Were 1950s Moms Happier?

I think women in the past several decades are being told that they should be unhappy and angry. That's the liberal influence - we're supposed to be gnashing our teeth all day because there are so many things that we can interpret as discrimination, disrespect, and exploitation. To what end? Liberals are also far less likely to do volunteer work and give to charity. So for all the complaining they do, and the "feeling others' pain" from afar, they are not taking action to make things better; and that too is a proven predictor of unhappiness. Lo and behold, most women identify with liberals / Democrats. Naturally they are unhappy. (Yeah, studies prove this link, it isn't just my opinion.)

Oh, and has anyone checked to see whether there is a link between unhappiness and membership in unions? Talk about individual powerlessness and lack of purpose. I'll bet theres a clear link there, if anyone would be brave enough to publish the research.

Of course, being encouraged to make important life decisions lightly ("sexual freedom," dropping important relationships, etc.) leads to life-altering mistakes and hence relative unhappiness - especially after we've encouraged girls to dream of grad school and a 6-figure job.

In all the popular talk about "liberation," people forgot about the most important type of liberation - liberating ourselves from our own mental/emotional limitations. This is achieved partly by attaching LESS importance to worldly power and possessions, the very things that women and minorities are supposedly deprived of. It's achieved by allowing less noise in the heart/mind/soul, not having an unlimited number of sexual partners and surface relationships. It's achieved by realizing that you already have/are all that you need to be happy, not making excuses based on all that you don't have.

Reply

I think that many of todays women feel unhappy because there are so many people out there telling them that they aren't doing it right. If they stay home, they aren't using their talents, and they aren't contributing anything to society or their families. If they work, they are abandoning their children to be raised by Day Care workers, and aren't very good Wives. No matter what she chooses someone will tell her that she is wrong.

As much as we would like for the opinions of others not to matter to us, they do. Being liberated isn't about "free sex" or taking your personal relationships lightly, it IS about having the choice to decide for yourself whether or not you will work or stay home with you children. It's about being able to find a job that will support your family.

Families are having trouble making ends meet with only one income. This forces people who want to be Homemakers to find jobs, often jobs that are much less satisfying. Our choices are limited, causing more unhappiness.

Reply

Rachel - You hit the nail on the head. It's about choice and stress. And it evolves. Some days you'd rather not be at home, and some days I'd rather hide out at home. Overall, though, we don't regret our choices as we see the positive effects they have on our lives and our families. We understand why we do what we do.

Some folks, of course, don't have any choice, at least not right now, and that's life, unfortunately. Whether at home or not, male or female, life can be stressful and people can feel trapped. This may be a crazy analogy but happiness reminds me of maintaining a good milk supply during breastfeeding - a delicate balance, one that can get thrown off in an instant, even just due to a 24 hour virus!. The key is to stay committed, on track, and positive. For that reason, I'm glad you are putting out this book (to help give positive ideas to people who are at home) but I probably won't buy it as it doesn't apply to me so much, though who knows, I may recommend it to my stay-at-home friends.

I do think some thought should be given to someone eventually writing a book for sole breadwinners - How to Stay Happy and Healthy As the Sole Breadwinner - with chapters on: how to manage stress as the sole breadwinner in this econonmy, keeping in shape and eating right when working >55 hours per week and/or traveling 300/365 days/year, how to plan for kids' college/grad school expenses, how to stay involved and connected with your spouse and kids when not around much due to work constraints, and how to handle the situation where your spouse won't work even if you need/want them to. Just a thought....

Reply

I'm a black male. I am hesitant to write for fear of being called narrow-minded and sexist. None-the-less, I agree with the basis of the article. Though I agree there is much work to be done to make life more equitable as groups seek to relate to one another, it is possible to go too far and become counter productive.
The civil rights movement of the 60's was much needed. Now, much of the movement has become counter productive as many blacks have come to believe the government owes them and is always against them. I believe the same has happened to the woman's movement.
Men can, and have been oppressive. However, in an effort to "make sure" it doesn't happen all the time, counter-productive measures have been implemented that make women become competitive with men instead of trying to become complementary. This competition has helped to lead to frustration by sending so many mixed signals, that men as a whole are frustrated, feel they can't understand just exactly what the woman wants, and therefore continue to contribute to the problem that frustrates women.
I have been blessed to be married for 27 years. Yet, I still do not always do and say the right things because I'm still trying to feel out just EXACTLY what to do without being insensitive.
I hope this has added to the discussion and not muddied it.

Reply

SKL - You conveniently avoid responding to my comment about contractors - Halliburten, Cheney's old company and a major contractor in the last administration, made millions from its old CFO Cheney while Cheney was VP and due to the war. This is just one contractor! Also, I notice that your alleged "research" is conveniently omitted. So again, no facts to back your statements.

And by the way, NO, employees are not forced to be union members. (I already did MY research, for many years, on this topic). In case you really want the facts: The Supreme Court ruled in Patternmakers vs. NLRB (1985) that employees can't be forced to join a union. Some companies have agreed to language, called a "union security clause" in their union contracts requiring that employees pay at least some portion of their union dues (except in about 13 "right to work states," mostly red states, which make such clauses illegal by state law; employees don't have to pay any union dues in those states or be members of the union). Even if your employer has a union security clause in its union contract (in a NON-right to work state), then another case, called Communication Workers vs. Beck (1988), gives employees the right to object to paying full union dues and can assert their "Beck" right to pay a limited amount of union dues (called a "financial corps") OR some employees can object to paying any union dues altogether on ethical or religous bases. Go to NRTW.ORG for more info, if you truly care about research and to educate yourself or your spouse, friends, kids on their rights regarding unions.

(I prefer to give people real facts on their actual rights rather than go on and on with speculative theories.)

The so called "great economy" was debt induced and propped up by artificially low interest rates (Greenspan kept rates too low too long) with zero regulation on the housing loans, causing prices to go through the roof (from which people re-fi'd or got home equity loans to go further into debt). Eventually, this bubble burst creating a mess. Many respected financial analysts such as (conservative) Bill Fleckenstein predicted this economic mess several years ago when houseing prices spiked and people got piggy (under a BUSH SEC).

You could stand to benefit from doing better research if you truly want to back up your comments.

Reply

I was raised in the 1950s - started school in 1949. That same year, Dad was hurt at work, so Mom had to find a job. Two years later, Dad got cancer, so Mom again had to find a job. All that and three kids in school, no dryer, no automatic washer, no dishwasher, no cell phone, no car, no microwave, no air conditioning, no movies or cable to watch, no health insurance, etc. How was stress level measured a half century ago? Were women happier back then? Well, I don't remember seeing June Cleaver or Harriet Nelson walking to our local store in their high heels. I'd say that the women back then were too tired to think whether or not they were happy. (Heck, my daughter "stressed out" because her dishwasher was recalled and she couldn't use it until the repairman came.)

Reply

SKL, Using the statistic that "republicans are happier than democrats" and extrapolating that all the unhappiness in the world is due to liberalism is inane. Can I, then, also conclude that because "on average, democrats have a higher IQ and are more educated than republicans" and this explains the previous statistic because republicans are ignorant and ignorance is bliss. I don't actually agree with the previous sentence but I'm just using it to highlight how backwards, uninformed, baseless your comments are. And for the record, mentioning statistics don't "prove" anything. Are you that one-dimensional to believe that statistics prove liberals are all unhappy, and that is why we all unhappy now?

And do you really believe that this economic collapse is just an illusion purported by the liberal media? Do you understand anything about the housing crisis, how banking systems work, and how the only reason things are now subsiding is because the bailout money literally had this country avoid a true financial calamity? (I'm not even going to give Obama credit on this, because Bush started it, and if McCain was in office, I think he would have done the same thing since he voted for the first on in Oct 2008.) And unemployment numbers at some point during someone's administration should not be a gauge that everything is economically healthy. A more important measurement tool is what state is the country in after 8 years with our former president. Why should voters "just be content" when they've lost significant portions of their 401Ks and enduring company layoffs? You spew nonsense and bitterness and it seems as if you find your own happiness in blaming liberals.

Reply

Back to the topic, I agree with so many of the comments. I especially love the comment saying "women back then were too tired to think whether or not they were happy." That one really made me laugh because my grandmother always tells me that when I ask about her past.

My college roomates and I all graduated and went on to get our PhDs truly believing that we could have it all. Education. Job. Marriage. Kids. Social life. Financial Stability. Having all of these things, at the same time, should bring undiluted happiness, right? Well, recently we all got together and commiserated about how tired we all are, one of my friends blurted out "We were lied to!!!" We all laughed, but it really is true. No one can have it all. Something has to give, and usually for me, it's sleep, because I'm too stubborn to give up time with my family or my job. I think happiness is relative to each person's interests. Knowing myself, I would be depressed being a stay-at-home mom because there are so many things professionally that bring me happiness (in addition to my family), and I take heart in looking back and feeling pride for coming so far and feeling accomplished. (That was not meant to be judgmental. I think it's great/ideal for mothers to stay at home and raise kids.) But for me, that wouldn't bring my personal happiness. I've worked out flex hours at my job and I'm also lucky to have my parents nearby to help. My form of liberalism takes the form of "everybody do what makes you happy, and stop judging everyone for not doing the same thing" (as long as your children are safe and nurtured). There is no single equation for happiness, but if women can look back with no (or minimal) regrets, I like to think that it does bring some amount of joy that is universal to all women.

Reply

The feminist movement gave women options. We can't have it all (hard choices sometimes have to be made), but at least options and openings exist that did not for our mothers and grandmothers. It must have been a stifling and suffocating feeling for some brilliant women to know in their hearts and minds that they could make other contributions to the world, but couldn't because the only options available to them said they could only be mothers, wives, and caregivers. The iron chord that Emerson speaks of does not only ring for men. Men of course, should be respected and should not have to become "womanized", but at the same time they needed to realize that women have places in this world other than the home.

Reply

Betty Freidan and "the feminist movement" gave women hope and a choice. Not every woman wants to be a stay at home mom. For some of us childbearing and raising children is better left to those who have the knack for that "sorta thing" While we love our husbands dearly we do not feel any sort of mystical feminine satisfaction from being a stay at home "mommy". We get our satisfaction from our pesronal growth and development with a career that we for the most part can choose. I applaud woman that want to stay home and can. Go for it. It is your choice because that is what the feminist movement gave you. A choice.
There are some women that have to work to support their children. Their husbands have passed away, moved away, or are disabled. Whatever the situation, these women get their personal satisfaction out of providing for their families financialy. Or, gasp, some mothers just want to work. Guess what they are happy too.
My point is that there is more then one way to be a mommy and a fullfilled woman. God bless anyone who wants and can stay at home to be mom in order to be happy. God bless women who, thanks to the feminist movement, can work at a vast array of carreers for personal and financial development of themselves and their families. God bless my type of women as well, women with or without husbands who love or don't love children and do not want them as their own. We all choices of our choosing that we now can make thanks to women like Betty Friedan and the two "feminist movements". Our Happiness is of our own choosing not societies. That is what the Feminist movement gave us.

Reply

I think the readers who pointed out the link between increased choices and increased stress (and therefore unhappiness--I mean, who enjoys being stressed out?) are completely on to something. I'm actually writing a book on the subject -- and here's a link to the post on this issue: http://undecidedthebook.wordpress.com/2009/07/03/more-opportunityless-happiness-wait-really/. Personally, I think it's that having all these choices is so new to women as a whole, that we don't know how to deal with it. And so that begets stress, too. What do you think?

Reply

I have first hand experience that I am MUCH happier as a stay at home mom, than I was as a working Mom (and if you had told me that would be the case I would have said you were crazy.)

Strive for a simple life. Simple enjoyment. Hanging with your kids. Taking care of your home and husband. It is very humbling and challening at first. But there is great reward in the peace that has come into our homelife vs. the juggling act we had before. EVERYONE not just Mom is less stressed.

We miss the luxuries that came with the extra money, but it's no substitute for enjoyment we have with a simplier life.

Reply

As a woman who saw the actual change of womanhood from the 1950's til now, I can say that women seemed far happier then than in any other decade since.

Happiness can come from within, yes, but if crime is all around you, it's hard to maintain. Morality was high in the 1950's so crime was very low. A woman wasn't raped somewhere every second in the 1950's because rape was a capital offense then, right up there with murder. Not so now. Rape is almost a misdemeanor now.

Mother's worried more about their children catching the flu or getting pneumonia than being kidnaped and murdered. The latter was extremely rare. Now it's out of hand. Trick or treating was done at night and as safe as a Sunday School picnic.

I could go on but no time. :D

I just know that in the late 1960's things started changing for women. The counterculture waged war against morality. From that point on, women were commonly raped and murdered. This was not a recipe for happiness, bank president or not.

Reply