Yet another series by a guy writer on the topic of those unhappy wimmen. This time it's Russel Bishop telling women that what makes them unhappy is trying to compete with the boyz:
My theory as that over the past 40 years, as American society exited the "Father Knows Best" or "Leave It To Beaver" mentality of the 50's and 60's, we seem to have increasingly equated success and fulfillment with jobs, career advancement, position title, bank accounts, and other symbols of success. If you were one of those statistical women who took on job, career or economic goals as your "symbols" of success, you just might have wound up sacrificing what mattered most in hopes of greener pastures at the other end of job, career or economic goals.
What if you won the race to the top: a better job, increased paycheck, more "toys" than the boys? Did you bargain for all that comes with it? Did you anticipate the sacrifices you would have to make to get there? How are those trades looking now?
Pardon me while I bang my head against the garage door.
Just to a reminder, the initial study which started this diarrhea flowing found a small increase in the number of women reporting that they were not too happy, when compared to studies forty years ago or so. The study establishing this was unable to find any one group of women which would have caused this increase. IN PARTICULAR, STAY-AT-HOME WIVES WERE AS LIKELY TO REPORT INCREASED UNHAPPINESS AS WOMEN IN THE LABOR FORCE. Yes, that's worth shouting about, even though nobody on Huffington Post hears it.
So you begin with a finding that having a job is not the reason why women's unhappiness might have risen? Never mind! Let's pretend that it IS the reason! Then let's pretend that all the women with jobs have them only in order to die in the corner office! Nope, they are not working to earn money. They work to compete with the boyz, and what makes the boyz happy makes the wimmins unhappy. So the wimmins should return to the world of "Father Knows Best." Even though that was a television series, not real world.
This is so fucking inane (and yes, I know I shouldn't write that word). Don't read the comments thread if you want to keep your sanity. Though I award my louse medal for this comment:
I've read enough evolutionary psychology to know that nature's purpose for women is to bear children and raise them. However, I wouldn't go so far as to say that means they must obey nature's command and deny their hearts. But, I do question whether wanting to compete with men in everything and making themselves miserable in the process is really their heart's speaking or the constant nagging of the feminists in society who people should have stopped listening to almost immediately after they opened their mouths in the 60's.
I know I'm shouting into a barrel and nobody will hear. It's much more fun and exciting to debate the question whether women should stay at home or not. Never mind that nobody is offering a wage for that or health insurance or retirement benefits! Never mind, either, that the happiness of one Mr. Russell Bishop seems to be inextricably intertwined with that premise or some similar one.
I do admit wondering why HuffPo puts up guys to write on the topic of women's happiness, by the way. Especially as these guys certainly have an axe to grind.
You should also read this post of mine, while we are on the topic of what constitutes a failure of feminism. And Barbara Ehrenreich's take on the whole hullabaloo. Thanks to AndiF for that link.