Hermenuetics

Comments

This is a great idea! I'm excited to read and take part in the discussion.

Posted By: Lauren | October 27, 2009 12:31 PM

The question itself, "Why aren't women happier?" seems to need some reflection. Happier than what? Happier than men? Happier than women in the 1950s? The 18000s? And of course, what do we mean by "happy"? The "who won" question also needs some critique. As the next post "Are You Happy Now?" suggests happiness isn't the goal ( neither is winning). I wonder if the way through the gender roles debate requires asking a better question?

Posted By: Nancy Janisch | October 27, 2009 12:40 PM

I wonder a few things from this...
1) Is there evidence women used to be happier than they are today?
2) Has the happiness of men also changed (if it has changed)?
and thus
3) Is this a women's role issue, or a bigger issue for men and women?

Posted By: Andrew Vogel | October 27, 2009 12:57 PM

Having grown up in a very traditional family during the beginnings of the women's movement , I find that I am torn between the two views. I always assumed that I would work outside the home (unlike my mother), but never expected to be the primary source of income.
Am I happy? After being widowed at 46 I am glad that I was not in the position of starting over when my husband died suddenly. Having an education and career softened some of the painful circumstance. But this is more a feeling of relief than of happiness. Happiness is more than just having options in education and career; it is about our relationship with God.
As for who wins; as long as we see ourselves in competition no one will win. Our relationships with God and our neighbors determines the happiness we hold in this world.

Posted By: Deanna | October 27, 2009 4:05 PM

“If a happy marriage and children is the highest priority for more than half of those surveyed, then I believe we need to be more intentional about helping our culture achieve those goals.”

Shouldn't that be any married-person-with-child(ren)'s highest priority, after serving God in whatever capacity he has called us? If "the family" is a Christian woman's absolute highest priority, and serving God is secondary, isn't that a PROBLEM? Unless one thinks that the ONLY way for a woman to serve God and have a healthy family to constantly cater to her husband and child(ren) to the complete exclusion of any other pursuit, which is also a problem.

I agree. We SHOULD be more intentional about urging society to assist people, both men and women, in achieving healthy families. We have that option in our industrialized, Western world. That's why things such as health care reform, paid family leave, paid sick days, flex-time, good public schools, and other family-friendly policies are so important. They allow men and women the time they need to care for the health of their families without compromising a family's economic stability nor their ability to accomplish the other important work (whatever that is) that God has called us to do.

"We" (women) only take on "double the responsibilities and stress" when men fail to carry their part of them. My husband and I both have paid employment. We both do housework, childcare, cooking, laundry, yardwork, etc. The "second shift" is a reality, but it needn't be. When men and women form equal, mutually-beneficial partnerships in marriage, they have the opportunity to create a division of labor that works best for their families. That could be one person handling all the "household" responsibilities and another earning money. Or it could involve both earning money and both shouldering the chores at home. Both arrangements are equally valid as long as husband and wife are in harmony. What works changes over time so that flexibility and adaptation are necessary. Marriage and child-rearing are not one-size-fits-all.

Posted By: Robyn | October 28, 2009 1:00 PM