-
- |
-
- |
- |
- 42
In The Feminine Mystique, Betty Friedan argued that American women suffered from a malaise she called "the problem that had no name." Her critique of domestic ennui helped launch the second-wave feminist movement of the 1960s, leading to many of the advances women now take for granted. But not everything has changed. So we asked women to answer this question: If you had to pinpoint today's problem that had no name, what would it be? Read the other responses here.
Betty Friedan's 1962 classic, The Feminine Mystique, opened with these words:
It was a strange stirring, a sense of dissatisfaction, a yearning that women suffered in the middle of the twentieth century in the United States. Each suburban wife struggled with it alone. As she made the beds, shopped for groceries, matched slipcover material, ate peanut butter sandwiches with her children, chauffeured Cub Scouts and Brownies, lay beside her husband at night—she was afraid to ask even of herself the silent question—"Is this all?"
The problem Friedan described no longer exists. For most young American women today, the problem is not the futility and monotony of domestic life; it is choosing among the many paths open to them. Finding men as ambitious and well-educated as they are is another challenge. Life for women may be difficult, but the system is no longer rigged against them.
In 1962, two-thirds of the American workforce was male. Most well-paid and prestigious jobs were off-limits to women. Women worked, of course, but it was the custom for many employers to think of their salaries as "pin money." Advertisers and psychologists sought to persuade women that the fulfillment of their femininity was their highest calling. Adlai Stevenson, the liberal politician and diplomat, condescendingly advised the Smith College graduating class of 1955 that it was their destiny to participate in politics solely through their roles as wives and mothers. "Women," he said, "especially educated women, have a unique opportunity to influence us, man and boy." One magazine ran an article titled "Do Women Have To Talk So Much?" Pop psychoanalysts even warned women that too much education could ruin their sex lives.
Friedan—a stocky, disheveled, volatile Jewish iconoclast from Peoria, Ill.—had no patience for such nonsense. She was given to wild overstatement, calling the suburban home a "comfortable concentration camp" where women suffer a "slow death of mind and spirit." (Friedan later regretted those remarks and apologized.) But the middle-class homemakers she was addressing tuned out her eccentric rhetoric and took away the parts of her message that suited them.
The late Erma Bombeck, a popular syndicated humorist and columnist, wrote about the night in 1963 when she and two other suburban housewives drove to Columbus, Ohio, to hear a lecture by Friedan. "This is a sexist society," shouted Friedan. "You are not using your God-given abilities to their potential." Bombeck was stunned by Friedan's harangue. She found her message too sweeping, too humorless, and too unforgiving of ordinary women. "I had a life going here. Maybe it needed work. But I had a husband and three kids whom I loved." But then Bombeck had a second thought: "I liked the part about using your God-given potential. I wondered if I had any." A few weeks later, she went to her local newspaper and asked whether she could write a humorous column about life in the suburbs.
Fast forward to 2009, and you find that women are now fully half of the American workforce. They earn 57 percent of bachelor's degrees, 59 percent of master's degrees, and half the doctorates. Females have achieved parity with males in law school and medical school and left their male counterparts in the dust in fields like veterinary medicine and psychology. Women serve as presidents of Harvard, MIT, Princeton, the University of Pennsylvania, and many other leading research universities. Today American women are among the healthiest, freest, best-educated women in the world, and they score near the top on international surveys of happiness and life satisfaction.
SNL: Equal Opportunity Objectifiers
Jon Hamm spent most of the Saturday Night Live episode he hosted last night shirtless.
Confessions of a Woman Comedy Writer
Allison Silverman accepts one from New York Women in Film & Television (and tells us why it's rare).
Comments
a tide of your creation (and mine through indifference)
By: theotherside | Fri, 11/20/2009 - 12:45
is rolling back in at full force.
This is something I wrote in response to a woman writing a script for a man to follow in order to be more dominant. I am reminding you now that I am deliberately at times being very harsh and one-sided and even hyperbolic, but I do so to prove a point. I am also providing some very holistic wisdom, if you will read between the lines. Sometimes one cannot wake one from their slumber by merely hearing the truth. A mirror held up to an ugly spirit is necessary. The cognitive dissonance created by the illogic of certain unscrupulous women (and men) can be frightening. It is not that she (or he) is illogical, it is rather the false view of feminine (in men or women) as categorical innocence that allows the ruse of doublespeak to work. It is a creation and destruction principle to which logic is applied to install order. It can be loving or hateful, but rarely in the middle. No more. I believe the essence of my comment conveys a very powerful message, if you have ears to hear. BTW, I am fully for the removal of stereotypical images, because I can then see the patterns in behavior and appropriately identify the spirit, or cyclical thought virus, behind such actions.
First things first, I think that the saddest thing is that many women truly have no clue (or the second they get one, they turn a blind eye and run, run, run, for the clue might contradict the fabricated "reality" of many), because you are always surrounded by yes men who will not stand up to your crap for fear of being shut off from the sacred vagina. I am being general in all of this, and I fully acknowledge that certain women are aware of their web-weaving powers and do choose to not use them for mind-hijacking. We men have awesome powers too that we restrain out of love (and, honestly, also due to the ruse that both of us have created that you are somehow wonderfully pure moral agents, when you are simply agents across an entire spectrum). I am also admittedly being EXTREMELY harsh in this comment, but I feel I must alert you to an emotional recoil from men which you have had a very active hand in. I do not generally view it in the harsh way in which I communicate, but I do so for a valid reason in playing this "game" that you so love to play. Tee hee. I profoundly see the importance in shining a mirror to the drivel with which you (droves of women and not necessarily you) have been subjecting us to for years. It does hurt us, a lot. We are just as emotional as you, but somehow you are threatened in your self-contradictory view of self as an archetype (alter or idol and not true self?) of sacrificial powerlessness. You are clearly threatened by a man emotionally in tune. If I were to forbid you to think in the same way you forbid me to feel, well....all hell would break lose from the hate in your universe. And don't lie viper, you do not want an emotionally aware male, you want someone sensitive to your narcissistic web, and otherwise a numb, programmable robot.
Some men might have objectified you, but you have subjectified us. We are subject to being a "character" in your drama. We are a "tool" to provide for you and to sacrifice our expendable, worthless selves in the name of protecting you. We are to serve the goddess and damn well love the privilege. Now, you are objectifying us as well. That leaves a zero for us to be, if we are to get into the glorious arms of the self-described goddess. Soulless meat puppet playing the role of dominant like a good minion. Nevertheless, the following is ironically a dominant social wave of awareness that IS to come to many, if not just about all men in the VERY NEAR future. It is as natural a reaction to women's recent actions (and manipulations) as is a billiard ball bouncing off of another.
Is you acting as the source code for us malleable male robots the same as us being dominant? We can self-program, don't you know, at least if we don't get duped into letting women dissolve our Yahweh egos in grand anti-Christ fashion, WITHOUT our permission. Showing our independence by being the characters in your drama, the flies in your woven webs of vainglory is somehow us being dominant? Cognitive dissonance much? It all has eerily the same flavor of, "Let them eat cake." Bending to the wills of petulant children is not, in any way shape or form, no matter how you try to twist it to your protective layer of fantasy, being dominant. And don't say it is easy to stand up to your bullcrap. You have infiltrated media and business and law and commerce with your witchcraft, with your carefully constructed woven spells (words are the most powerful thing on the planet, and it all comes back to bite the authors if they played the roles of vipers). Now that you women have gained more "outer" dominance, through the aid of entitlements and special treatments and ostracizations of all that is masculine, including drugging your sons to make them more "receptive flowers", we men are far too aware of the inner dominance you have had and have diabolically applied for years. It is clear that we "respect" you, as in seeing your perspective, far more so than you do ours. Hell, you have consistently manipulated us ants in order that we might build a colony from your perspective. It is quite clear that you have consistently acted in duplicity, forever exploiting man's love for you. He has loved you so much, that even when faced with constant suspicions of the webs you have woven, he has chosen to continually forgive. You killed Yahwweh, except to the extent that he can be your soulless meat puppet, and now it is time for us to kill Satan. This world seeks balance. You thought you could gain outer dominance with the men not encroaching on your inner territory? How very foolish of you. Especially for one who claims to be so "in tune" with cycles. Maybe you are listening only to your narcissistic cacophony? Typical of a beast so foolishly enclosed upon itself in an act of self-congratulatory masturbation to think of itself as divine. Repent and seek the truth, beyond your narrow angles, or enjoy choking on the forbidden fruit. You might not like the realm to which it transports you.
You women are now androgynous creatures. You have been for years. Either go back to feminine or face screwing yourself, in a sense. You can not blame men for not being that perfectly compatible other when you have given yourself personal "FREEDOMination" to be a petulant androgyne. The only other to that construct is the wise androgyne, and that persona would have no compatibility with a bratty, reptilian/black widow dick/c***. BTW, you could also go masculine, and I can tell you exactly when, where, and how to screw me, have infinite self-contradictory expectations in how you "relate" to me, in order that I might play the role of accuser at a whim for sadism (we know you only want a mirror to YOUR other side, in all your narcissism), and then somehow weave a web to convince you that you are "dominant." Wait, that will be easy, I will simply mandate that I am the only one allowed to emotionally cycle, or else you shall face immediate shunning and shame and omission from all love, and thereby maintain my hegemony as the only one able to see how to control a drama. I will then ride on you like the beast you are like a good Jezebel spirit.
Oh, and if you are going to eventually be a singularity of masculine and feminine (I am superwoman narcissist with (ostensibly) male logic and external power; I am all things to all people; worship me), make sure it is instead Christ-like (the sublime androgyne) and not Beast-like (the base, enslaved, mindlessly manipulating and dominating androgyne.) It is obvious what will win in the conscious social evolution. It is a choice all of us must make every moment. The end game might surprise a few, or rather just about everybody.
Stop the crap above, and I promise to f your brains out.
Oh, and if you're pouting and vainly indignant, you are proving my point that you refuse to accept your dark side which you have shown us so many times. Keep hiding it. It only grows stronger when you try to deny it, eventually causing a fissure of you. Hopefully, you will break down and see the light that things are not going back to the way they were, you were an ACTIVE WILLFUL agent in the process, and that you must now "man up" and face the consequences of your actions with no white knight to save you or no meat puppet to manipulate.
The AGES old WORLD religion of the whore of babylon is closing its cover. Patriarchy/matriarchy. Domination/manipulation. The world has been run according to the whore principle for at least thousands upon thousands of years. He or she who would sell his or her soul for immediate comfort has shaped the entire story of history. It is why history is so predictable. The masses truly are mindless, but can be redeemed. The pseudo-intellectual half wits with angles the size of planets are the most pathetically mindless pawns. It is all going according to plan, even though it is requiring much sacrifice. It is only a matter of a very short time before the already mortally wounded fully bleeds out.
Thanks
By: Robin1 | Fri, 11/13/2009 - 01:03
Very nice and useful post. The link that you published is a big help to me. It will be an additional resources for me. I am self studying web designing, so all this kind of resources is very important. Thank you
travel clinic london
Men are NOT the "advantaged sex"!
By: Lenfirewood | Thu, 09/10/2009 - 08:56
Emily W and others have made the fatuous claim that men are the "advantaged sex"! Well that may be a feminist sound byte but in reality the OPPOSITE is true. After all even today in modern disasters the cry is still "WOMEN and children first" - clearly LIFE itself must be a great disadvantage to the 'thinking' why else would women (and children) be forced to survive and not have the 'privilege' of DEATH. Of course feminists really must think this way because men have this 'privilege' in so mnay other areas also like workplace deaths where they far outnumber women, men also die 5 years younger than women even though in many nations including mine they work 5 years LONGER before they can retire, health spending even after womens maternity needs are taken into consideration is far higher for women that it is for men suggesting again that death is a 'privilege'. Men are also put into frontline combat and men only conscription also helps explain why so many many many more men have the 'privilege' of coming home in body bags than women. Yes men are the "advantaged sex" as there are so many more ways we can DIE before downtrodden women. Education must be a handicap too considering that the system has now been feminised to advantage girls style of learning at the expense of boys and having the privilege of losing your own home and your children almost by DEFAULT to a vindictive wife in the family courts is another privilege I feel guilty about... mea culpa...
Wow that’s a big ask! Are
By: saracarrol | Thu, 08/20/2009 - 11:41
Wow that’s a big ask! Are they really the second sex now? I guess it’s not now, but it can happen in the upcoming decade !
Wheels for sale
Feminism & Happiness
By: amana khan | Sat, 07/04/2009 - 06:47
Reading over these reflective articles on feminism, its amazing to see the discrepencies in statistics that are being quoted about "female happiness" now vs. in the 1960's. Some say happiness has correlated with greater political equality, others say the opposite. This just shows how unreliable statistics are, especially when it comes to something s subjective as "happiness". Secondly, is happiness the purpose of feminism? If it is, then its bound to fail, is it not?
Reality Check
By: Quinnae Moongazer | Fri, 07/03/2009 - 21:45
Some of the comments here are truly shocking.
To assert that there is a war on men is a bit like claiming there's a war on white citizens: it requires incendiary anecdotes and carefully selected offences to claim that something so ridiculous is happening in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Men do retain a privileged position in this society.
Some of the far right commentors here asserted that women are trying to be like men. Oddly, they are indeed somewhat correct in this- but my reasons for pointing this out are far different. Womens' imitation of males is due to one thing and one thing only.
No one here would ever claim that women aren't mens' equal. But talk about whether femininity is masculinity's equal, and men and women alike from across the spectrum would queue up to denigrate being en femme as weak, effete, and alternately sissy-ish or 'disempowering.'
Men and feminist women alike have caused this, which has given rise to the stereotype of women trying to be men. Because they are. For the very good reason that men think women are only competent when they embrace masculine virtues and shun feminine ones. On the flip side, feminists have denigrated femininity, dismissing it as a social construction of patriarchs.
What an irony that this falsehood gives such great succour to latter day patriarchs.
That is the dark reality lurking behind the sunny statistics quoted by Ms. Summers. Many women are powerful today, yes. But we have to sell our souls to do so in a way that men do not quite have to do.
As to the healthcare gap etc... Women tend to live longer than men in most countries for various reasons, few having to do with sexism. Second, "Men's Health" is not an unknown term. Many clinics and healthcare programs and magazines are devoted to the unique physiology of men. Men smoke and drink more partially because the advertising is directed at them.
A concern feminists have raised time and again. To assert that women do not speak out against ignorant portrayals of men on TV is wrong and damaging. The reason is that stereotyping in the media hurts all of us; men, women, minorities alike. Second, those same commercials that target men for alcohol also portray women in a... less than enlightened way. We are, in part, portrayed as a *benefit* to drinking booze.
To assert that all media now empowers women and disses men is to miss the point entirely. Even "empowering" portrayals of women in the media are sexist at their core.(For a humourous take on this, look up Sarah Haskins and her brilliant "Target: Women" advertising spoofs).
Femininity has been scapegoated by both feminists and conservatives. That, to me, is the unspeakable problem we should all be concerned with. Gay men are targeted and feared not just because of their homosexuality but because some appear to take on feminine characteristics. Transsexual women (one of whom was just brutally beaten last week in my native New York in a bias attack) are especially loathed because they appear to conservatives as "men" who *want* to be women, and feminine. A scary idea to them indeed.
How could masculinity be superior if such things happen, after all?
To argue that men are under some kind of assault seems to deny the reality of a world where a woman is left bleeding for dead in the street because she wants to be a woman.
Making Men the 2nd Sex Globally?
By: Usama3 | Sun, 05/31/2009 - 22:52
While there are many things American women have to be proud of in elevating women's rights and needs, the next step is NOT taking the fight globally to Africa and the Muslim world. Such talk reveals system failure in the idea and cause. The leering, looming, volatile, combustible threat that American women miss is right at home.
The failure of young American males. Only 48% of black and latino boys graduate from high school. 60% of black households are run by single parents, 90% in many urban areas. The vast majority of these are led by women. AmConMag ran an article some time ago showing how white/European American women have monopolized the advantages of civil rights achieved in the 1960s to the detriment of minority males, in particular black/African American men. How many black senators are there? less than 1, actually 3/5 of 1, considering that Burris is likely on the way out.
American males are on the downward momentum, ecspecially black and latino males. China graduates 600,000 engineers a year, America 70,000, and how many are black?
See, while women may be able to have babies with only a male's sperm, male babies grow into men. What kind of men will they be without a male role model, a father?
The cause of feminism is to make men the 2nd sex globally? Is the rest of the world protected by a big brother government that will respond to every 911 call, provide food stamps or WIC checks, or patrol the streets at night?
Ad Hominems no substitute for reasoned argument...
By: Lenfirewood | Thu, 05/28/2009 - 07:05
@fredya - aside from your ad hominems to Christina do you have anything specific you disagree with and could you tell us please what this is and your reasoning (sans the mindless insults if you please!)why you are in disagreement?
Frontman Fallacy
By: Lenfirewood | Thu, 05/28/2009 - 06:58
Emily_w is relying on what is called the Frontman Fallacy when she claims (about men)
Need I remind her that the DISADVANTAGES to men that were enumerated came about from a government strongly dominated by men! The Frontman Fallacy is actually an insight of those invoking it of their own inherent sexism and bigotry - in effect it ASSUMES that were there is a predominance of one sex (in this case men) in positions of power then that predominant sex will automatically be biased towards giving advantages towards it's own sex to the detriment of the other. How wrong this is in the case of men at least or has Emily w never heard of male chivalry (institutionalised and otherwise)?
Political considerations...
By: Lenfirewood | Thu, 05/28/2009 - 06:48
'ladyp' claimed that this article was politicised and 'boring' and then gave a link to an allegedly 'non politicised' version. After reading her so called 'non politicised' version all I can say is that politics (just as beauty)must be in the eye of the beholder - her version suggested that the only way for men to be 'liberated' too would be to accept the feminist ideology about 'gender' - something I strongly reject. We would not even be here were it not for the fact of our SEXUAL dimorphism as a species - i.e. it is our sexual characteristics which is a stronger defining force (having it's roots more in nature than nurture)then the touchy feely notions of 'gender' bantered about by feminist pseudo-scientists with arts related degrees. Just as we men accorded women the right to define for themselves what it is to be a 'woman' so we men are putting women on notice that we are going to give ourselves an equal freedom to define what it is to be a man.