Fifty Years After "The Feminine Mystique"
http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2013-02-20/fifty-years-after-feminine-mystique
Fifty years ago, Betty Friedan published her groundbreaking book "The Feminine Mystique." Diane considers its relevance today and the ongoing debate over gender equality at work and at home.
Guests
Judith Warner
senior fellow at the Center for American Progress, author of "Perfect Madness: Motherhood in the Age of Anxiety" and "We've Got Issues: Children and Parents in the Age of Medication" and a columnist for Time.com.
Michelle Bernard
founder and president of the Bernard Center for Women, Politics and Public Policy.
Terry O'Neill
president of the National Organization for Women.
Stephanie Coontz
director of research and public education of the Council on Contemporary Families, professor of family history at The Evergreen State College and author of "A Strange Stirring: The Feminine Mystique and American Women at the Dawn of the 1960s"
Comments
Please familiarize yourself with our Code of Conduct and Terms of Use before posting your comments.
By the way, told another instructor 20 years younger than myself about Margaret Sanger - obstetrics is her specialty and she was totally unaware of Sangers role in making birth control available to women - I am astonished that we do not teach recent history to our children. What are we afraid of?
It is spelled
pregnant, not pregnate.
~
I know it's too late for this segment, but a comment anyway. As a 65-year-old woman who lived through many changes, I observed a great ambivalence among women in the 50s related to socioeconomic class working. For example, my mother and aunt grew up in poverty in a small town where being "low class" was deeply humiliating. My mother later obtained a masters degree and taught in a university, and my aunt became a nurse. Later, when my mother married she was proud that she didn't "have to work" because my father could support the family. My aunt was married but "had to work," which both women thought of as humiliating because of their history as recent arrival in the middle class. However, my aunt, despite her complaints about working, was a happy woman who enjoyed life, and my mother suffered from depression her whole adult life until my father died and she then "had to work," about which she complained - but her depression lifted, and she became animated when she discussed her work.
Feminism has appeared on the world stage like all other "isms" for a brief period and will die a natural death; just as Communism, Feudalism, etc. have. Feminism was (at least for the last 50 years) very much anti-male. That may have been necessary to swing the pendulum of discrimination back to a semblance of balance but going forward it's looking for issues to tackle in a myopic female-only way.
My question is this: Is it "egalitarian" for a woman to seek higher education (say Law School, Engineering, Medicine, etc) and take the place of an equally desiring and capable young man, then choose to stay home for 2, 3, 5, 15 years simply because feminism has won her that choice!? Meanwhile the young man who'd have taken that slot in school and worked diligently through that career, is forced to make do with some lesser job (and all the ramifications that go with that).
error
I am an African American woman looking back at the problem. My children are grown and gone now. I came from a long line of working women. they had no choice; they had to work under the stigma of, "raising children in a broken home". They saw women who stayed at home all the years that their children were growing up as "limited", not familiar with times as they were changing. As a young woman, my mother said get an education so you can take care of yourself if your marriage doesn't work. When I found myself with a child and a divorce I had to work and find a baby sitter, and lived with society's label, "single, black female head of household." Years later upon my second marriage, I chose to stay home until my children were at least in elementary school. We were poor but I was glad I could be home at that time and then go back to work later, because the children did better in their formative years. After going back to work, I learned about computers and the internet, over the years, due to the jobs I worked. I was able to translate this information to my children. My friends, who decided to stay at home all the years their children were growing up, didn't learn any of this stuff. When their children left for college they became ill.
At 73 and still active (now part-time) in a stimulating careeer, I recall - as a conservative young mother with a college degree, - being ever so grateful that I did not have to work, as my husband, an Army officer and later a busy executive, made enough money for us to live comfortably enough.
I read Betty Friedan and felt guilty for abandoning my sisters who "had to work." But not enough to leave my comfortable life and go to a job that would have filled my days with hectic, can't-do-it-all busyness.
My job, I felt, was to make home a haven for him and the 4 kids (no easy task), be involved in the community and church, have company every weekend, and stay smart because I had time to read everything I wanted to.
Today, at the executive level, no regrets, but still aware that it was partnership with a husband that kept me secure.
Diane, love your show, but I have some concerns.
The tone of this show really worries me. Your guests seem to imply that (a) all women who stay home do so because they have been subjugated by society and (b) that any decision by a woman to stay home with her children is a result of poor socialization/education--ie "she just hasn't been taught well enough by society about what she 'ought' to be doing."
I know and have worked with many women with advanced degrees (PhD, MD) who intentionally, and purposefully decided they wanted to put their careers on the back burner while they stayed home and raised their children. They weren't forced to do this because they had no other financial options, they just wanted to play that role. Yet you and your guests make it sound like this is clearly an inferior option, as if these women are somehow abandoning their social obligation to be competitive in the job market and climb the occupational ladder of success. What if they value being a 'stay at home mother?" Is this not a socially sanctioned valued action choice available to women?
I'm hoping your show doesn't become a securlarized version of the moral majority, where social, collective causes dictate and override individual choices.
Equal rights and justice for all,just makes right wingers explode. FEMIN NAZI,as Rush Limbaugh calls freed women
I find your discussion interesting but I find the comment from an audience member who said she and her husband live an upper middle class lifestyle and both work in order to keep that lifestyle. But wants the federal government to give her childcare help in order to maintain her lifestye. I am assuming her upper middle class means a very nice home, 2 cars, a vacation every year, entertainment, a nice wardrobe (for work, of course) and more perks to have a comfortable life.
Whatever happend to planning out the needs of a child and adjusting instead of wanting someone else to pay for their child while they change nothing to maintain her lifestyle? I do not want to pay for anyones childcare while they go out to work everyday knowing they got a pass on childcare.
That said, I do believe in maternity and paternity leave as an American given, not free childcare. That entitlement should be alloted to those who
really need it.
Just my opinion.
I was so excited to hear this discussion, and so glad the panelists brought up the lack of progress we have made in terms of child care and policies for working families that benefit people of all socio-economic backgrounds. Judith Warner's comments about the new maternal mystique that surfaced about 10 years ago is so apt (the attachment parenting movement is symptomatic of that). It is so sad to me that we have no political momentum in this country surrounding issues of child care. I wrote a novel called Au Pair Report about the politics of child care in DC in which there is a similar conversation (without the Betty Friedan angle) on a show modeled after Diane Rehm's. So, I was delighted to have my fictional scenario realized on air. It was also great that instead of turning this into a narrowly focused conversation about the Feminine Mystique, the panelists took it to another level.
I can't help but feel a little bit patriotic listening to colonel couch knowing that he and others are trying their best to provide a legal defense that is fair an equitable regardless of the rules that they do or do not need to live by.
I am a feminist and I am because it gives me the freedom to be who I want and not conform to rigid gender roles and because sexism is still everywhere. Women who want to pursue a demanding career can have that but I believe they need to settle down with a partner who likes to be outside the traditional male stereotype. In our house I like to be the supportive partner and keep our home and am the domestic, although I do put in my 40 hours outside as well. She did not look for another ambitious ceo type.
What I see is a ton of mysogony out there. Just look at any home care related product. Invariably it is a woman as if it would be demeaning for a man to be using a swiffer or spraying febreeze or cleaing the floors or doing laundry. If a man is around, it is only to look confused or clueless as if that is in fact better than actually being useful in a domestic context. We have to tune out those brainwashing messages.
I guess it is a backlash before the real changes take place. There is a lot of work to do.
That book changed my entire life from being an okay housewife to becoming totally but totally involved in my life and my childrens' lives in a tiny little PA town. I shudder to think where I wld be today had I had not read that book.
When the bank president told me I wld need my "husband's" (only) signature on my college loan, I said "Fine, but I'm planning to divorce him when I graduate and so go chase him for that money." He sat right up in his chair and said, "Wow, good point!" 7 months after I graduated, I had to call him & ask him if he was ever going took me to repay that loan, he remarked, "I never worried that you would repay it Anne. and I just want you to know that our bank has changed that policy."
As a physics major at University of Maryland in 2002 with a 3.75 GPA I was told that I should look into being a science textbook sales girl. By the academic advisor. I was also in a feminist journalism course reading Fem. Mys. at the time! I went on to be a public school teacher for 9 years and now am a stay at home mom- I am very thankful that we can afford for me to be at home right now, and I am very glad that if I want to go back to work when I am ready, I have that option too. It is heartbreaking that when people talk about budget cuts, it almost is code for cutting programs that help women live their lives. I second the comments about fixing the wealth divide so that all women have the options that they deserve- for the benefit of everyone!
I would love to talk with you about Betty and the Feminine Mystique. I am a writer, fiction and politically. I am woman who graduate college in 1970. I lived the times. While I was writing I read Betty's writings and talked to her several times by phone about my own writings. The author on the show called Betty a "socialist” in the old dichotomous conservative, liberal" thinking that politically today seems non-existent.
Betty was married to a prominent lawyer and labor advocate. That is true. But she was writing a time AFTER the Mc Carthy hearings at a time when management and labor were balancing and controlling each other’s excesses.
She chose 'feminist ' because the dictionary definition of Feminists is a person who advocated for HUMAN RIGHTS not just women’s right. It was sensitive to the issues of all injustice no matter culture or color. She and her husband supported the freedom marches.
Now here is where the women's movement gets interesting. At the national conference of 1972 Gloria Steinem reared her head and Betty at the time felt strongly that she was a CIA plant to "co-opt" the women’s movement. In fact Betty began to be cut out of important meetings and speaking engagements. I know Gloria's advocacy and respect it but she gave the movement a tone quite different than the one stuck by Betty.
My issue with Betty was asking why her writing didn't go deeper into reproductive rights concerning women to choose whom to birth and how and the dynamics of genetics in the women's movement. I asked her if she stopped at not writing deeply about that knowledge had she been intimidated. She told me that she had just begun writing and said that the issue does need to be explored and still do. She also gave me the best advice as a writer she could she said. "Don't let them stop you. Write what you feel is needed." I have.
I did not know Betty went to Smith. George Bush's wife Barbara also went to Smith. Ironic isn't it that the author of the "Feminine Mystique" and the wife of a future director of the CIA and President amended the same college? Think of the dynamics of interpersonal at the college you attended and the disparate paths those who studied together, possibly debated issues and made political choice took.
By the way I am not a liberal or a conservative, Capitalist or Socialist. I was raised during a balanced village time when both sides balanced each other and gave families 40 hour working weeks with enough for the children: good educations, healthy non chemical foods, dental care in public schools. We need that balance to be returned and telling the truth about Betty brings the importance of respecting ideas not trying to coop them. Love Donna White-Davis 845 389-8165
By the way I am an active Christian, a good Mom and a prolific professional and Betty writing assisted in my and millions of women of all color progress in achieving the balance of our choice.
Of course women should have equal pay. And men and women should be able to live their lives with 30 hour wroking schedules that provide enough money and time to care for their families well as well as provide for their communities civic duties. Without the balance for Betty's time that is not likely but we can all advocate. Let's not split the issues by "race" and lets be honestly educated of the lives of those who sacrificed so much for our progress.
Regarding current workplace pressures, I have observed that this is shaking out differently this time, thanks so much to a generational awareness, it seems that the burdens of work Pressures today results in more men taking the role of stay at home Dad and primary caregiver. I do believe one parent is staying home due to a lack of jobs, but I see significantly more men taking this choice while the well educated woman stays in her career. This pleases me to see more men acknowledging their nurturing abilities. I think the kids raised by dad will be a remarkable demographic.
Great article on a lady kicking ass in NASCAR!
http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/blog/2013/feb/20/danica-patrick-nascar-d...
Diane,
I was excited to hear today's show, and to hear the discussion regarding the difficulty women in my generation, I am 30 years old, are faced with when attempting to reenter the work force after spending time at home raising young children.
I felt that the guests were speaking directly to my situation, until they responded to a caller's comment. Your guests stated that they strongly disagreed with the caller's statement that there is a culture of disapproval of women who chose to stay home.
I was incensed to hear the guests complete denial of such a valid statement, one that so clearly described my own experience. While I experienced great difficulty reentering the full-time, professional workforce after remaining home for the first years of both of my children's lives; the most hurtful experiences I have had, have been the rude, insensitive and condescending remarks I have received from other professional women regarding my choice "to just stay home".
My husband and I made the choice to live more simply in order to afford the loss of a dual income so that our children could be given the greatest head start we believed possible. I am an educated women with a graduate degree and enjoyed a progressive career prior to the birth of my first son. Because of the overwhelmingly negative backlash I received from my working female peers, I often worried that I had made the incorrect decision in staying home to raise my sons. However, I can now look back and firmly say that I made the best choice for MY family, and am able to dismiss the negative comments I received from SOME of my fellow professional women while I provided for my children as best I knew how.
The biggest problem most people have with the feminist movement is not its anti-misogynistic message - I mean who can take the true misogynist seriously? The biggest problem is the fact that feminists and early feminists in particular sought to invalidate those who made different life choices than they espoused - as though they were somehow weak and unworthy of the female sex. It still happens today - the support of any woman depends on her values and, particularly these days, her political philosophy.
One thing I didn't hear in regard to women feeling the need to work and finding cheaper childcare was, what about the children? Who is speaking on their behalf? Why does the discussion seem to revolve around what is best for women and not about what is best for children or men for that matter? Also, aren't the majority of childcare providers women? What about their right to earn a fair wage to raise these children? Shouldn't we want the very best, highly educated people taking care of our children? In my younger years I worked at a day care for minimum wage. It was considered a very good facility but I made up my mind then, after seeing what life is like for small children in an institutional setting, that I would never have someone else raise my children and even though we have lived a somewhat frugal life as a result of me being home I would not have it any other way. I have a college degree but have never considered it "wasted", it has enhanced my life in many ways. The other thing I have discovered is, because my husband doesn't have to worry about anything at home he has been much more successful at work. I am not a lesser person for this, it just makes more sense to us to have a division of labor.
Maria Norris wrote:
"One thing I didn't hear in regard to women feeling the need to work and finding cheaper childcare was, what about the children? Who is speaking on their behalf?"
I know, right? Including those who haven't even had a chance to be born yet. What about them?
I completely respect your choices, Maria. Everyone should. It's why Baskin Robbins has 31 flavors. A lot of people may want choclate or vanilla, but you have to respect the one who chooses cherry chip extra chunky with peanuts too - no matter how weird you think it is.
It is interesting that during the whole discussion about the Feminine Mystique and the status of American women in the 21st century, the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) was not mentioned. Many women, including some who lead women-focused organizations, and predominantly male politicians continue to think that protective legislation, judicial decisions and executive acts will ensure our rights. However, as Alice Paul knew very well back in 1923 when she wrote the ERA, women don't need their rights protected, we need our rights guaranteed. Yet 90 years later our Constitution still does not state that women and men are equal under the law.
There are multiple studies in the literature that assess the negative impact that a lack of recognized equality has on women’s psychological, economic, social, and political well-being. This lack of recognition also has immense adverse effects on the social perceptions and well-being of men and children. It fosters a climate in which laws that adversely impact the human rights of women are felt not only to be necessary but also appropriate! Men would never tolerate such laws to be applied to them- and they don’t have to. Their rights are fully guaranteed by our Constitution.
The only way we will finally achieve true equality is to have the ERA included in our Constitution. It will provide a fundamental legal remedy for both men and women against cases of sex-based discrimination, just as is already available in cases of discrimination based on race, religion and national origin. Just as importantly, it will be an affirmation that in this country men and women are entitled to equal treatment under the law, equal access to the same lifework building opportunities, equal opportunity to enter into the halls of power in business, academia and politics and to rise to their top levels based on personal talent and effort rather than on gender.
Agreed- cannot agree more, and as I commented previously yesterday, this issue is never discussed. There's certainly a money trail here.
Whatever may be going that keeps this on the back burner, there is much going on at the grassroots.
The Humanist Society of NM and American Humanist Association are working on it with several groups.
http://hsnm.wordpress.com/activism/feminist-caucus/era-action-network/
The National Women's Political Caucus www.nwpc.org is having a workshop in March to organize and strategize for ERA ratification.
Justice Ruth Bader-Ginsburg speaking at Thomas Jefferson School of Law on 2/8/13 stated the ERA is still needed.
Her ERA remarks on C-Span begin at 18:30 and end at 26:30 minutes in the presentation. Click here and scroll down the Timeline to see :
http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/310892-1
The white House Petition on the ERA is still up and getting signatures daily despite the fact that it already reached the necessary 25,000 votes. The more, the better- it's not too late to sign it. http://wh.gov/P6gP
Working together, we can do this now.