For those who are unfamiliar with him, Ross Douthat is a columnist with the The New York Times. He is refreshing when compared to the columnist he replaced, Bill Kristol, but I'm still very much at odds with his political views.
His newest article is about two trends: the various forms of equality that women have achieved and rising levels of unhappiness among women
I'll assume that the findings in the economics paper he cited, "The Paradox of Declining Female Happiness", are accurate. But I'm wary of what people might conclude from them.
Ross offers his conclusion based on what he thinks feminists and traditionalists have gathered from it:
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.
Pray tell, Mr. Douthat, what the biological imperatives of women are when it comes to embracing or shunning certain lifestyles. Hmmm?
As it turns out, the "embrace-the-happy-medium" approach isn't always the best thing to do, especially if you don't have evidence that it's the best approach. The traditionalist claim demands evidence, and again, there is none for it here.
This was irksome, but it was nothing compared to this:
They should also be able to agree that the steady advance of single motherhood threatens the interests and happiness of women. Here the public-policy options are limited; some kind of social stigma is a necessity. But a new-model stigma shouldn't (and couldn't) look like the old sexism. There's no necessary reason why feminists and cultural conservatives can't join forces -- in the same way that they made common cause during the pornography wars of the 1980s -- behind a social revolution that ostracizes serial baby-daddies and trophy-wife collectors as thoroughly as the "fallen women" of a more patriarchal age.
Yes, you read this correctly; we should embrace social stigmatization of single mothers! Why? Because public-policy options are limited. So instead of suggesting that we should, you know, push for more comprehensive public-policy options for single mothers, we should stigmatize! How do we do this? By implying that they're just as bad as trophy-wife collectors!
His reference to public-policy options does imply that one of the reasons he supports stigmatization of single mothers has to do with the fact that they're not as financially safeguarded as married couples with children. That part seems true enough, but being the uber-liberal that I am, I'd say that fact warrants stigmatization of our limited public-policy options instead of the single mothers who go through these hardships as a result of these limitations.
And now for the climax:
No reason, of course, save the fact that contemporary America doesn't seem willing to accept sexual stigma, period. We simply don't have the stomach for permanently ostracizing the sexually irresponsible -- be they a pregnant starlet, a thrice-divorced tycoon, or even a prostitute-hiring politician.
Yes, Douthat. Your implication that single mothers are generally "sexually irresponsible" was received loud and clear.
Fuck you.
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Ross Douthat: Liberated and Unhappy.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/13900
As my three best friends coincidentally happen to be single mothers, this article is rather enraging.
On another site I read about a comment by Judge Sotomayor which I interpreted as referring to how it is difficult for some men to grasp the experience and difficulties of people from other slices of culture. I think of it now because it is hard for me to believe that anyone who knows single mothers, especially the ones that occupy lives of abject poverty, would support stigmatizing them. This man has already dehumanized this group of women and it is very disheartening to see his prejudice bandied about as a lens into mainstream conservative thought. What's more distressing, I suppose, is when people do know someone of X group and still pursue anti-X policies.
Regarding the trends he's addressing in the article, it's hard to call it "liberation" if all that's happened is that women can work AND do all the chores and childcare at home. That said, I do know some women who long for nothing more than to stop working and care for children. I have nothing against their desires, but it is still important to realize that they are not indicative of the "inherent biological needs" of all women.
Correction to self: I can't read when I'm angry.
Maybe I have a reading-comprehension problem, but it seems very obvious to me he's suggesting we socially ostracise the fathers who fail to provide adequate support for single mothers, not the mothers.
brian,
you're almost there--he's saying that both single mothers and "serial baby daddies...and trophy-wife collectors" should be stigmatized but he doesn't say how. The mechanism is usually that beloved idea of social cons, shaming.
Douthat is a big improvement over Kristol but the simplest rebuttal to his argument is that single mothers, like my own, are more than aware of the obstacles they face, the means necessary to surmount them and the allies they can count on for support throughout the journey. This ally population generally does not include Planned Parenthood, The Department of Health and Human Services or their local church, synagogue, mosque or Kovil.
It would, presumably, include individuals like Douthat--but some people sympathetic to his policy views would, as a matter of consistency with stated positions (and very much unlike Peter Singer), debase themselves by engaging in shaming.
Pandagon expanded on it:
http://pandagon.net/index.php/site/comments/yes_this_was_published_in_a_major_newspaper_in_the_year_2009/
This article (recycled from a 2007 story) is problematic on several levels, as pointed out here, and here.
As for the idea of contemporary America not being willing to accept social stigma- well that's not just not true. Just look at what happened to Eliot Spitzer, for one. And single motherhood has risen the most among black women, while the study's limited findings did not apply to black women.
This article is infuriating on so many levels, but perhaps most of all because the results of one research study are taken at face value and assumed to be an accurate representation of fact. The author never considers that women in the 1960's may have simply REPORTED being happier than they in fact were, given the social stigma of admitting dissatisfaction with a domestic lifestyle. After all, THAT'S WHY IT WAS PROBLEM WITH NO NAME - because no one talked about it. I would argue that women today feel more freedom to respond honestly about how happy they actually feel.
In addition, women likely have higher expectations for themselves today than they did in the past, given the wider variety of opportunities available. This in turn may lead to that kind of positive or productive dissatisfaction that propels you forward to reach for more in your life. But it also means that when you take a snapshot of the female population at any one time, you will find a greater incidence of such "unhappiness." But I don't think it's at all a bad thing to have fewer women stuck at home working hard to convince themselves, "This is enough; this makes me happy"...
another idea that Douthat doesn't mention is gently advocating for de-stigmatizing female indifference to familial duty (per, Will Wilkinson):
http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2009/05/26/the-happiness-gender-gap-again/