have less to bring to the water cooler and the chatter-lunch.

It's symptomatic of our culture in general. If you're not constantly busy, then you're nobody. But I think women tend to embrace this mentality more than men these days.

This article gives some lip-service to these subjective factors, but doesn't fully account for them.

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

An Evolutionary Hypothesis
Posted by: socialpsych on Mar 13, 2008 4:23 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It may be that, because human females invest more in offspring than males, they evolved a tendency to communicate unhappiness to others in order to receive help. The targets of this communication are often--but not always--males because males historically (or, more accurately, prehistorically) have been willing to give a great deal of help, especially if there was a chance that they'd get a little sex in return. It's not accidental that one of the most rewarding things in all of the universe for males is the beautiful smile of a grateful and approving female.

Note that I am not saying that women ARE unhappy. I am saying that women express unhappiness as a tactical communicative act.

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

» RE: An Evolutionary Hypothesis Posted by: bornxeyed
» RE: An Evolutionary Hypothesis Posted by: bornxeyed
» RE: An Evolutionary Hypothesis Posted by: TheLimit
» Think "system" Posted by: socialpsych
Looking For Happiness In All The Wrong Places
Posted by: rigpa44 on Mar 13, 2008 6:13 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Well, from the perspective of seeking for real happiness in the ephemeral world, and its swirling impermanence, folks have gotten desperate and are being driven to look for happiness in all the wrong places. Happiness is something that comes from inside not outside. As Ramakrishna adroitly points out, "We are like a musk deer looking for a scent that's coming from ourselves."

Unrealistic or unfulfilled expectations of what the world is supposed to give us is a major source of upset and unhappiness. People say, "I want it all". Even having it "all", cars, mansions, perfect spouses and children, isn't going to make the real happiness grade. Happiness is based on something totally different. Ironically real happiness shines forth from the heart and soul of who we are when it's not shut off by obsessing and greedily grasping for external happiness. Even if you have everything, and you don't know the happiness inside of one's self, you'll still be asking "and then what?"

If you don't realize that Totality is always already complete in its identity with the Infinity of its own nature, then the clinging and grasping will continue like a monkey jumping from branch to branch. The realization that the internal Self, the core-Heart of who you are is the author of one's actions and life, and the source, course and goal of happiness, rather than the obsessively seeking, always hungry and never satisfied little "me", is to live a life of transformative joy.

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

Less is more, more or less
Posted by: zeofredo on Mar 13, 2008 6:16 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In an ideal world, men and women would trade off roles frequently within a cycle (of years or months), and the experiences of work and raising a family would be evenly shared.

In actuality, this is not about to happen. The way I see it, having been blessed with a mother who chose to stay home with her kids (she was older when she got married and seemed satisfied that her youthful liberties were lived out), perception of roles must be changed first. Women who do the job of raising children (and also working part-time) should be celebrated and praised in a genuine, uplfiting manner, not in the sentimental denigrating way that has been the fashion for so long.

I also suspect, as do some other bloggers, that personal expectations have been raised to impossible heights by advertising and [even more precisely] the careers and lives of our peers... there are always one or two friends that seem to have an ideal existence in comparison to our own. Women seem to be more prone to comparative measurement than men (men just have to buy the right toys to be satisfied!).

In contrast to women elsewhere in the world, it's hard to sympathize with anyone from a successful middle-class background here... we are all spoiled by our comforts and luxuries, and a lifetime of such immersion is particularly degrading to our sense of proportion in terms of satisfaction and happiness. EVERYONE always seems to want more, all the time.

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

Further clarification - the Happiness/Unhappiness Quotient
Posted by: Shenonymous on Mar 13, 2008 6:32 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What you say, talkville, is wholly perceptive. The notions of happiness and misery, as the set of opposites when attempting to define either one or the other, in order to gain some insight into the state of one, here in this case, a happiness quotient for women, are individually fuzzy ideas since they are abstractions in the first place. However, as the quest proceeds in the comparison of these two “abstract” states of mind, clarity emerges for both and definition materializes. Yes, they are relational but are two sides of the same human coin of consciousness. One is measured by the degree of the other in an inverse ratio. One can only discover of “what this ‘happiness’ consists” in a general sense, by investigating particular examples rather than lump all together under the concept of “some.” After collecting specific reasons, then a new generalization may be suggested. The range of economic conditions for the indescribably happy, or for that matter, indescribably unhappy, women is as broad as the whole existent microcosm between complete happiness and complete unhappiness. This has to be postulated since no survey of every woman has been nor can be made.

I agree that the conditions of happiness and misery are with respect to each other an implication that exists between them. They are imaginary measures and as such are naturally mutable. You suggest that the society in which we live is most unfriendly, that is, ‘inimical,’ toward women, hence the level of unhappiness is higher than its opposite, happiness. You also interrogate what CLASS of interests work most against the conditions of equity, justice, dignity. The degree of dignity would be a result of the degree of equity and justice women concretely receive, and hence dignity is a direct proportion of equity and justice. Rather than muse about it, let’s do see what class of interests work as countermeasures to these circumstances. What possible classes can we speak of? What other class than men and their psychology can qualify? And while race and class (whatever that latter might be in this society, possibly poor, middle, and upper), may have some congruence, they are completely different issues than gender and would have unlike substrate causes. So their appearance here in this argument is moot and deflective and would be the topic of a much needed but separate discussion.

I think your relegation of why women are in the economic ballgame to begin with is decisively perceptive. Not sure what is meant, however, in your statement that women might consider extracting “’virtuousness’ out of Necessity,” as that implies there is some relationship between the two: That there is virtue in necessity or the reverse. And that must mean some moral or ethical aspect. They do not seem coincidental with each other. But if they are, why stop at a “little” why not take it “all” out and completely objectify it? All that notwithstanding, it is an imperative that equal pay for equal work would go a long way toward “equalizing” the disparity between women and men and raise exponentially the caliber of happiness for women, and by extension, the happiness for men as well. But furthermore, the level of amount of work needs to be equalized as well and women would not then be run into the ground by the weight of labor.

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

And women still want children because!?!?!
Posted by: veggiegrrrl on Mar 13, 2008 6:51 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
And women still want children because!?!?! Not much "happiness" for those future children living on a planet about to choke us out of existence.

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

My 2 Cents...
Posted by: craigandrew on Mar 13, 2008 7:11 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Equality is the killer. I'm not talking about legal equality, because everyone deserves that. But, from my perspective, women are trying to be perfect, except the standard they are measuring themselves against is a male one.

Women have succumbed to the male biological clock for example; they wait until after college and they are already into their careers before having children ... which is a perfect strategy for men, but is completely disruptive to women(and many women find it to be too late). Being a man I cannot say what is right for women, but if i had a daughter I would be sure she had an understanding of unorthodox options; marrying an older man and having children before going to college, then going to college when the kids got into grade school and rolling forward from there.

The upshot is that women are trying to have it all and it is killing them - we cannot have true love, a perfect family, and a successful career at the same time. Even men cannot have these things together.

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

» Or... Posted by: craigandrew
» RE: My 2 Cents... Posted by: TheLimit
Happy Single Woman not living in the good old days
Posted by: mcubed on Mar 13, 2008 7:53 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Hey-
I always think it's interesting when people start making generalizations that many women of today are choosing to wait to have children, and this is a problem.

I'm turning 4o next week, and am still single because the right guy has not come along yet. I don't regret not having a child so far in my life, because I haven't been in a relationship with a man who both respected me and wanted to stay with me. I have several friends who have raised great kids on their own, and I admire them. I also know it was very hard work, and not a path they set out on intentionally.

I feel very grateful to live in this time, and in a social position where I am able to work and go back to school to pursue a degree in a field I'm interested in.

I would love to have kids, but also know that I am truly blessed not to be trapped in an unhappy marriage, stifled by a lack of opportunity in the outside world, as some previous generations of women in my family were.

Michele

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

Capitalist Culture Forces Intelligent Women To Work
Posted by: opmoc on Mar 13, 2008 8:06 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Its what is expected of them and most conform - but to run both a full time demanding job at the same time as performing all the tasks of a Mother - requires such an inordinate amount of energy - that most women simply aren't up to it. In most such situations its the children rather than the job that gets neglected.

Intelligent women realise this position and often simply put off having children - until its too late.

Whilst this is good for reducing population levels - it is not good at maintaining levels of intelligence.

Less intelligent women now have far more children - often as single mothers. The structure of Western societies positively encourages this - particularly in the UK.

The end result is that not only are women less happy - but so are men - and through neglect - so are children. Society as a whole becomes less intelligent as we are selecting the less intelligent to reproduce more.

Its not simply a case of education being dumbed down - but children overall have less inate capability.

It was formally normal for intelligence levels in children to measurably rise. They are now measurably falling.

The only counterbalance to declining intelligence is immigration. People who move from their country of origin are likely to be much more highly motivated and intelligent than the norm.

Until we replace the god of money with a more accurate measure of quality of life then society's slide into despair will continue.

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

» Idiocracy Posted by: Laplandi
Happiness Rests With You
Posted by: Southern Gal on Mar 13, 2008 8:33 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
At some point in your life you have to allow yourself to be happy. I think that we have so many expectations about how life should be that we overlook how it actually is. We are all surrounded by unhappy people, in our families, our work, our neighborhoods, etc. I've finally reached the point that I look for something of beauty each day, enjoy that moment of looking at it and experiencing it, and then look forward to what I see the next time. It's our expectations of life that make us unhappy. There is enough going on now to make us all concerned for the future. but we do have to understand that our happiness lies within each of us. We can't make other people happy. That's a huge burden to bear. Everyone must learn to experience their own happiness.

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

» I'm with you, opmoc.... Posted by: morticia
Materialism
Posted by: BST on Mar 13, 2008 8:44 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What was omitted from this equation is the heightened focus on materialism, on acquisition, on competition, on pretending that the Paris Hilton/George Clooney looks should be our looks, that our true friends reside on reality shows and talk shows.

No, they don't. They've never heard of us.

With these imperatives and misconceptions and distractions as focus, men and women are harnessed to jobs that burn them out, disappointed by what they see in the mirror and too weary and agitated to take time out to say: "What do I really want to do and be?"

I think it's not about feminism, but about "mall haul" and emphasis on the exterior patina of the package. And perhaps the slow death of what I call supermarket spirituality -- a sense of shared compassion and interbeing with people we meet every moment of our day.

It's not surprising that men will be happier now that women are also bearing the burdens of bread-winning (seven grain only, please) and women feel bleaker because they have taken on more responsibilities to support this chimera of a McMansion lifestyle. Plus, good grief, a wrinkle has appeared, a bubble of cellulite. Could we all be any more self-centered?

The Rx is so simple, yet who will listen? Turn off the TV and cellphone. Tune into the people you love. Dine together at home. Cook. Take walks. Say "I love you" at times when you're not also racing to the commuter rail. Invite neighbors over for potluck. Volunteer to help people who really need support. Play croquet. Garden instead of paying a landscaper. Dump the second job and get rid of those material goods that weigh you down. Trust me on this.

Your life will improve.

Yeah, I can guess what you might be saying. Ain't gonna happen. I say: Remember, your life's precious moments are limited.

I can understand why Nigerians -- many in poverty, depending on family and community for everything -- would find life more sublime.

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

» Excellent comment. Posted by: CrystalD
lindaj823
Posted by: lindaj823 on Mar 13, 2008 8:55 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There are a few circumstances that might help elucidate what is happening to women:
- Women have more choices these days but have we assessed the quality of those choices? Are these the choices women would prefer to have or choices among not so great options? Many women "choose" to stay home with their children because they don't make enough money to pay for the necessary child care, transportation, business clothing, or the tax bite when combined with her partner's income will eat away most of her salary. Some women "choose" to work but are forced to work full-time and often overtime when they'd prefer to work part-time. But part-time work usually brings with it a loss of all benefits and smaller likelihood of promotion. What if good, well-paid part-time jobs with proportionate pay, benefits & advancement were available? What if full-time work included more flexibility for other life responsibilities? What if parents had paid family leave to be home for a time with their newborns? (Parents in 134 countries worldwide have some form of paid family leave.) Wouldn't those "choices" make women happier? (To see what's being done about some of this go to Nat'l Assoc of Mothers' Centers & MOTHERS)
- There is a world of difference between parenting in 2008 and parenting in earlier generations. We have to deal with post-9/11 security anxiety, fear of letting our children be children and play out of doors unsupervised by an adult, internet predators that can reach our children in their bedrooms via their computer, escalating expectations of getting our children involved in enriching activities at earlier and earlier ages fueled by an intense competition for more & more limited slots in good pre-schools & colleges. My parents, though strict, didn't hover over me and my siblings the way we orchestrate and supervise our chldren's lives today.
- Regarding eldercare, when men provide eldercare they tend to purchase the necessary services and women are more likely to provide those services themselves. That would explain the difference in "happiness" in that area of life.

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

» Regarding part-time work Posted by: CrystalD
» RE: egarding part-time work Posted by: 23skidoo
It Isn't Just Women
Posted by: Bab5nutz on Mar 13, 2008 8:58 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I think that people in general are unhappier. And people are encouraged to be unhappy - there are whole industries feeding off unhappiness. Look at all the 'self-help' and 'self-improvement' book around. What these books are really saying is "you're not okay as you are." Everywhere you go, there are books and people telling you that if you're happy with your life, then there is something wrong with you.

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

adt in nj
Posted by: athurlow on Mar 13, 2008 9:06 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As a mother of 2 boys (14 & 12), I'm aware of the growing disparity between boys' & girls' "success" in school. The opportunities now exist for girls, as long as they are docile, obedient, and compliant with all traditional "feminine" virtues. If the gender ratio in honors classes, special workshops, etc. were reversed, we'd all be outraged - girls do what they're told -neatly, politely, unquestioningly, and are rewarded within the educational system. They then face a world that doesn't grade according to a "rubric." They are taught to aspire to getting "the best," and to despair when someone else does better. We need to teach kids that happiness can't be tested or measured, nor can any of the things that bring true happiness. Young girls and women are being raised to "want it all," and "all" includes a husband or partner who has even more. Teach your daughters, and sons, not to be hamsters on wheels, but to get out of their cages and live!!!!

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

» RE: adt in nj Posted by: 23skidoo
Does this article have a point?
Posted by: noalternative on Mar 13, 2008 9:10 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The point appears to be that we should be social conservatives and move the Branson.

I think this article is shit and it has gotten 90% responses from frickin republicans.

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

» RE: Does this article have a point? Posted by: stupendous man
everyone is miseralbe!
Posted by: thealltheone on Mar 13, 2008 9:42 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
who isn't? the rich who got all the breaks, Bush who can not tap dance! It is not a gender problem. Everyone is miserable! Except the right who keep trying their best to convince us that all women need to be submissive, pregnate and barefoot at home! Like the new study that came out last weekend in our Parade magazine, telling us how to live to be 100, "women who have children in their 40's will live longer"???? who writes this crap? stop blocking the over night pill, stop trying to deny us birth control, stop trying to control us all together! The most miserable are the women stuck at home with no husband, and several kids! Any woman with a decent job who might be a little unhappy that her nanny gets to see her kids more than her is going to trade that for the above!

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

» RE: everyone is miseralbe! Posted by: thealltheone
inheritocracy not meritocracy
Posted by: noalternative on Mar 13, 2008 9:48 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
that is what this "socalled liberal" believes in.

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

You are all so weird!
Posted by: carolcarre on Mar 13, 2008 9:50 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
No, the problem is not equality. The problem is not that women choose to have children. The problem is not men. The problem is our social construct: PAID labor is IMPORTANT, UNPAID labor is totally UNIMPORTANT; MOTHERS are PARENTS, DADS are WORKERS; if mothers work then they still are parents. Dads "pitch in". CHILDREN are UNIMPORTANT and can be shoved off onto paid help.
WORK can only be done in the WORKPLACE. All workers must WORK 8 HOURS A DAY.

TO change this construct (and I only outlined a tiny portion of it), we need to change our mindset as a society. Can we do it? Sure, we can. Will we do it? Not unless enough people realize that they have bought into an illusion: the way things are is the way they must be.

The virtue of being human is that we can imagine a different way and can do it. Our problem is that we are caught in our mammalian mode of thinking that we must repeat patterns, not create new ones. Hence, like our friends the animals, we repeat our life patterns and our social constructs and act as if they are immutable and instinctive.

Too bad.

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

» RE: You are all so weird! Posted by: bornxeyed
» Large load of baloney... Posted by: jparsons
» RE: You are all so weird! Posted by: TheLimit
How can any sane women be happy in a world gone mad?</