Unfortunate facts versus ‘misogynomics’
The Women's March would not agree, but homemakers are happier.
The News Story: Why Women Marched on Washington
The left has advanced a number of theories as to why Donald Trump was elected, from alleged outside interference by Russia, to the role of FBI Director James Comey and even the alleged influence of misogyny. The latter claim is a subject of an op-ed by writer Patricia Sabga. “There's no question misogyny played a prominent role in Donald Trump's successful White House run,” Sabga declared in an article for Al Jazeera. She continues to assert that Trump’s “steady stream of sexist tweets” resonated with the supporters of “migogynomics”: “The belief that the erosion of traditional gender roles—where men go to work and women stay home to raise children—has led the US into decline.”
Instead, Ms. Sabga proposes a series of policy reforms which she believes will help all workers, men and women, such as more high-skills training. This is the most practical route, she believes. “Misogynomics would have you believe that if women would just return to homemaking full-time, everyone would be happier,” but “[i]t is impractical, if not impossible, in the current economic ecosystem to engineer a mass reversal of women in the workforce without impoverishing millions of households and decimating the economy.”
That may be the case, and some of her suggestions may indeed be useful, but Sabga’s dismissal of the notion that “everyone would be happier” if women were to return to homemaking ignores some crucial social science. Because most women, in fact, would be happier, and engineering policy to ignore this fact is doing women a huge disservice.
(Sources: Patricia Sabga, “Why Women Marched on Washington,” Al Jazeera, January 22, 2017.)
The New Research: Homemakers Are Happier
When she wrote The Feminine Mystique in 1963, Betty Friedan claimed that the life of a full-time mother and homemaker confined women to a miserable existence. While media and academic elites continue to drink the Kool-Aid, an international team of sociologists finds that, all things being equal, married homemakers around the world are indeed not only happy but also significantly happier than their peers who work full time outside the home.
Granted, the standardized-mean difference between the two sets of wives in their most sophisticated model is modest (0.11), leading the researchers to caution that “homemakers enjoy only a small advantage.” Nonetheless, that small advantage is robust enough (p<0.001) to debunk any feminist assertion that women cannot find fulfillment without a career. Moreover, in none of the twenty-eight countries surveyed were wives who worked full time in the labor market significantly happier than their peers who were homemakers.
These aren’t the only findings that prompt the researchers to caution “against equating employment with satisfaction.” Drawing on data from the 2002 Family and Gender module of the International Social Survey Program representing more than 7,000 married women, Judith Treas of the University of California (Irvine) and her international colleagues also found that homemakers who work part time in the labor force are no happier than their peers who don’t work outside the home at all. In other words, the real happiness gap among married women is between those who work outside the home full time and those who are employed part time or not at all. (These findings confirm that labor statistics, which often group homemakers who have part-time jobs together with their career-oriented sisters, and not with homemakers out of labor market, can be misleading.)
In fact, being a homemaker appears to be the most reliable predictor of the happiness of married women throughout the study. As might be expected, family income, husband’s share of domestic duties, wife’s perception of fairness in the division of household labor, couple conflict, and family stress were also found to be related to the happiness of married woman. Yet controlling for these mediating variables, write the researchers, “exacerbates rather than eliminates the homemaker’s happiness advantage.” Nor did national differences in social spending, liberal gender ideology, per-capita GDP, and female labor-force participation rate eliminate the homemaker’s advantage. In general, higher measures of these factors in cross-national analyses only slightly reduced the disadvantage in happiness of wives who work full-time outside the home.
While Treas and her colleagues do not back away from their findings, nor attempt to spin the results, they nonetheless believe their study should encourage “future efforts to understand what about countries makes women’s full-time employment a more or less satisfying experience.” Not to read too much into this one sentence, but why not a call to understand the factors that make wives that devote their attention to the home (with or without part-time jobs) the happier breed? At least in the case of these homemakers, happiness does not place demands on the taxpayer in the form of higher social spending or daycare subsidies.
(Source: Bryce Christensen and Robert W. Patterson, “New Research,” The Family in America 26.1 [spring 2012]. Study: Judith Treas, Tanja van der Lippe, and Tsui-o Chloe Tai, “The Happy Homemaker? Married Women’s Well-Being in Cross-National Perspective,” Social Forces 90.1 [September 2011]: 111–32.)
Republished from The Family in America with permission.
It's not very tactful to say so, but euthanasia could cut healthcare costs. Not that euthanasia doesn't cost money -- it does -- but it is a pittance compared with how much you can save by shortening lives by a week, a month or six months. Two Canadian researchers did a study of the economic consequences of their country's newly-minted euthanasia legislation and found that it could save tax payers as much as C$139 million.
While that might sound like a lot of money, it represents a saving of only about $4 per Canadian. But individual families could benefit much more -- saving thousands of dollars in medical bills, especially if they are uninsured across the border in the United States. In some unhappy homes there would be a strong incentive to encourage Grandma to take an early exit. Read about it in today's lead article.
Michael Cook
Editor
MERCATORNET
| Euthanasia could save Canada millions in healthcare costs By Michael Cook The bean counters have been hard at work Read the full article |  |
| ‘What can language do against the truth of abortion?’ By Sheila Liaugminas ‘Choice’ was always a flimsy cover. Read the full article |  |
| Unfortunate facts versus ‘misogynomics’ By Nicole M. King The Women's March would not agree, but homemakers are happier. Read the full article |  |
| Update on Yemen By Marcus Roberts The little-known humanitarian disaster continues. Read the full article |  |
| The British report which launched gay rights By Michael Cook The 1957 Wolfenden report changed the UK for ever. Read the full article |  |
| Big media notices the 44th March for Life By Carolyn Moynihan But will their interest extend to the unborn child itself? Read the full article |  |
| Mediocre La La Land deserves to win at the Oscars By Will Brooker This is not a film which will revive the Hollywood musical Read the full article |  |
| Faith confronts reason in new young adult series By Jennifer Minicus Not your typical dystopian novel Read the full article |  |
| From House of Cards to Gomorra, evil always conquers By Fabrizio Piciarelli Two popular TV series in 2016 are devoid of good guys. What is that doing to young people? Read the full article |  |
MERCATORNET | New Media Foundation
Suite 12A, Level 2, 5 George Street, North Strathfied NSW 2137, Australia
Designed by elleston
New Media Foundation | Suite 12A, Level 2, 5 George St | North Strathfield NSW 2137 | AUSTRALIA | +61 2 8005 8605
Unfortunate facts versus ‘misogynomics’
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario