Hermenuetics

Comments

"A new study reveals that feminism may be the source of our discontent."

-- Actually, what the study said was "We do not purport to offer an answer to what is driving the decline in subjective well-being among women." Why the need for the misleading, sensational headline?

Maybe women are unhappy because the women's movement has not gone far enough, that too many men allow women to have two jobs -- work in the marketplace and too much responsibility for keeping the home together, that so-called "family values" Christians have prevented our government from working out the types of labor policies that are family-friendly to families who configure their lives in all sorts of ways rather than just in the Leave it to Beaver way, and that we still have to put up with the misogyny of the Complementarians.

Just this week we had to hear commentator G. Gordon Liddy say on tape that he was concerned about Judge Sotomayor because "Let’s hope that the key conferences aren’t when she’s menstruating or something, or just before she’s going to menstruate. That would really be bad. Lord knows what we would get then." http://thinkprogress.org/2009/05/29/liddy-sotoyamor-menstruating/

And CT thinks that the reason women might be unhappy is the fault of feminism? Seriously?

Posted By: Christian Lawyer | June 4, 2009 10:57 PM

Hi Christian Lawyer,

I'll respond to your concerns, since it was me who wrote the headline that included the word 'feminism.' If you read Lisa Graham McMinn's post, you'll note that, while she doesn't blame the feminist movement as such for declining female happiness (calling herself a feminist in para. 5), she does link the movement's tendency to emphasize individual fulfillment as contrary to the self-giving and self-emptying call of the gospel. And since Christ came so that we may "have life and have it abundantly", it only makes sense that, the more we live as if life's all about grabbing what we can grab for ourselves, the more unhappy we'll be.

So all of this to say, I don't think it was 'misleading' to include the word 'feminism' in the piece. Was it sensational? If by the word you mean "arousing immediate curiosity," then I've succeeded in writing a deck.

Posted By: Katelyn Beaty | June 5, 2009 9:00 AM

Feminism is to blame, especially in that it gave us high divorce rates through easy divorce law in the 1970s (no-fault divorce), and later objectified us through the pill and abortion on demand. You'd be shocked to see how many feminists actually say that our reproductive realities of our bodies are a cause of "women slavery" and that the pill and abortion and divorce are the way to women's liberation. They're waging a war on our own biology, just because it gives us a long-term family duty.

Posted By: Mary Gartner | June 5, 2009 9:29 AM

The feminists also use gay marriage law to break down marriage law protecting heterosexual women and children. MarriageNewsNow.com has a good list of reasons why traditional marriage matters, and most of it has to do with protecting women and their children from spousal abandonment: http://tinyurl.com/qs7vfy

Posted By: mary gartner | June 5, 2009 9:32 AM

If we are less happy, it just might be because we're exhausted. Physically. Emotionally. Mentally. Spiritually. We are trying to be all things to all people, trying to do it all in one season, trying to keep up with what the culture tells us we need to be satisfied. We are overloaded with the demands that technology takes of our energy.

If we are less happy, it just might be because we are choosing to take little or no time for solitude, we have only shallow interaction with the Redeemer, and only surface connection with those we love.

If we are less happy, then we need to stop. Be quiet. Pray. Evaluate. And then make choices concerning the things we have power over. And then, let the rest of the burden go into the hands of the only One who can give peace.

Posted By: Linda Stoll | June 5, 2009 1:08 PM

Feminism is greatly misunderstood and blamed for all kinds of societal ills. It was not my intention to over-simply a complex question by adding to the over-blaming of feminism for our troubles. That it is untenable to some that the women's movement has had some negative consequences, and just as untenable to others that the world is a better place because of the women's movement shows how polarizing and misunderstood feminism is.
To clarify the report--the researchers primarily reported the data, although they offered some speculations about why they found what they did. Lots of people have weighed in since the report came out with their own explanations for the findings. No single explanation will be satisfactory--the issues are far too complex for a simple answer.
But it's a great conversation to engage--especially if it points us toward God, who desires that we live abundant lives, abundant largely because we are living as representatives of God on Earth, and engaged in lives that bring redemption, justice, grace, mercy, and peace.

Posted By: Lisa McMinn | June 5, 2009 1:33 PM

If you exercise your right to vote, if you own property, and if you have made a major purchase and/or have a credit line without a male co-signer, then you can thank the feminist movement because it and not the church fought for these rights for you. Women who vote, own property, etc. yet put down the feminist movement are hypocrites. Sure, there have been some horrible feminists who have advocated some immoral things. There have also been people who have advocated some horrible things in the name of Christ, yet we don't say that all Christians are bad.

I'll take feminism any day over the mentality that says that women can't get an education, can't have a job outside of the home, or as one crazy minister in Seattle puts it, are easily deceived and therefore must learn all of their theology from their husbands (gross misinterpretation of the Bible).

Posted By: P. | June 5, 2009 3:39 PM

Men: Aren't WE the lucky ones?

Posted By: F | June 5, 2009 11:46 PM

Kate, my problem with your headline isn't use of the word "feminism." The problem is with use of the phrase "study reveals." The headline claims it was the STUDY that "revealed" the blame should be layed on feminism. As I pointed out, the STUDY said no such thing. It was the AUTHOR who drew her own conclusions from the STUDY. The headline was "sensational" because it overstated, in a manner seemingly designed to elicit alarm, what the STUDY actually reported. How about "New study data permits competing views on the feminism."

Lisa, you may call yourself a feminist, but this notion of feminism seems nothing more than parody:

"We bought the belief that we deserved an easy, happy life, and exerted the right to be all we could as we stretched toward self-fulfillment — even when it meant breaking commitments, leaving relationships, and walking away from the faith that grounded us."

I don't have so much problem with analyzing one side of the question as your post did, essentially asking if feminism has gone too far. Rather, since feminism (as part of a greater civil rights movement) has been one of the most significant cultural changes over the last 30+ years, and since cultural shifts don't resolve themselves overnight, why isn't it just as valid a question to ask whether (or not) the problem is that feminism has not yet gone far enough, has not yet changed society enough? I don't deny feminism can have its share of problems, as any "ism" does, but I think we're still in the transition phase.

Your post seems to imply that the transformational work of feminism is done, which would explain why your post doesn't consider whether the problem is that feminism hasn't gone far enough. Maybe the answer is that in same areas it's gone to far, and in some not enough, but to not even consider the second half of the range of possibilities seems, well, mind-boggling to me, particularly when, as the appointment of Judge Sotomayor has shown yet again, sexism still runs rampant in some parts of our society.

Posted By: Christian Lawyer | June 6, 2009 10:51 AM

Women, less happy? What's not to be happy about?

Today's woman can be anything she wants, have any career she wants, and be properly compensated.

What's more modern woman no longer has to accept the drudgery of home and familiy life with its child bearing and rearing, and a husband.

As a matter of fact modern technology has made it possible for Western woman to have any man or number of them she wants, and adequately provides for prevention of pregnancy or disposal of the "product".

Added to this legal "engineering" now makes it possible for modern woman to marry the "person" she wants, thus settling the marriage and man question once and for all.

And yet women are "less happy"? Sounds like ingratitude to me! Or maybe modern woman is now burdened with the endless possibilities that "choice" provides.

I wish men were so lucky!

Posted By: Steve Skeete | June 6, 2009 8:07 PM

Christine,
Words written can quickly turn into misunderstandings and caricatures. I imagine a face-to-face conversation would be more helpful, but here is one last attempt at clarification. The authors of the study identify four possible explanations for their findings, which I summarize in the post. I’ll quote the last of the four from page 28.
“Finally, the changes brought about through the women’s movement may have decreased women’s happiness. The increased opportunity to succeed in many dimensions may have led to an increased likelihood of believing that one’s life is not measuring up. Similarly, women may now compare their lives to a broader group, including men, and find their lives more likely to come up short in this assessment. Or women may simply find the complexity and increased pressure in their modern lives to have come at the cost of happiness.”

This explanation addresses your theory that the women’s movement has not gone far enough, as well as one of mine, that increased expectations for fulfillment has led to decreased happiness when the reality hasn’t borne out.

About my feminism being a parody—perhaps it is helpful to know that I identify more strongly with the cultural and global feminism that are part of 3rd wave feminism than the 2nd wave which you perhaps identify with more. I have deep respect for the women in the 1st wave who fought long and hard for women’s right to vote, and 2nd wave feminists who worked hard to expand equal opportunities for women and brought domestic violence issues into the public square. I have deep respect for 3rd wave feminists who got us thinking about women outside the west, women of color, and lower-class women, and who helped us celebrate being women, and not feeling like we have to function just like men to be fulfilled. I am so hopeful for what Sonia Sotomayor would bring to the Supreme Court because she is a Latina woman who will not serve in exactly the same way a white male would serve. We need her balance to the court as a woman, and a person of color.

I agree a bit with Steve Skeete’s post—women in the developed world have a lot of choice—more than men in some regards. Middle class women can, after all, choose to stay home, or work, or work part-time more easily than middle class men can, and western women have a lot more choice than women in the global south. You are right, we have not arrived yet, but I’d rather spend my best energy fighting to help others have the rights and freedoms I already enjoy.

I consider my most significant task to bring justice to people without it—particularly to women in the global south. And when I live my life in ways that are working toward that end rather than geared at pursuing some specific expectation for “happiness”, I find happiness. My post was intended to be a critique against a sanctioned selfishness that plagues both men and women rather than a critique against feminism. 2nd wave feminism just made it possible for women to be plagued by the same malady already plaguing men. But we needed 2nd wave to get to 3rd wave. The subtitle may have been so much of a lightening rod that that point was lost.

Posted By: Lisa McMinn | June 6, 2009 9:02 PM

Interesting article.. I am personally grateful for the feminist movement... I was able to go to graduate school because of it, have a more equal relationship with my husband, wear what I want, and put off having kids. None of this is bad. I really don't understand why the movement gets such a bad rap, and why the history of the movement is not taught more in schools, after all there is alot of teaching on Black History, etc. Women I think are unhappy because the movement has not gone far enough. I think it has only entered the political and financial realm (ie loans and jobs) and there are still limitations there. But it has not entered the home realm, men still think its a woman's job to do housework. I think women are unhappy bc they are overwhelmed with too much work as this movement has not entered the collective and communal mindset, has not trickled down into values and men's expectations in marraige relationships... why is it expected that a working man should have "hang out" time but if a woman does she is a bad mother? It has just not gone far enough yet.. and it will not either, untill it is taught more and appreciated for what it really is and the positive things it has really done...only then will expectations change and will women feel less overwhelmed...

Posted By: alyson | June 7, 2009 5:12 PM

Lisa, I appreciate your effort to try to clarify. It makes more sense that you were criticizing second-wave feminism, but unless it's clear you were arguing against the second wave in favor of the third wave (which wasn't mentioned at all), it just looks like a critique of feminism all together, which is just what the headline promised. I completely agree with the last sentence of your last post.

I consider myself a third-wave feminist as well, and I've lived in a multicultural part of the country for years and attended a completely multicultural church (Anglo, Latin, Caribbean and African American in roughly equal mix), so I appreciate your work on multicultural issues.

I don't think it takes anything away from that, however, to say that the work of second-wave feminism is not yet done. And, I don't think the fourth potential explanation you quoted from the report addresses that at all. It seems to place all the blame on the women -- that in some form or another they just want too much. That's just nonsense.

It doesn't take anything away from work on global justice issues to say that American society has a long way to go, particularly since the publication you're writing in still publishes and promotes the philosophy and theology of the misogynistic Complementarians. Yes, there were excesses of the second wave, but to blame those excesses and failures entirely on the "sanctioned selfishness" of women seems oddly dismissive of the problems encountered by women who seek not the excesses of totally isolated individualism but who seek partnerships with men, who seek to raise families, and who seek to involve themselves productively in their communities but who sometimes seem to be thwarted at every turn by men who feel threatened (see G. Gordon Liddy), labor and tax policies that are anti-family, and churches who so expertly lay a guilt trip. I'm happy for you that you're free to be the third-wave feminist you want to be, but in an article that appears to be a commentary on why women are unhappy I think at least a nod to the problems still plaguing our society is warranted.

Posted By: Christian Lawyer | June 7, 2009 9:50 PM

Feminism has opened a world of options for women (thank God) and insisted that women be valued as equal, unique, and individual human beings rather than as second-class people who are only good as maids and wombs. Unhappiness occurs when everyone thinks they get to pour expectations and guilt upon women and tell them what they *should* do, a la those who take it upon themselves to demand that "good" women are silent and only work "at-home."

I reject all guilt forced upon me by other people, no matter what their opinion on what I, as a woman, *should* be. And, I'm quite happy, thank you very much!

Posted By: M.E. | June 8, 2009 11:11 AM

I'd really recommend reading the critique on "Language Log" about how this study's data has been interpreted and reported, which you can read here and here.

The study showed changes in reported happiness that pass a test of statistical significance, but are very small by real-world measures. The biggest change is that about 5% fewer women describe themselves as "very happy," and about 5% more women describe themselves as "pretty happy."

Considering all the thousands of things that have happened in the past 30 years, I don't think it's likely that the change even has a single. More likely there are dozens of relevant factors which go into slight variations on how people self-report their happiness.

I agree that the headline was sensationalistic and deceptive, but that's pretty much the way of the world nowadays, isn't it? It wouldn't be fair to expect a Christian site to be any better about that than other sites are.

Posted By: Barry Deutsch | June 8, 2009 9:22 PM

Yes, we have more rights, new opportunities, etc. But, we still have all the old ones too. Most women still do most the housework and childcare, as well as jobs now too. My Mom stayed home and did housework, bookwork for Dad, and Dad worked, then came home and took care of the yard and car. When he retired, he shared the housework. I work, was the parent who handled most the childcare, plus all the housework, yardwork, and I usually am the one to have to work getting car repairs done around my work schedule. My husband works, comes home and watches TV and goes to bed. I am criticized both for working outside the home and for not working for enough money to equally pull my share of the economic load. Traditionalists criticze one way, the rest of society the other, and my husband can criticize both ways at once. A generation ago, women were respected by husbands and community for doing traditional women's roles. I know too many other women in the same boat.

Posted By: EAE | June 9, 2009 2:47 PM

From my understanding the women's movement has regressed in the last couple generations. From what I see, including within my own family, women these days are most concerned about being sexually appealing to the opposite sex (I read a study recently where this was shown through a survey, let alone what we see by just looking out our windows)and being a "celebrity". Things like intelligence, higher education, a good career, have all taken a backseat to being "hot". Not that you can't have both, but the survey indicated that women spend more time and care more about sex appeal these days. You can also see that in our media. I think it is so sad, and no wonder women are unhappy when this is what they think will bring them happiness. Everything in our culture has been sexualized, and though the women's movement fought for respect and equality, women now (not all, of course) want to pose in Playboy so their bodies can be oggled. I'm wondering how this "backward movement" happened? Where is the self-esteem apart from our looks?

Posted By: cheery | June 10, 2009 4:11 PM

You don't get it, do you?
Then try this scene from "Jezebel", a film set in the American south, cir. late 1800s, starring Bette Davis: when Bette's headstrong, rebellious character wears a dark ball gown (really, Scarlet!) to a dance where all the women were supposed to wear white, fluffy, debutante-ish garb, one outraged man comments that if she were his woman, he would cut a cane switch and beat her, then put lard on her wounds and buy her a diamond brooch. The other men nod in solemn agreement. Well, if you find their attitude appalling and insulting, thank a feminist.

God does not want women treated like servants or idiot children. When committed Christian women advocate for the dignity, equality (and safety) of themselves and their sisters everywhere, that is an honorable thing to do, and I thank the women who came before me for the options I had growing up. Do we really want to go back to being in Bette's shoes?

Maybe the reason some women think themselves unhappy these days is not that the feminist movement has given us choices, but that society still expects a woman who makes a non-traditional choice to get out there, roll up her sleeves, pile all of her new duties on top of every traditional duty she ever had before and keep smiling while she "does it all". That's crazy - society doesn't expect that of men.

Hmm... Maybe women really aren't unhappy - maybe we're just exhausted.

Posted By: Lucyanne | June 12, 2009 7:33 AM

Oh my gosh, women are so self-centered and narcissistic! Wah Wah Wah! You people are NEVER happy! There is something seriously defective with women.

Posted By: Johann | June 12, 2009 8:43 AM

Whether "first wave" or "second wave" or "tidal wave" "feminism," however you define it, is responsible for all the great opportunities women now have and/or the decline in female happiness cited by the article is speculative since we don't know how things would have turned out otherwise.

I'd bet that a lot of women married to "misogynistic complementarians" will report a higher level of happiness than men married to "misandrous (man-hating) feminists". I'd also bet that women in the former would report a higher level of happiness than women in the latter. Maybe those "misogynistic complementarians" are on to something.

Religion professors Paul Nathanson and Katherine Young, in their three-book series "Beyond The Fall Of Man," treat misandry as a form of prejudice and discrimination that has become institutionalized in North American society. Nathanson and Young credit "ideological feminism" for imposing misandry on culture. Their book "Spreading Misandry" (2001) analyzes "pop cultural artifacts and productions from the 1990s" from movies to greeting cards for what they consider contains pervasive messages of hatred toward men. "Legalizing Misandry" (2005), the second in the series, gives similar attention to laws in North America.

Perhaps the more virulent feminists are unhappy because man-bashing simply hasn't lived up to expectations.

Posted By: Truthmeister | June 15, 2009 4:27 PM

TM -- So you assume that all of the women whom you have been uable to subjugate hate you? And you believe that feminists have "imposed" "misandry" on Western culture? That sort of paranoid victimiztion is just as divorced from reality as the claims of the white supremecists (like the Holocaust Museum shooter) who rant that minorities have taken over "white" society.

As for myself, and all the feminists I know, there are many, many good, strong, honorable, egalitarian men (Christian or not) in the world who are loved and cherished as husbands, fathers, brothers, colleagues, and friends. There are also alot of misogynists out there. That you choose to belong to the latter group rather than the former is your loss.

Posted By: Christian Lawyer | June 15, 2009 7:38 PM

"So you assume that all of the women whom you have been uable (sic) to subjugate hate you?"

What the....! I think YOU are the one doing the assuming!

Hey CL, here's an idea:

Take a logic course!! Expand your intellectual horizons!! I'm trying to give you another point of view, not that I necessarily buy into all of it!! While you're at it stop presumptuously assuming you know all about where I'm coming from....you haven't the capacity to know that!

Posted By: Truthmeister | June 15, 2009 8:22 PM

Hey TM -- Where's the logic in regurgitating someone else's not particularly novel views, and then claiming not to believe them when challenged? At least have the courage of your own convictions!

Posted By: Christian Lawyer | June 15, 2009 9:27 PM