In this series, we’ve been expanding on a topic addressed in a very interesting article entitled “Liberated and Unhappy” (which was posted recently on the New York Times website). It was written by Ross Douthat and based on a paper about “The Paradox of Declining Female Happiness” from economists Betsey Stevenson and Justin Wolfers. In his article, Mr. Douthat noted that:

“American women are wealthier, healthier and better educated than they were 30 years ago. They’re more likely to work outside the home, and more likely to earn salaries comparable to men’s when they do. They can leave abusive marriages and sue sexist employers. They enjoy unprecedented control over their own fertility. On some fronts - graduation rates, life expectancy and even job security - men look increasingly like the second sex.”

And he added that:

“But all the achievements of the feminist era may have delivered women to greater unhappiness. In the 1960s, American women reported themselves happier, on average, than did men. Today, that gender gap has reversed. Male happiness has inched up, and female happiness has dropped. In post-feminist America, men are happier than women.”

Since most people reading this aren’t old enough to remember how things used to be way back then (prior to the sexual revolution which had started in the latter part of the 1960s), we set the stage in “Part 1” by showing where things started and why things were the way that they were back then.

And in “Part 2”, we focused in on the reasons why women suddenly gained dramatic ground beginning in the mid-1970s.

In “Part 3”, we’ll look at how the rules of the game have changed as a result since then.

What did women go for once the draft had ended and it was safe to demand equality?

Money, of course

If you want to understand most dynamics in life, it’s usually very instructive to “follow the money”. And feminism is one such area. Like most political battles, it largely came down to dividing the spoils: “More for me” (women, collectively) … which, by the process of elimination, necessarily means a smaller share for you (men, collectively).

One of the early targets was divorce law. Prior to about 1975, it was standard in America that fault had to be proven in order for a divorce to be granted. One party had to be the “bad guy” and, because that “bad guy” would then be punished in divorce court with much more onerous terms, that created a real problem if you wanted out from your marriage.

• If you were the guy and wanted out, the judge would literally impoverish you … the financial settlement and subsequent alimony would be crippling and long-lasting.

• If you were the woman and wanted out, the judge could give your subsequent financial windfall quite a haircut.

As a result, it wasn’t uncommon for couples to stay married in name only but to lead largely separate lives. And it also wasn’t uncommon to hire a private investigator to follow your spouse in hopes of getting pictures of your spouse meeting up with a lover (which could then be used in divorce court to show unfaithfulness on the part of your spouse, thus marking your spouse the “at fault” party and thereby getting off a lot lighter yourself).

“…
it also wasn’t uncommon to hire a private investigator to follow your spouse in hopes of getting pictures of your spouse meeting up with a lover
…”

And, with human nature being what it is, it wasn’t unusual for a spouse wanting a divorce to “set up” his or her mate by hiring someone extremely attractive to seduce that spouse (with the private investigator in the closet to take the pictures that could make that spouse the “bad guy”). It was a very dirty business.

The problem with that system from a woman’s perspective is that if she wanted out, she got a much smaller financial windfall. This is an important point when you realize that most relationship break-ups (from the “just going together” level all the way up to the “been married for many years” level) are instigated by the woman.

The birth of
‘no fault’ divorce

The solution was the “no fault divorce”, which beginning about in 1975 quickly became the law in nearly every State (the one exception is New York, according to Wikipedia). That way, women could marry a guy with money and then dump him without even stating a reason … and she still got to take a very hefty chunk of his assets (and in some cases future earnings).

Yes, even if she was nothing more than a gold-digger, never liked the guy to begin with and had lied to him from day one.

It was the perfect crime, as none of the normal consumer protections (prohibiting fraudulent behavior such as “bait and switch”) apply to marital matters.

But the real battleground
became the workplace

In the past, women were corralled mostly into low-paying and low-level jobs in order to take away their ability to live in the lap of luxury unless they married a guy with a ton of money (or, more commonly, married a guy with brains, skills, a university education, ambition and the drive to earn a ton of money in the years to come).

It was a package deal. Want the money? Then you also get the ambitious dork pawing you every night (and snoring the rest of the night once his “two minutes of thrills” were done).

In effect, women didn’t want the deal they had (the traditional woman’s role) … they wanted the deal they didn’t have (the traditional male role). The grass looked a lot greener on the other side of the fence.

What did guys have
that women didn’t have?

In part, men were thought to have sexual freedom … they could do as many women as they wanted and society wouldn’t look down on them. Heck, being able to get lots of women into bed raised a guy’s status dramatically among his peers!

But women were traditionally expected to remain virgins until they married … and then to sleep only with their husband thereafter. That doesn’t sound like nearly as much fun, does it?

Of course, sex is more-or-less a zero-sum game (if you leave out threesomes).

For a guy to have sex with a woman who was not his wife, there has to be a woman having sex with a man who was not her husband. So if women were having no sex before or outside of marriage, then by definition, no guys would be getting laid outside of marriage either.

For guys, being able to sleep around was an empty right … it had no value. All it did was make most guys feel extraordinarily inadequate because they couldn’t get laid (the way that real men were supposed to be able to).

But few women thought it through in those terms. They wanted to be able to party hearty also (as Cyndi Lauper put it, “Girls just want to have fun”). And with the sexual revolution starting in the latter part of the 1960s, they did just that.

“…
that all sounded pretty good to women. Especially the “mega-bucks” part
…”

But the real plum (or so women thought) was being able to get the kinds of jobs men could get. Executive jobs paying mega-bucks, bossing people around, underlings groveling at the majesty of your presence, lots of business trips to exotic locations, flying first class and staying in first class hotels, and all on expense account … that all sounded pretty good to women. Especially the “mega-bucks” part.

Therefore, large numbers of women began abandoning the old “stay-at-home housewife” role (cooking and cleaning and taking care of the rug-rats and having to depend on hubby to give her money from time to time). Boring!

But when they got jobs, most started at low rungs on the corporate ladder (just as do men). And at that level, the pay is almost always puny, the perks are even less, people boss you around, you’re the one doing the groveling, you fly economy class and stay in basic hotels if you get to take any business trips at all … in other words the reality of their experiences fell far short of their expectations.

How did their expectations
get so wildly over-inflated?

In part, it resulted from the exaggerated feminist propaganda. But more importantly, in their earlier role as housewives (watching several hours of soap operas every day on TV), that’s all they saw: alpha males who “had it all” and never seemed to do any real work (they had plenty of staff for that).

As a result, many women became bitter when they began working outside the home. It wasn’t the easy, exciting and lucrative life they expected and they felt badly shortchanged.

When they looked around the office, they noticed that the highest level positions were held mostly by men, and that struck them as being somehow unfair. If 52% of the workforce was female but only 15% of the CEO jobs were held by women, they decided, then the only reason could be that companies discriminated against women. And so on for each of the other jobs that were in some way desirable.

“…
that was the so-called “glass ceiling” that women have been grumbling about for decades
…”

That was the so-called “glass ceiling” that women have been grumbling about for decades. They didn’t just want an equal chance to compete for the better jobs … they wanted what sociologists would call an “equality of outcomes”.

In recognition of women representing 52% of the electorate, legislators and regulators in Washington and in many of the States ramped up the pressure on companies to get lots more women into high positions. Employers who had government contracts were especially pressured (to avoid being declared ineligible for further government contracts) to come up with so-called “affirmative action” (reverse discrimination) plans with numerical goals and timetables.

In other words, quotas in all but name. But even companies which did no business with the government were still at risk of being sued for alleged discrimination and (given the tenor of the times) ran the risk of perhaps having to pay hefty settlements and (win or lose) hefty legal fees.

And therefore most companies
caved to that pressure

One of the earliest targets was broadcasters (since they had to renew their broadcasting license every few years and losing that license would be financially catastrophic to them, as that license was typically their biggest asset by far).

As a result, many radio stations added a female “disc jockey” or two to their lineup, only to find that those female DJs attracted very few listeners. The radio stations could be bullied into hiring women DJs but the government couldn’t force people to listen and many of those listeners spun the dial.

A number of the stations back then commissioned studies on why the female DJs were getting such dismal ratings and many found that it wasn’t male listeners who were deserting in droves, it was female listeners. Why?

When radio stations commissioned studies to be made of potential listeners in their listening area, the most common reason given by women for not listening to female DJs was “I just don’t like the sound of other women’s voices”.

“…
if you listen to the radio or watch TV today, you’ll know how that problem was solved
…”

Of course, if you listen to the radio or watch TV today, you’ll know how that problem was solved.

There are some female DJs and broadcasters who have managed to draw significant audiences, but a large portion of the women in broadcasting are paired with male DJs or broadcasters. And most stations have such a mix (so that anyone who would prefer one gender over the other to listen to is no longer given that choice). There’s the “morning drive team”, the “six o’clock news team” and so on.

In no small part because of the heavy pressure levied on companies the last few decades from government (both directly and also indirectly by making litigation easier for women who felt aggrieved), women have made very significant inroads in most fields (all the ones that they wanted to be in) since the 1970s.

And, for good measure, government rules have also sanitized the workplace such that almost anything that might offend any woman is now actionable, meaning that men must now walk on eggshells at work to avoid getting fired and perhaps sued personally as well.

“…
meaning that men must now walk on eggshells at work to avoid getting fired and perhaps sued personally as well
…”

What about women without the desire to work outside the home?

Many women (understanding that work is not all that it’s cracked up to be, that being why it’s called “work” and not “fun”) still prefer the stay-at-home option and they can still take that option if they can finesse a fellow with good earning power to the altar. They may have to put up with some taunting by feminists who see them as “traitors to the cause”, but that’s about the only negative for them.

And what about women without the ability to excel on the job?

Perhaps they dropped out of school (or had stayed in but just barely squeaked by)? They may have some substance-abuse problems or psychological issues. Perhaps they had a few unintended pregnancies early on so that the hassle factor and cost of day care (assuming any is available) far exceeds the psychic benefit (if any) and limited income prospects they might get from taking a job outside the home?

What are they to do?

The Rise of the
Me Generation

There have been welfare options available for the past several decades but, prior to the late 1960s, there was tremendous shame attached to people who apply for or collect welfare. As a result, “decent people” (whatever that meant at the time) were expected to be “too proud to accept charity”.

And therefore, many people who might otherwise have qualified to collect public assistance were shamed out of doing so. But the late 1960s and early 1970s was a time of very profound cultural change … some called it “the rise of the ‘me’ generation”. And the concept of shame took a back seat and never really came back again after that.

“…
the concept of shame took a back seat and never really came back again after that
…”

Since then, there have been a number of attempts on the part of governments to rein in welfare spending (and those efforts continue to the present day). But those efforts have had only limited success, as least where women are concerned (especially women who have young children).

One change put in place was to deny some types of benefits to women if there was a man who lived in the same house. The logic there, of course, was that it should be the man’s responsibility to provide the support, so that the government could wash their hands of her problems and still think of itself as being compassionate.

The effect was to break up families where there was a man present but he was unable to make enough money to make ends meet (an increasingly common occurrence the past few decades). So in that sense, government became the substitute husband (and sometimes substitute father). And men who had limited earning prospects became even more marginalized as a result.

But regardless of the route, the goal for women was to move men out of the “need to have” category and into the “nice to have” category. How successful has this effort been?

In “Part 4”, we’ll conclude this series by looking at where we are today and why women are not happy with their lot (despite having gotten almost everything they had asked for in the past few decades).

Stay tuned,

-Mack Doppler

Related Posts

• Why Are Women Liberated But Unhappy? (Part 4)
• Women And The Financial Crisis - Who’s To Blame?
• Why Are Women Liberated But Unhappy? (Part 2)
• Why Are Women Liberated But Unhappy? (Part 1)
• Why Modern Feminism Is Illogical, Unnecessary And Evil