Monday, June 1, 2009

Yes, but is it really a paradox?

This deserves a well thought out and concisely written post, but unfortunately I am currently incapable of that. I'll just do the best I can.

Anymore when I hear the word "paradox" the first thing I think is, "oh, they mean some data or evidence that does not fit their firmly held assumptions has come up". Recently I read a post at Carolyn McCulley's blog about an opinion piece in the New York times about a study recently reported on "The Paradox of Declining Female Happiness". The study is a meta-analysis of data from multiple sources which uses logistic regression (beyond my statistical pay grade) to describe "happiness" for men and women for the last 40 years. In a nut shell the findings say that women are less happy now than they were 40 years ago relative to themselves and relative to men.

In his op-ed piece, Ross Douthat offers his opinion that this relative loss of happiness in women is ambiguous.

"All this ambiguity lends itself to broad-brush readings. A strict feminist and a stringent gender-role traditionalist alike will probably find vindication of their premises between the lines of Wolfers and Stevenson’s careful prose. The feminist will see evidence of a revolution interrupted, in which rising expectations are bumping against glass ceilings, breeding entirely justified resentments. The traditionalist will see evidence of a revolution gone awry, in which women have been pressured into lifestyles that run counter to their biological imperatives, and men have been liberated to embrace a piggish irresponsibility.

There’s evidence to fit each of these narratives. But there’s also room for both."

Douthat then goes on to say "Feminists and traditionalists should be able to agree, for instance, that the structures of American society don’t make enough allowances for the particular challenges of motherhood." Sounds more feminist than "traditionalist" (whatever that really means) to me, as in society should support women's choices. He also says that feminists and traditionalists "should also be able to agree that the steady advance of single motherhood threatens the interests and happiness of women. " This actually sounds feminist to me too, because it refers to the happiness and interest of women rather than the disastrous effects of single parenthood on society as a whole. He also advocates that both feminists and traditionalists should be able to get "behind a social revolution that ostracizes serial baby-daddies and trophy-wife collectors as thoroughly as the “fallen women” of a more patriarchal age." Hmm...okay this may get him into trouble with the feminists....

A blogger at the feminist blog Jezebel has a post on the op-ed and on the study itself. What did she focus on? This statement by Douthit: "But all the achievements of the feminist era may have delivered women to greater unhappiness. " And of course she objects vehemently. Because feminism has brought only light and rainbows and flowers and butterflies to the world, right? She postulates the unhappiness felt by women is not because feminism has screwed society up beyond belief and encouraged women to become dissatisfied with, well just about everything, but rather because feminism has not brought enough equality and so women are pissed. The idea that women are discriminated against is highly debatable in the current culture (and I would say not true). But, what she also doesn't get is that any group of people who share characteristics and are different from another group of people are gaining nothing by comparing themselves.

I am 5'5" in height, not short, but hardly statuesque either. What if I compared myself to people 6 feel tall and over? I bet they don't have to get on a kitchen chair to reach the top 2 shelves in their kitchen cabinet! These tall people's feet probably touch the floor when they sit in restaurant booths or when riding in an airplane! It's wrong I tell you. Houses, restaurant booths and planes should be built to accommodate me! I am discriminated against! Woe is me! No wonder I am less happy! The idea that it is reasonable to compare yourself with others who are not like you to begin with makes no sense to me.

Of course that completely misses the fact that like tall people who don't have enough leg room in planes or restaurant booths and probably hit their heads on things far more often than I, just like men experience things differently than women. It seems to me that women would be happier if they stopped comparing themselves to men.

35 comments:

The Librarian said...

It is not "paradox" if the facts do not conform to a previously-held theory. That would be just plain bad science. I don't know about this "glass ceiling" thing. My ex-sister-in-law is doing just fine as a scientist, and she sneered at women in the sciences who were griping about being denied places because they were women - her take was, if their science was good, they'd get a place.

I'm in a female-dominated profession, but a bigger percentage of supervisory/management posts in my profession are held by men. Is this because of inherent misogyny and sexism, or is it because many women in my profession simply are not interested in advancement that would place them out of what drew them to the profession originally? Personally, I would rather wait tables than take a promotion that would take the majority of my time away from the reference desk. It's the relational aspects of my job that I love, and where I get my professional validation - not from the title or where my nameplate is sitting.

Learner said...

TL,

Thanks for the comment ;)

"if their science was good, they'd get a place"

Agreed

"Is this because of inherent misogyny and sexism, or is it because many women in my profession simply are not interested in advancement that would place them out of what drew them to the profession originally? "

Ding ding ding! Give the lady a prize :) I think this is a big reason in my profession as well along with some typical personality differences between men and women.

The Librarian said...

Thanks - I can remember so clearly one day at an urban public library when I showed a new immigrant how to read the online newspaper from his home town. He was sobbing. He had no idea this was available, and free for him to come in and read whenever he wanted. That completely validated my calling, and he didn't care about my degrees or even my gender - I was the person who gave him his connection back to home.

As an immigrant myself, I sympathize!

Anakin Niceguy said...

I think a lot of men take administrative positions because if they don't they will be called the "loooser" and not "a real MAYYAN" who can "support a family" yada, yada.

Soulfuric Acid said...

I think that 'scorekeeping' is such a major component of feminism that the scorekeeper mentality will find discrimination everywhere.

It sometimes is nearly on par with the devil-hunting nutcase faction of evangelicals who can be found outside smashing copies of Alvin and the Chipmunks records.

"Look!! You can see clearly on the album cover that they airbrushed a devil's pitchfork into Theodore's hair!!!"

You know, those people.

As an experiment, pick any personal slight you can think of, and closely watch every interaction you have with people today. Try to find some way of 'discovering' that action in them.

Ergo, if you stare at any painting long enough, you will see Jesus, the Virgin Mary, satan, or the Chipmunks.

The voice of the accuser never rests.

Learner said...

TL,

Great story. It is good and feels good to make a difference for people :)

Learner said...

Anakin,

When you say a lot do you mean the majority, or just a sizable minority? I'm just curious.

Learner said...

SA,

I think you are right that we often see what we expect to see. That is a very good thing to keep in mind in life in general.

What you said about satan and the chipmunks made me think about a Pittsburgh Penguins hockey player by the name of Miroslav Satan (the announcers always pronounce it "Sha-tan"). But, you know come to think of it no wonder the Pens are down 2-zip in the Stanly Cup....they have a guy named satan on their team! ;) Okay that was silly, but what isn't silly, it is more scary, is that I bet there is more than one person out there who thinks that is true.

knightblaster said...

I think it's also a non-paradox.

What I think has happened is that the culture, in large part feminism but also the rampant materialism and individualism in the culture, has told women for decades that they can have it all, and if they do not have it all, they are losing out. In other words, the fantastic career, the wonderful home, smart and well-adjusted children, a fantastic husband who is at once masculine, sensitive, very handsome, a terrific father and lover, and someone who has a super-powered career but is home cooking dinner every night at 6. And if they don't get that package, they are led to believe that they are losing out on something others have, that something has gone terribly wrong in their lives, that there must be something better than this ... life they ended up with.

I honestly think it's the expectations gap that fuels the unhappiness. Men, often, have lower expectations for a number of things than women do. I don't think men's lives are that much objectively "happier" than women's lives are -- but I do think that because our expectations are lower, our subjective perception of happiness is different from that of many women.

This is something that is often noted in marriages, by marriage counselors. The wives are unhappy, but the husbands are perfectly happy. How can that be? I think it's because of different expectations.

I will admit that in a household where both parents work and earn the same income, if the husband is not doing a fair amount of child care and other home jobs, this will tend to lead to wives being unhappy. That's fair enough. But I think that the broader unhappiness is not due to imbalances there as much as it is due to having a different, and longer, list of "must haves" in order to feel happy. I don't think this is intrinsic to women, but I do think it's been drummed into women's heads by the culture, in a way that it has *not* been drummed into men's heads.

Learner said...

Agreed Nova.

"I don't think men's lives are that much objectively "happier" than women's lives are -- but I do think that because our expectations are lower, our subjective perception of happiness is different from that of many women."

I think that is one of the issues with measuring a construct such as "happiness" which is subjective in nature (like pain for example). It really is about how we perceive it, and so I think a lot of "happiness" does come down to expectations.

Kathy Farrelly said...

"What I think has happened is that the culture, in large part feminism but also the rampant materialism and individualism in the culture, has told women for decades that they can have it all, and if they do not have it all, they are losing out."

So very true Nova!

And, as a consequence women are putting off childbearing until their thirties, early forties. A very big mistake.
Women believe the lie told by feminists that they can establish a career then have children when they are older. This is not always that simple.A woman's most fertile period is around 18-30 after which fertility starts to decline. The decline is dramatic after age 35.

Ah, but not to worry we have advanced so far in technology that the modern woman can rely on proceedures like IVF to achieve pregnancy.
The cold hard facts show otherwise.

Many women are unaware that the success rate of IVF is 30% at age 30, but 0.8% at 44. Women need to know the reality behind the promise and lure of assisted reproduction. It can do a lot, but it is unable to turn back the biological clock. As a result we are now seeing many couples with one child.Not because they wanted only one child, but because the reality is, that the majority of women over 40 undergoing fertility treatment are unlikely to be successful..
It is predomininantly professional women who have been sucked in by this feminist nonsense.
My friend's niece(environmental scientist is a case in point. She is, at the age of thirty one undergoing fertility treatment to enhance her chances of conception through IVF.
She EXPECTS to have a child.

Unfortunately this is not always the case.

MarkyMark said...

Kathy,

Our Mayo Clinic, one of the most prestigious medical institutions in the world, had THIS to say about female fertility: its peak is from 20-24. Other medical people say that the peak is 27, and after that, a woman's fertility declines. In any case though, women cannot wait till 35-40 to have kids and expect things to go well. The odds simply aren't with them, and neither are the laws of Nature & Nature's God...

MarkyMark

knightblaster said...

"And, as a consequence women are putting off childbearing until their thirties, early forties. A very big mistake.
Women believe the lie told by feminists that they can establish a career then have children when they are older. This is not always that simple.A woman's most fertile period is around 18-30 after which fertility starts to decline. The decline is dramatic after age 35."

Kathy --

Indeed.

Interestingly, my son's mother -- who is also a professional business executive - strongly disagrees with the CW that women should focus on career in the 20s and 30s and then have kids around 40. Her argument is not based on fertility, but pragmatism. She says that it is worse for women to drop out of the workforce mid-career than it is to do it in the 20s and then start up the career once the kids are school-aged. Her idea is that people generally do not gain much traction in the 20s, and only really start to gain traction in the 30s, and that's exactly when the CW says women should start looking to marry and have kids.

I suspect that much of the reason why younger women are not marrying younger has less to do with career traction in the 20s and more to do with wanting to have a bit of fun and freedom while they are young.

Soulfuric Acid said...

Novaseeker-

I suspect you are right about the aspect of having some fun and freedom.

The post-industrial economy in America/Europe has permitted a historically unprecedented amount of this financial and sexual liberty.

I suppose there were elements of this toward the end of the Roman Empire, but today's technological benefits give the modern American a decided advantage.

One of the most key elements that is missing is NECESSITY.

Humans seem to be at their best and happiest when they are achieving and meeting requirements.

The pioneers reveled in their ability to overcome hardship - it was a mark of honor.

The folks who came through the depression prided themselves on their thrifty, industrious ways.

What real requirements have been placed on thes most recent generations?

Pleasure-seeking and status-seeking have been the final frontiers of our culture.

There are no cows to milk at 5am, no butter to churn, spinning thread to make clothing, weeding fields by hand, washing clothes in a creek, etc.

We are learning that the human being, when relieved of the harsher duties of existence and survival doesn't turn into something higher, but instead something lower.


I am sure that in the early days of the industrial revolution, many people thought that once we all had indoor plumbing, washing machines, cars, power tools, and all the other modern conveniences, that people would rise to a higher plane of existence, producing more art, having more time to read, learn, and become intellectual powerhouses.

Instead, we all took a vacation from self-improvement and switched on the TV.

I AM NOT opposed to some good clean entertainment, mind you.

I like movies just like anyone.


But it seems to me that deprived of the hardship that has been the whetstone against which humanity has sharpened itself all these centuries, the human becomes dull and ineffective.

The Lord understood this, and used hardship to get Israel's priorities back in line.

He would always try the appeal to intellect and morality first, using the prophets. When they were rejected, God had no choice but to resort to blunt force, and Israel would be driven from their land until they repented.

So where are we? Grateful to the Lord or even our fellow human beings who make the easy miracle of modern life possible?

Or bitter that we don't have as much as we thought we should have?

Angry because someone else is not picking up the tab for our health care?

Upset that someone else had a million-dollar idea?

I am certain that God is getting pretty tired of the behavior of this, the original Christian nation.

The modern American (esp. victim groups like feminists) is unhappy not because they have little, it is because they have purposely decided that nothing less than perfection is satisfactory.

You can thank the parents that raised the entitlement-oriented baby boomers for much of that.

The boomers never threw the brakes on their greedy little eyes and the lust of the flesh, as they sought every possible avenue to increase their luxuries and indulge their flesh.

And then they raised the next generation, even more bereft of moral compass than their parents.

And in the church, the Christian salt of the earth continues to attempt to find ways to make an inoffensive "low-sodium" version of itself.

It's the endgame for the human race, barring a massive move of the Lord.

Learner said...

Nova, I think your ex is right about why some young women delay marriage and children.

SA,

Great comment, I agree whole heartedly. It seems that all the freedom and ease we have in modernity gives us too much time on our hands with which to get into trouble.

Kathy Farrelly said...

"I suspect that much of the reason why younger women are not marrying younger has less to do with career traction in the 20s and more to do with wanting to have a bit of fun and freedom while they are young."

I think there is some truth in that too Nova, but it is not the main reason. I think establishing a career and financial stability figure high on the list. (There is of course those who don't meet their partner until later in life.)

However the fact remains that women believe that they will still be able to have children well into their thirties and forties, because of advances in technology such as IVF.

This is just not the case.

The feminists are responsible in part for this attitude because they are pushing the" women can have it all barrow."

http://www.fims.uwo.ca/newmedia2006/default.asp?id=295

Soulfuric Acid said...

I had an interesting thought come to me today.

I was sitting in the coffee shop reading and I noticed a nice looking gal in her late twenties who was obviously studying for something. What attracted me was that reading her body language, she seemed very earnest in her studying, like she was motivated to meet her goal.


The though that came to me was "would have been nice to have a gal like that interested in me back when I was that age".

But then the epiphany was that I realized that she never would have been. The balance between family and career has/had shifted so far to the career side that someone like me would not have caught her interest.

When I was that age, I wanted to get married. I wanted to have kids, and a nice little house somewhere.

But to many of these women, a guy like me represents domestic boredom.

When people are in this phase (men and women both), they are not in the market as much for a good spouse as they are for a person that fits their fun-loving phase.

Therefore, many of these women (and guys) will ignore people like myself and focus on snagging themselves a bad boy, or a really hot girl, if they can.

The lack of pressure to marry early has everyone keeping their options open, in some cases forever.

Additionally, many of these people are (maybe without realizing it), preparing themselves for independent lives. They take step after step toward becoming who they want to be as individuals, whereas in previous generations, at that age you were working on surviving as a married couple.

Used to be you were married by 25, in my parent's era.

This is purely analysis, by the way. I am not saying people should or should not take these steps, just that this is what is happening.

So, as people pursue this course of definitive individualism, they radically alter what it is that they are looking for in a significant other.

This explains the high divorce rate as well, since the marriage's viability is weighed by many in terms of how well it is serving their life goals.

Excessive goal-orientation leads to men and women making far more selfish and mercenarial decisions about their partners.

Husband not making as much money as I thought? Divorce.

Wife doesn't make me horny anymore? Divorce.

Individualism has been taken, I'm afraid, to an unhealthy extreme in our culture.

Learner said...

SA,

I think you are right about individualism. Interesting thoughts.

Soulfuric Acid said...

What I was trying to also point out is that without realizing it, we all are now taking steps that set us up to move away from a mutually beneficial relationship, and toward fierce independence.

We think we are prepping ourselves for a nice two-income household, but why does it not work that way then?

Learner said...

SA,

"we all are now taking steps that set us up to move away from a mutually beneficial relationship, and toward fierce independence"

I'm not sure what you mean here...could you elaborate?

SA said...

Please understand that I am not actually coming out for or against this trend, it is simply what I feel is happening.

Consider a heavily career-oriented person in their twenties.

They are interested in marriage later, perhaps in their thirties.

As such, I believe that this person would be more likely to select a just-for-fun boyfriend/girlfriend than a serious long-term choice.

We all know that if you're just dating, you may be looking at entirely different characteristics in a person than someone who is ready to settle down.

I know many people who are currently dating someone who they like dating, but would not marry.

If you follow this pattern for several years, these people, IMO, are not particularly suited to suddenly changing their selection criteria over to marriage-partner thinking.

One develops a [i]taste[/i] for the dating world type of significant other.

Like anything, conditioning is subtle and powerful.

Rather than marrying and beginning the process of building a life together, with all the attendant challenges and growth opportunities, you instead have a person that has been potentially changing sign. others as whim and fashion and opportunity dictate.

Now, this freewheeling career person, after years of independence and being conditioned to having lots of OPTIONS, somehow is now going to give all that up and become a "till death do us part" thinker?

I think that the divorce stats bear out this as a possibility.

When people married younger, they didn't get "spoiled" if you'll pardon the term with endless dating for entertainment purposes.

In past times, dating was an extended job interview for marriage, not a form of social and perhaps sexual entertainment.

Male Samizdat said...

Paradox: 2 PhDs :P

knightblaster said...

"Now, this freewheeling career person, after years of independence and being conditioned to having lots of OPTIONS, somehow is now going to give all that up and become a "till death do us part" thinker?

I think that the divorce stats bear out this as a possibility.

When people married younger, they didn't get "spoiled" if you'll pardon the term with endless dating for entertainment purposes.

In past times, dating was an extended job interview for marriage, not a form of social and perhaps sexual entertainment."

SA --

This is a very important point, and one I very much agree with.

Dating has changed for the young -- drastically. Nowadays, many young people evaluate dating partners not on the basis of long-term viability, often, but rather on the basis of whether they would be "fun" and "hot" to date for a while, and presumably to have sex with for a while.

I think SA is right that this means, in effect, a different set of selection criteria is being used -- by young men and women alike. I think it's right that this can condition people into being attracted to certain types, even though they know these types are "bad bets" for long term relationships and marriages. And it can be very hard for people to suddenly, at 33, "switch gears" at that age and make themselves attracted to people who make more sense for LTRs/marriages, but who don't push their buttons, as they have conditioned their buttons to be pushed through years of dating sexually attractive yet poor long-term-potential dating partners. That goes for men and women alike.

I think added to this is a reality that SA also alluded to in a post higher up in this comment string. Namely -- the older you get while still being independent, the less flexible you get, the more "set" you get, and the harder it is for you to effectively feel comfortable in a relationship like a marriage, which requires a good amount of flexibility and willingness to change and adapt. Instead, we see people trying to fit a marriage into their own pre-existing "set" persona, and that presents a lot of challenges. Of course, these marriages can work -- they are more prone to work, I think, if the people are quite well suited. But delaying to the late 30s brings its own risks.

SA said...

Essentially I was never competitive as a fun-date kind of guy, even though many of the women who rejected me told me what a great 'catch' I would be.

These women went off to sleep around, have kids, and then rant about what jerks men are.

Well, the great thing is that they are now worn-out single parents with match.com profiles that indicate that even though they have lost more market value than a Las Vegas timeshare.

They thought that thy could have their fun and then eventually sell out to some nice guy with a good income.

I will not ever marry one of these women, and as I have stated before, I plane to rub their slutty little faces in it every chance I get.

Did someone once say that hope deferred makes the heart sick?

Well, if you wait just a liiiiittle bit longer, it turns the heart into a organ that desires to chew up and spit out the offenders.

I have a severe dilemma about the cruel spirit that I have begun harboring (really, I do). That said, I also feel that verbally unloading on a few of them might prove to be a soul-lightening experience.

See what I mean about why a good Christian woman deserves a better guy than me?

Learner said...

SA,

Ah, I understand what you are saying and have observed myself that some people seem to have difficulty choosing mates based on what will make a lasting marriage. I had never really thought about the effect of "conditioning" toward a "fun" date rather than a lifelong partner. I generally do not date men that I would not have considered marrying just because I would not want to put myself in a position of "rejecting" someone I may even have developed feelings for and who may have had feelings for me. That sort of thing has always sounded to me like a good way to hurt someone else or get myself hurt.

"I have a severe dilemma about the cruel spirit that I have begun harboring (really, I do). That said, I also feel that verbally unloading on a few of them might prove to be a soul-lightening experience."

Have you ever "verbally unloaded" on one of these women?

Learner said...

MS,

ha! :) ...don't tell anybody, but I am so mentally fried that it took about a minute for me to get it!

Learner said...

Nova,

"Instead, we see people trying to fit a marriage into their own pre-existing "set" persona, and that presents a lot of challenges."

Perhaps in some ways this goes back to the "individualism" issue as well. I have a fair number of friends who have entered into first marriages later in life (after 35, some after 40) and some have done better than others. The three couples I am thinking of are all still married, but with varying degrees of "happiness". In one couple the man was a widower and the woman stepped into his family (2 daughters) and conformed herself to their life quite well. They appear to have a rather happy marriage. The second couple has a good marriage but have some mutual irritation about habits that don't match (how to fold shirts, how to clean properly.) Both are moderately flexible. The third couple have a marriage full of bickering about everything because neither can accept that their ways are not best.

SA said...

Have I ever verbally unloaded?

To a small degree, yes.

However, I am very selective about who deserves this treatment. I'm kinda waiting for the recession to be in full swing, and the majority of Americans to begin realizing life has changed permanently.

Then, when all the skanky little tarts begin looking for nice guys to give them a sense of security and family in a world that is falling apart, the answer will be "You weren't interested then, I'm not interested now."

I'm serious, though. The wailing and gnashing, as evidenced by some of the articles we have all seen Anakin and his co-bloggers link to, is just getting started.

Look at the marriage mandate crowd that exists in the church, and in the secular world you have all of these articles written about how guys won't 'man up' (hahahaha) and marry.

Learner said...

SA,

I was just wondering if you found the verbal unloading as soul freeing as you thought it would be?

SA said...

The little bit I did was moderately cathartic, actually.

Part of the effect comes from having been 'nice guy' for too long and enduring every wound silently.

I do try to be quite certain that a girl is the kind of game-playing creep I'm referring to before I start getting ready to call her out.

I would feel very bad indeed if I did it to someone like yourself or one of the other nice gals here.

That said, there are some 'Christian' girls that are every bit as terrible as the unsaved ones.

A friend of mine recently opened up harsh on a gal from church. She totally had it coming for her childish arrogance. He asked her if she wanted to hang out sometime, and her response was first to say no.

He said okay, and started to walk away. She stopped him and said, well okay, but you realize that we're never going to date.

Interesting way of essentially asking another brother in the Lord to basically have to confirm that he understands that he is inferior to her and not 'dating material'.

What a fucking opener that is, huh?

He unleashed the verbal fires of hell on her, essentially calling her out for her arrogance.

What an amazingly sinful tone that woman took. She ASSUMED that, of course, he was smitten with her fine old self, and therefore had to make sure the poor boy was properly put in his place before he even had a chance to demonstrate his character.

This guy is a hero to me for doing this.

I actually want to go to this church just to have the chance of insulting this woman to her face. I would pick out what would be a visual characteristic that she would most likely be insecure about and pick on her about it. And laugh.

This woman is the kind that needs a taste of her own medicine.

Learner said...

SA,

Oh my, that was a terribly bitchy way for that woman to behave toward your friend :( Quite haughty.

I feel badly when I tell someone off, even if they had it coming. I don't think that is a goiod thing because I should not feel bad if I am speaking the truth.

Anonymous said...

I'm sure the woman that SA was referring to was using church as a social club. I hear that many of these women just go to socialise and are not to interested in religion and probably couldn't quote anything out of the bible. This is probably why there are high divorce rates for "Christians" also unfortunately.-Norm
Think the Pens will win tomorrow?

Learner said...

Hi Norm,

Your theory about the woman is a possibility.

I sure hope the Pens can win it! :)

catwoman said...

Cough, cough, ahem...
...a begrudging congrats from Canuckland. Sigh...always a bridesmaid, never a bride :l

Learner said...

Thanks Catwoman :)