Are Women Always Wrong?

Monday, April 02, 2007

Adam and Eve


Author of "The Feminine Mistake" Leslie Bennetts writes in The Huffington Post:

Everyone knows that authors have to be prepared for negative reviews. What I didn't anticipate was an avalanche of blistering attacks by women who hadn't read my book but couldn't wait to condemn it. Their fury says a great deal about the current debate over women's choices -- all of it alarming.

In the comment thread that follows, hcgorman asks:

Maybe it is the title?

You know hc, I had the exact same thought. And yes, I get that it's a play on "The Feminine Mystique." But maybe a lot of us are just tired of being told that no matter what we do, no matter what we choose, we're always wrong.

There is a lot to recommend this book on the substance. Women who give up gainful employment to raise a family risk a lot. I personally have known a number of women who derailed the career track to focus on childrearing, only to find that in a divorce their lack of earning power left them at a disadvantage in custody battles. Imagine devoting your life to your kids only to find that having done so means you could lose primary custody of them.

Bennetts goes on:

My goal in writing The Feminine Mistake was to provide women with what I saw as one-stop-shopping that would help close this information gap. My goal was to gather into a single neat package all the financial, legal, sociological, psychological, medical, labor-force, child-rearing and other information necessary for them to protect themselves. My reporting revealed that the bad news is just as ominous as I'd feared; so many women are unaware of practical realities that range from crucial changes in the divorce laws to the difficulties of reentering the work force and the penalties they pay for taking a time-out. I devoted two chapters to financial information alone.

What I find unfortunate in Bennetts's approach is not the pragmatism, but the hectoring tone and the conflation of financial remuneration with empowerment. Like many who have reacted to her book, I should disclose that I have not read it as yet. Perhaps having done so, I might feel differently, but nothing I've read so far, including her own words on Huffington Post, makes me optimistic. Nor does it make me want to read it. I can be insulted anywhere and I don't need to shell out $24.95 for the privilege.

Bennetts seems highly focused on women who left their careers because of rescue fantasies.

And yet millions of women continue to be misled by the fairy-tale version of life, in which Prince Charming comes along and takes care of you forever. Our culture programs women to believe that they can depend on a man to support them -- the classic feminine mistake -- and fails to explain how often that alluring promise is betrayed, whether by a change of heart or a heartless fate.

I'm sure those modern-day Cindarellas are out there. I haven't met them.

There are many reasons that women choose to return to homemaking and childrearing. One is the continuing perception that it is better for their children. And in case it slips our minds, there seems no end to the reminders; like this one from the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development.

The government-funded, ongoing study of more than 1,000 children found that very young children who spent long hours in day care were more likely to become aggressive and defiant in school, beginning in kindergarten and continuing through sixth grade.

I heard that sound-bite today. It made me feel like I had deja vu. As did reading the more complete coverage, which points out that kids who have quality daycare have better verbal skills and no increase in behavioral problems. (So if you're going to put your kids in daycare, be sure and be wealthy). But here's the kicker:

While that fact is continually highlighted, it is important to note that 83 percent of the children in the study did not display these behaviors. In addition, this is not a scientific study, and there was no evaluation of how many stay-at-home children displayed the same tendencies. [emphasis added]

So why was this even released to the press? This ongoing study has been marred by controversy from the beginning. From a Los Angeles Times story of 2001:

A week after a high-profile study cast a negative light on child care, researchers--including the study's lead statistician--are sharply questioning whether their controversial work has been misrepresented.

As reported last week, the study showed that the more time preschoolers spend in child care, the more likely their teachers were to report behavior problems such as aggression and defiance in kindergarten.

But several academics involved in the study said that its conclusion was overstated and that other important findings never reached the public. In the aftermath, a rift has been exposed among the research team, and questions from other experts have caused the researchers to perform additional analysis before formally publishing their findings.

"I feel we have been extremely irresponsible, and I'm very sorry the results have been presented in this way," said Margaret Burchinal, the lead statistician on the study, funded by National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. "I'm afraid we have scared parents, especially since most parents in this country [have to work]."

Several of those involved in the project accuse Jay Belsky, a professor at the University of London and one of the lead researchers on the study, of downplaying other important information when he presented the findings at a news conference last week. They accuse him of having an anti-child-care agenda.

Belsky charged that his colleagues are "running from this data like a nuclear bomb went off" because they are committed to putting an approving stamp on child care.

The pattern at that time was the same as we are seeing play out now. An alarm about daycare increasing aggression and the caveats ignored by most news venues. Because, lets face it, the idea that working mothers are bad for kids is part of an established narrative. And when facts and narrative conflict, narrative wins. So many working mothers feel like the trade-offs may be a necessary evil, but an evil none-the-less.

A number of women have embraced the return to "traditional roles." Along comes Bennetts to tell those women, that -- guess what -- wrong again.

Stay-at-home mom Nello had the same reaction that the aforementioned hcgorman and I did. Bad title.

Interesting title, no?
That’s what I thought too. And that is why I read the article that has heretofore been given the award for “Article That Has Upset Nello The Most Since She Doesn’t Know When.”

And I quote:

“I think it’s time to tell women, especially young ones, the truth: The feminine mistake- building a grown-up life around the notion that someone will take care of you- is an outdated idea that could jeopardize your future.”. . .

Alright.
Why am I upset?
Reason number one: Because I don’t like my life being referred to as a “mistake”.
Hell. Who does?

Reason number two: I wasn’t aware that I was “being taken care of”. I thought that my family was taking care of each.other.
But hey. I’m just a stupid Home Mom. What the hell do I know?

Reason number three: Because this Leslie Bennetts obviously hit one of my fragile nerves. Yeah. That’s right Leslie. I’m not afraid to admit that a part of me is afraid that you could be right. Maybe I did make a mistake...

So, yes, women tend to be a little sensitive to the whole, "you're wrong" thing. But, more importantly, Nello raises what I think is a crucial point. The idea that stay-at-home mothers just want to be taken care of is a canard. Families, whether single or double-income are interdependent units. The "traditional" family structure is at bottom a division of labor. The men worked outside the home. The women worked in it. But, particularly in a highly developed society like ours, work is not considered, well, work, unless it earns a wage and contributes to the GDP. One of the casualties of early feminism -- with its focus on freeing women from codified gender roles -- is an idea that NOW has embraced in more recent years: "Every Mother is a Working Mother."

This is not to say that the idea that money equals value is a trap only for women. I would love to take at face value Bennetts's assertion that working for a living imbues us with a sense of personal empowerment, but that's not been my experience. Too many women and men are living lives of quiet desperation as "wage slaves." I've personally known a number of women who ran back to home and hearth, because the promise of work as freeing and esteem building didn't pan out. What they found, when they snatched that brass ring, was that it turned their fingers green. They had babies and went home because it turned out to be the more fulfilling choice, after all. And wasn't personal fulfillment one of the major goals of the feminist movement?

To hear Bennetts tell it, stay-at-home mothers are not making proactive choices at all. They are passive and indolent.

Thus buffered from harsh realities, stay-at-home mothers can often preserve their illusions for quite a while. But over the long run, neither willful obliviousness nor a double standard that treats them like second-class citizens will save these women from the all-too-real problems I have documented in my book. The facts don't change just because you refuse to look at them.

I hope I'm wrong about this. Maybe the stay-at-home moms will devour the information in The Feminine Mistake and debate my findings in their book clubs. Maybe some of them will even reconsider their choices and start making more sensible plans for the future than relying on the blithe assumption that there will always be an obliging husband around to support them.

Gosh, Leslie, I can't imagine why you're getting such a negative reaction. You'd expect to be embraced when you tell a bunch of women who thought their lives were very full and rewarding, that they're really being feckless.

There's quite an industry in criticizing women. Many of its voices are female and sound like the mothers and grandmothers who always seemed to be harder on female children than male ones. We're not accomplishing enough. We try to do too much. We're too sexual. We're not attractive enough. We should make our own choices. Our choices are wrong. On and on it goes.

From what I've read so far of Bennetts's work the warnings themselves are sound, like telling women not to walk the streets at night. The world is a far less safe place for women than for men on every level; physically, sexually, economically, emotionally. I guess I've just gotten a little tired of being treated like I'm a fool because no matter what I do I can't adequately protect myself from it.

21 comments:

Curmudgette said...

Yep. That's me. Typical feminist whiner. Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong. And you, DB, are nothing if not predictable. I won't be debating you on this issue -- or anything really -- because debating with you is Sisyphean task, and life has provided me with more than enough of those.

Curmudgette said...

btw the comment you quoted was from the 2nd comment at that site, a "hcgorman" not "micropainter".

Noted. I'll make the correction. I hate the message boards on Huffpo, and have that trouble parsing that kind of thing in the past. Thanks for the heads up.

The Blogging Curmudgeon said...

Seems the Dead To Me philosophy is spreading.

Curmudgette said...

DavidByron said...

Well I can see a case for avoiding talking about this issue with me, and that's all she said.


Actually, I said I would not debate with you on this or any issue. This has more to do with your debating style than the fact that we are diametrically opposed on key points. I would be willing to hash it out, but all debates with you are circular and come back to your certitude that you are right and anyone who disagrees with you is just tragically uninformed and irrational. You seem to think that if you pound people with your notions hard enough and never concede a point, you've won. What you lack in logos you certainly make up for in tenacity. You're like an energizer bunny of mean-ness when you get revved up. You resort to ad hominems and shock value at the drop of a hat. And as far as this issue goes, you display a palpable rage against women that, frankly, makes me very uncomfortable.

You are sufficiently contrarian that I don't think you'd be able to fit as a feminist very well.

Well then. It's a good thing that I'm not a feminist so that I can "fit" in anywhere.

supersoling said...

DB,
Ever been a single parent? If not, you should try it. It's not for the weak or the faint of heart. I did it for two years and it wore my tail to the bone. If I'd been unfortunate enough, economically speaking, to be a single Mother, then my job and my chances of success would have been diminished by a third or more based solely on the incontrevertable fact that women do not earn as much as men do in this system.

I was struck though by the praise I recieved from these same women. I was praised because I am a man. For doing something that i see as only natural for any parent, but that society sees as extraordinary. The thing is though that the praise was unwarranted because I had it much easier simply because as a man I was afforded a better income. It had nothing to do with my worth as an employee. Only to do with the accident of my birth.

Curmudgette said...

Hey Super,
Nice to see you.

supersoling said...

Thanks,
I read your diary at BT and MLW. Normally I doubt I'd step into a discussion on the subject. Mainly out of ignorance. Better to read and learn. But, ya know, in this thread, I couldn't help myself ;o)

Curmudgette said...

Well you're welcome to step in anytime. As you can see I tolerate a wide range of viewpoints on my blog. I only delete spam or things I think might be legally actionable. Besides, I've been enjoying your viewpoint here and there around the web for a long time.

supersoling said...

Thanks again,
the feeling is mutual.

Peace

The Blogging Curmudgeon said...

Hit any pregnant women in the stomach with a baseball bat lately, David?

Oh wait, you didn't actually DO that--you just expressed sympathy for any man who did it to avoid paying child support.

I always find it interesting--if more than a bit disquieting--to stand by and witness David Byron's obvious hatred for, and loathing of, women.

David, I say this in all sincerity: I'm grateful I've never met you and hopeful that I never will.

Anonymous said...

Hi Curmugdette.

I just stopped by to skim the vitriol. Pretty poor quality, in my opinion. Falls into the classic: you can love me, or hate men (which is why lesbians are really man-haters, didn’t you know), but you cannot ignore men (no matter how irrelevant they make themselves).

Me(n)
Me(n)
Me(n)
It’s all about Me(n)!

Pretty pathetic behavior, unless you’re three years old.

Keep up the good work.

supersoling said...

Soling is a class of racing sailboat, former Olympic class. I have one.

Sorry DB,
but anyone who advocates ending a pregnancy with a baseball bat would be met with violence from me. I won't ever apologize for that.

Your anger is misdirected. You should focus on the society that makes it rare, if impossible for women to make equal pay for equal work. If they were payed equally then more families could make the decision for the father, or whoever is making less money, to stay home with the children. As it stands few fathers can do that now and it all comes down to wages. It has nothing to do with needing to work harder.

Curmudgette said...

keres said...

(which is why lesbians are really man-haters, didn’t you know)


I always loved Roseanne's take on that. "Hate men? Why would lesbians hate men? They don't have to fuck'em!"

Nice to see you keres. Thanks for stoppin' by.

Curmudgette said...

You know supersoling, I never knew the derivation of your nickname, and like DB, I was a little curious. Bad on me. There are a number of sailers in my family. I spent the summers of my youth at a yacht club where my grandfather raced his Lightning. But I have no talent for it. I'm a wretched sailer. Embarrassingly bad. It was always just a lot of "Get on the other side of the boat. Now the other side. Now the other side. Whoa! Watch out for the main sail. Ooohh! What are you doing in the lake?" I exaggerate only slightly.

supersoling said...

It isn't too difficult to become an adequate sailor and that's about the extent of my talent. But to compete or win in a race is something entirely different. I get by because my boat is fast. And I learned the hard way to remind myself to get to the other side of the boat and to duck as the boom crosses :o)

Curmudgette said...

Well it was difficult for me. I just don't have the knack. Fortunately I'm an ok swimmer, or I might not have survived the attempts. I was sent to sailing camp when I was a kid -- and I mean "sent." I did not choose it. It was horrible. I won one race, and was chastised by the instructor because she couldn't figure out how I'd won when I'd done literally everything wrong. The last day I managed to get stuck under a my turtled boat, nearly drowned, and had to be dragged onto another boat because I had a full-blown anxiety attack and my arms and legs went numb. Pathetic. The whole thing left me horribly traumatized. You won't see me on another boat. Probably for the best. I'm so white I'm practically clear. I do best if I shun sunlight like a vampire.

Curmudgette said...

davidbyron said...

Ok then here's something I've always wanted to as you. Is that picture of you, or is it of Alice Roosevelt Longworth or someone else? You're not pulling an SOJ on us are you?


Nope. Dorothy Parker. A rather recognizable shot, actually. The BC used an HL Mencken photo and I used that one, way back when we first started the blog. Two very famous curmudgeons. Certainly not intended as any deception. Funnily, there is some resemblance, but only in that shot. I really don't look like Dorothy Parker. I am not, however, pulling a soj, and I resent the implication. I assure you, I am quite female. Soj never says either way, actually. Only implies. I've been very open about the fact that I prefer to keep my anonymity. Recent events have only affirmed my instinct on that score.

supersoling said...

Wage Gaps
Listed by job description.
Source, U.S. Dept. of Labor, 2004

supersoling said...

That should be, 2002, 2003.

Curmudgette said...

You're a lying sack of shit, David. Nowhere in that diary or anywhere else did I pronounce the Duke Lacrosse players guilty. I have numerous times said that it was a for a jury to decide on evidence. I think you're just trying to squeeze out any small opportunity you can to berate a woman... in this case me. Only a sick, twisted misogynist would blame a survivor for the further assaults of a serial rapist. I would tell you to seek help, but I don't think there is any help for you. I think you are sadly consigned to a life of batting your head against reality in hopes of someday changing it to conform to your wishes. My husband has read several of your entries on my blog. He just shakes his head and says, "What the hell happened to that guy?" What indeed? You are so fucking weak. Going from blog to blog, trying to hit as many psychic pressure points as possible; being as offensive and abusive as you can be so that you can make women angry at you and proclaim yourself the victim. Take it up with your mother or your wife or a therapist or a dominatrix... The blog world is not going to fill the obvious, gaping, God-sized hole in your psyche. And your attempts grow more sad and desperate by the day.

Curmudgette said...

David,
The last thing I'd want to do is censor or silence you. Unless you became so profane that I thought you might create problems for me with Blogger or something, or if you put up something legally actionable, say. Perhaps you are unfamiliar with the scope of my views on free speech. I believe in a public record. For instance, I recently made the point to... someone, that I was glad David Duke had not been censored. Otherwise he might have been able to fool the voters into buying his cleaned up political image. But there was a record of every ghastly race baiting thing he'd said publicly in the past, so...

I think too many people have done you a favor by sending your hate speech down the memory hole. I firmly believe that a quick Google search of your name should bring up your moronic misrepresentations of my views, your vile, deluded ideas about women as a "privileged" class, your ignorance of how the legal system works in cases of rape, your sick need to try to verbally revictimize women who've been victims of assault, your endless compassion for men who beat pregnant women with baseball bats, your blinkered view of every component of reproductive health, your narcissism, your startling ignorance of women's work and economic realities, your obsession with the pulling the wings off of insects... Ok, I'm just guessing at that last one, but you get the idea.

P.S. My husband has a theory that you are typing with one hand when you write these screeds. Care to enlighten us?