No, we're asking a question: are women who go out and work really better off? In many cases, they now work full-time jobs just to come home to additional work. Is that really the empowerment they wanted?
Yes. It is.
Women are able to make decisions about their lives. Some of them make bad decisions, maybe but it's their decision to make.
Don't pretend women were better off when they had fewer options or rights or protections and that it's their fault that there are fewer jobs or lower wages. Wages are lower because corporations are greedy and there are fewer jobs because they've been shipped to third-world nations and China.
absolutely its womens decision to make. all i ask is that i be allowed to do what i want when i want .. actually im not even asking... i just do it.
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
I'm with Jeanwah the article sucked, poorly researched (one article about an ancillary thing that was loosely tied in, but served as the main premise seriously?), and seemed more to pull at one's emotions either way rather than produce any active thought. I mean there are plenty of other things to look at in terms of real wages stagnating than blaming women in the work place. Wouldn't outsourcing manual labor, the decimation of unionized labor, tax cuts and kickbacks for the uber-rich, and so on seem to be both more reasonable for the lack of happiness in people and more logically connected to the stagnation of wages? I suppose the rise in instantaneous, reactionary, entertainment "news" has really cut into the need for deep thought and research, and this is but one example.
Further, as an aside, my wife and I share household chores pretty evenly. I watch the baby on Monday, she gets him on Friday, over the weekend we share, I cook, she does dishes, she washes clothes, I take out garbage, we got all bourgie and got house cleaners to keep up where we can't. Oh, and we both work, and make just about the same amount depending on whether or not she works weekends vs. me teaching in the Winter and Summer. Both of us are very happy.
I think you'd agree, that most (unlike us) don't have the luxury of teaching college or having malleable schedules. So, their schedules often conflict. In these situations, kids go in daycare even if that's not desired. My point is that "that", is difficult for some women (and some men!). I'm sure that problem did exist before the sexual revolution, but I do think the sexual revolution was one aspect that certainly made it worse. Why? Well, more women entered the labor force driving down real wages, and decades later married couples can't really exist as easily on one income as they did decades prior.
first i certainly realize i'm a lucky motherfucker and can choose my sked...still i took the summer off to be dad, and taught and was dad with no daycare in the fall on a 4 course teaching load (near suicidal move btw). so it was difficult. at the same time i think you are confusing two things here. women in the workforce did not drive real wages down as much as the other things i mentioned, i'd argue that the post-fordist destruction of blue collar unionized labor in America has WAAYYYYYY more to do with this than women working.
I'm with Jeanwah the article sucked, poorly researched (one article about an ancillary thing that was loosely tied in, but served as the main premise seriously?), and seemed more to pull at one's emotions either way rather than produce any active thought. I mean there are plenty of other things to look at in terms of real wages stagnating than blaming women in the work place. Wouldn't outsourcing manual labor, the decimation of unionized labor, tax cuts and kickbacks for the uber-rich, and so on seem to be both more reasonable for the lack of happiness in people and more logically connected to the stagnation of wages? I suppose the rise in instantaneous, reactionary, entertainment "news" has really cut into the need for deep thought and research, and this is but one example.
Further, as an aside, my wife and I share household chores pretty evenly. I watch the baby on Monday, she gets him on Friday, over the weekend we share, I cook, she does dishes, she washes clothes, I take out garbage, we got all bourgie and got house cleaners to keep up where we can't. Oh, and we both work, and make just about the same amount depending on whether or not she works weekends vs. me teaching in the Winter and Summer. Both of us are very happy.
I think you'd agree, that most (unlike us) don't have the luxury of teaching college or having malleable schedules. So, their schedules often conflict. In these situations, kids go in daycare even if that's not desired. My point is that "that", is difficult for some women (and some men!). I'm sure that problem did exist before the sexual revolution, but I do think the sexual revolution was one aspect that certainly made it worse. Why? Well, more women entered the labor force driving down real wages, and decades later married couples can't really exist as easily on one income as they did decades prior.
first i certainly realize i'm a lucky motherfucker and can choose my sked...still i took the summer off to be dad, and taught and was dad with no daycare in the fall on a 4 course teaching load (near suicidal move btw). so it was difficult. at the same time i think you are confusing two things here. women in the workforce did not drive real wages down as much as the other things i mentioned, i'd argue that the post-fordist destruction of blue collar unionized labor in America has WAAYYYYYY more to do with this than women working.
First, that does sound suicidal. I'm working two jobs right now so my wife can stay home with our child. I see many women in my life struggling as they want to stay home, like my wife, but they can't. It's tough. That's basically my point. I get that life is tough sometimes and it can be for the greater good, but I really do believe there's a connection here.
For your other points - I don't think unions are "good" - so bias be known at the outset. But, I do agree that they prop up wages. Nevertheless, I don't think they are/were "more important". Would be tough to prove either way. To me, the most destructive force over this time span was the Fed.... causing inflation... which hit nominal wages, amongst all prices... making everything across the board almost immeasurable (comparatively) over time. But, I also think that "more" women entering the labor force, pushed real wages down. It just makes sense. My main argument is that more families use day care now, without wanting to, then back then. I'm pretty sure that's undeniable. The question is really why? I think this has something to do with it.
No, we're asking a question: are women who go out and work really better off? In many cases, they now work full-time jobs just to come home to additional work. Is that really the empowerment they wanted?
Yes. It is.
Women are able to make decisions about their lives. Some of them make bad decisions, maybe but it's their decision to make.
They were always able to make decisions. The truth is, women could and did work pre-sexual revolution. The reality is they worked much "more" after.
Don't pretend women were better off when they had fewer options or rights or protections and that it's their fault that there are fewer jobs or lower wages. Wages are lower because corporations are greedy and there are fewer jobs because they've been shipped to third-world nations and China.
I'm not pretending anything. I'm saying that women work more (in aggregate) now... when one includes both at home and at work. I'm asking the question and I think it's a worthwhile question to ask.
I don't understand the latter points. First, I'm not blaming women for their being fewer jobs. In fact, I know, with 100% certainty there are more jobs now then there were back then (even post recession). So, that doesn't make sense at all and I don't know where you got that. Second, as for wages, I don't think wages are lower either, they are higher. So, your latter point saying wages are lower doesn't make sense. My point was regarding real wages.... wages adjusted for inflation. My hypothesis was that as women entered the labor force (more and more), they pushed labor supply to the right (or increased it). That forced real wages down (holding all else equal). This isn't rocket science. I don't even think uber-uber liberal economists like Krugman would disagree that I'm right here to some degree. He'd just say other things were more important than my argument. And I think that's fine, but to deny it played any role, is probably not true.
It must be hard to find a way to sound like anything but a male chauvinist as you then try to pity those poor women who don't want to work but HAVE to because.. those... um... well....selfish women had to enter the work force and somehow lower wages (although you haven't connected that dot as to how that lowered wages).
Maybe you and your wife should have made better choices and not had a baby that you couldn't afford to support?
Actually... that gives me an idea... let's go back to... um... OK, let's just say that straight people should BOTH stay home and care for the babies and us homos who can work late without having to inconvenience the sitter... let us have all the jobs?
Or maybe we could place blame where it belongs and not women wanting to be treated like equal human beings?
It must be hard to find a way to sound like anything but a male chauvinist as you then try to pity those poor women who don't want to work but HAVE to because.. those... um... well....selfish women had to enter the work force and somehow lower wages (although you haven't connected that dot as to how that lowered wages).
Maybe you and your wife should have made better choices and not had a baby that you couldn't afford to support?
Actually... that gives me an idea... let's go back to... um... OK, let's just say that straight people should BOTH stay home and care for the babies and us homos who can work late without having to inconvenience the sitter... let us have all the jobs?
Or maybe we could place blame where it belongs and not women wanting to be treated like equal human beings?
homos have kids too.
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
It must be hard to find a way to sound like anything but a male chauvinist as you then try to pity those poor women who don't want to work but HAVE to because.. those... um... well....selfish women had to enter the work force and somehow lower wages (although you haven't connected that dot as to how that lowered wages).
Maybe you and your wife should have made better choices and not had a baby that you couldn't afford to support?
Actually... that gives me an idea... let's go back to... um... OK, let's just say that straight people should BOTH stay home and care for the babies and us homos who can work late without having to inconvenience the sitter... let us have all the jobs?
Or maybe we could place blame where it belongs and not women wanting to be treated like equal human beings?
You seem like a very, very angry person.
I'm not a male chauvinist, bro. There's absolutely no need to go and start insulting people. I brought up a topic, was interested in people's opinions (particularly women) and was respectful to everyone's points of views, despite at times disagreeing. You come in and clearly want to argue. I don't know why you're so bitter.
But, since you started on the subject of me: My wife and I are lucky. I work and can support her and my family. She stays home with our children. This wasn't always the case, but we figured it out and were lucky. We know many who can't do this and aren't so fortunate. In a lot of these situations, the wife would like to stay home with their kids, but can't because of their financial situation. They hesitantly choose day care, but would prefer not to.
As for you: I know you're gay and like to bring it up in pretty much every thread - so congrats. You did it again. That's awesome - but I don't really get your point quoted up there on that subject.
To quote your last sentence on "treating women like equal human beings"... that's the whole point. I know you enjoy arguing, but think about it. Just because you disagree with me on this subject, doesn't mean you can't respect my point of view. I know that may be a first for you. But, I'm not looking to change women's ability to work, and in fact I think that's a good thing. I'm saying that "maybe, just maybe" the sexual revolution wasn't all it was cracked up to be... that's pretty much it... and I've now provided plenty of examples in the thread on why I believe that could be considered the case.
Some parting advice: Grab a glass of wine, or a beer, or whatever floats your boat and chill out. We're on a rock band's message board, not debating topics at the UN.
Some parting advice: Grab a glass of wine, or a beer, or whatever floats your boat and chill out. We're on a rock band's message board, not debating topics at the UN.
Hm... that sounds familiar... where did I hear that before...
Back when women got angry and were told "there there, dear" and given tranquilizers and alcohol so they could be good women... you know, like Betty Ford was.
Yes, life is harder than it was in the 50, before the sexual revolution. But trying to tie those two together is pretty sexist. Maybe we should say that "maybe life was better before..." and blame it on men who are unable to deal with not having more than their next door neighbor, spending more than they have to "keep up?"
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 42,428
Let me add a little personal experience to this thread: Having grown up in the fifties I grew up in a fairly typical 50's household-- father goes to work all day, mother makes babies, does housework, cooks etc. It worked ok and everybody was sort of "happy". But one day my mother had an awakening of sorts. She had a degree from U.C. Berkeley and that degree was not a B.A. in Homemaking. She had a lab technologist degree that was collecting dust. So when us brats got old enough to make our own pbj's she said, "I'm going to brush up on my lab skills and go to work," and she did. Now everybody had to pick up some of the slack. We all had to work a little harder. Meanwhile, my folks were going through hell trying to adjust to this new family dynamic. In general we weren't as "happy". We had more money but no time to do as much. But my mom, well, she got to have a life- her life. We all learned to adapt. My father learned to live with my liberated mother. He outlived her and still has nothing but good words for her. Maybe we weren't as "happy" but I'm absolutely certain that watching my mother take her life back was good for each of us in different was- my father because he needed to learn some things, my sister because she is awesome and is her own person both in her marriage and her career and my brother and I because we know what it means to both love and respect women. No way are any of us going back to "the good old days"!
"Pretty cookies, heart squares all around, yeah!" -Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
Well first of all, some of you needbto chill before this thread gets locked, because this is a really importqnt topic considering the situation that so many women are still in on this planet. I consider the lack of rights for women and everything that entails one of the worst human rights crises in the world, yet no one treats it as such, especially not men. Somehow it's been swept under the carpet and minimized, rather than given the attention it deserves as just that - an atrocity against human and civil rights being carried out in many places around the globe.
Onward.
In a good part of western society, It's been really good for women in that they have way way more options available to them, and clear legal rights to defend most of those choices. It's turned kind of bad, however, in that somehow everyone got it in their heads that women should be able to do way way too much all at the same time. Their roles didn't change as much as they simply expanded dramatically. Now women think they should be super women. And that is causing women too much stress in today's society.
It's sure as hell not a one or the other situation though! Feminism is a very good thing. It's what we're doing with it that isn't so hot all the time. There IS a balance, and women need to find it. Also, every household having two parents working full-time with kids being raised at shitty day cares isn't exactly what I think of as a reflection of a well-rounded society. Again, feminism isn't to blame. It's how our attitudes about having children have changed. Where in the hell did the idea that people can have kids and everyone can still have serious full time careers at the same time come from??? I know it's POSSIBLE. But I don't get where it's admirable. It just brings way more stress to all family members, yet these days people practically look down their noses at stay-at-home moms. What the prob is is that women aren't allowd to take large breaks from good careers to raise kids, and then come back. If they choose family over work, they essentially give up their career... and then what happens when all the kidsbarebolder? It's stupid. Of course, the economy doesn't help. No one can afford to stay home... or pay for day care. Huh. That pretty much fucking sucks all round.
All that said, as a woman, all these issues are worth it; it's not cool to be a person without a true sense of equality, no matter what it costs.
Post edited by PJ_Soul on
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
the thing is happiness is unquantifiable and incomparable with past data for example some women are unhappier because they where passed over for that promotion, while when they where at home with the kids they had no idea what that would feel like etc etc.
I'm sure there would have been people happier being hunter/gatherers but that doesn't mean we should not have invented farming
I think the author should be applauded for asking the question. Moreover, at least she took a stab at answering the question and did say that happiness is a "personal, imponderable thing" - implying it's relative; so she thinks there's really no definitive answer. No sure if everyone posting here read that part.
I know that the author states that, but to have the title be what it is, suggests otherwise and is used to get a reader to read the article. I thought the article is pretty weak, it's an opinion piece, it pigeon holed women, and mentions a sociological study about women's happiness. Well, where do men fare? Because it is only focused on one gender, and from the way it was written, it isn't objective. Especially even suggesting that happiness has anything to do with a greater issue, when it is a personal and internal feeling, not external as the article suggests (except for that one small sentence). I just think it's a poor piece of writing, not to mention negative.
It is an opinion piece. But, I don't see how one couldn't understand that from the article's title where she poses a question and answers it with a "no". Perhaps you confused the thread title with the article title?
Do you think it's poor writing just because you typically don't agree with the wsj's take?
As for your question on men - I think she'd say they fare worse. So, in a sense, both sexes could be considered worse off. But, that's my thoughts on what the author would say.
Has the Sexual Revolution Been Good for Women? No
That's the title of the article, is it not? You didn't post any link or anything... :?
It's poor writing, period. I had to read it a few times just because it was so poorly written. As for my question on men, I don't think you have any idea without research.
I agree with Brian, I thought how odd it was that this is from the WSJ. Doing a quick search to see what the readership percentage of the Journal is, I came up with this: "...the Journal's daily readership is 62.3% men and 37.7% women." The link shows that the Journal is trying to get more women readership though. http://www.20-first.com/1358-0-women-ma ... r-war.html
Still, it's a men's paper. That says a lot about why this article was place there and I can't help but agree with Prince about what this is truly all about.
But to address your point Inlet, this is what I think. Since we all have choices as to how we live, it is up to us to know our limits. Yeah, there's a lot of single women (and men) that have to work, not be there for their kids, etc. We have to draw the line somewhere and decide what's more important for us for our health, sanity and level of happiness in our lives. If that means working less to spend more time with our families, then we have that choice to make. If it means living without more stuff and living on less, simplifying and buying only what we can afford, in order to balance everything out, so be it. If someone enjoys their stuff more than their children (they are out there), that's their choice. We do what we have to do to get by. Some people are working too much, and it's the American corporate machine and lifestyle as well as societal pressure to be super humans and be able to do it all. But it all comes back to personal choice.
This article is turrible...just turrrible...poorly written and makes little sense...
I wonder, is the author saying that women should go back to Pre-Sexual Revolution days...?
wooo hoo, time to get back being Barefoot and prego, ladies...!! Get back in that thar kitchen and makes me a sammich....in you know what's good for you...because, according to Mary Eberstadt, you're not "happy" with the the current Post-Sexual Revolution....
I also think Inlet, that you are focused on women being separate. We aren't. We are all people here and we're supposed to be equal. This topic, like I said before, just pigeon holes women in particular, and quite unfairly. It's like you're trying to squash the progress that the 60s produced.
feminists and it seems most people here, in my opinion seem to have a double-standard with regards to biological determinism.
This double-standard is of course not limited to femals/feminists. But, from one perspective, it is said(known) that homosexuality is biologically determined and not a choice, and the role of biologically is greatly highlighted.
From another perspective, when the biological differences, with psychological and behavioral implications, between men and women are highlighted via scientific research, they (feminists) deny that there are preferred roles for men and women, in order to blur the notion of genders. So basically, your saying that biology cannot be used to speak about gender roles.
So why is it that the biological implications seem to be highlighted in one case and neglected in another case?
It's been really good for women in that they have way way more options available to them. It's turned kind of bad in that somehow everyone got it in their heads that women should be able to do way way too much all at the same time. Their roles didn't change as much as they simply expanded dramatically. Now women think they should be super women. And that is causing women too much stress in today's society. It's sure as hell not a one or the other situation though! Feminism is a very good thing. It's what we're doing with it that isn't so hot all the time. There IS a balance, and women need to find it. Also, every household having two parents working full-time with kids being raised at shitty day cares isn't exactly what I think of as a reflection of a well-rounded society. Again, feminism isn't to blame. It's how our attitudes about having children have changed. Where in the hell did the idea that people can have kids and everyone can still have serious full time careers at the same time come from??? I know it's POSSIBLE. But I don't get where it's admirable. It just brings way more stress to all family members, yet these days people practically look down their noses at stay-at-home moms. What the prob is is that women aren't allowd to take large breaks from good careers to raise kids, and then come back. If they choose family over work, they essentially give up their career... and then what happens when all the kidsbarebolder? It's stupid. Of course, the economy doesn't help. No one can afford to stay home... or pay for day care. Huh. That pretty much fucking sucks all round.
All that said, as a woman, all these issues are worth it; it's not cool to be a person without a true sense of equality, no matter what it costs.
Yes, I agree. I think the bigger issue is that we all want to have it ALL, and that's the American lifestyle. The house, the family of 2-3 kids, the nice cars, the dual careers, etc. What the big issue is knowing what we want and knowing what we can handle. Easier said than done. I have male and female friends that have kids because they want them... but don't think of the cost of having kids. They're strapped, so their life choices may be a bit more limited. But, still, they have choices.
It's been really good for women in that they have way way more options available to them. It's turned kind of bad in that somehow everyone got it in their heads that women should be able to do way way too much all at the same time. Their roles didn't change as much as they simply expanded dramatically. Now women think they should be super women. And that is causing women too much stress in today's society. It's sure as hell not a one or the other situation though! Feminism is a very good thing. It's what we're doing with it that isn't so hot all the time. There IS a balance, and women need to find it. Also, every household having two parents working full-time with kids being raised at shitty day cares isn't exactly what I think of as a reflection of a well-rounded society. Again, feminism isn't to blame. It's how our attitudes about having children have changed. Where in the hell did the idea that people can have kids and everyone can still have serious full time careers at the same time come from??? I know it's POSSIBLE. But I don't get where it's admirable. It just brings way more stress to all family members, yet these days people practically look down their noses at stay-at-home moms. What the prob is is that women aren't allowd to take large breaks from good careers to raise kids, and then come back. If they choose family over work, they essentially give up their career... and then what happens when all the kidsbarebolder? It's stupid. Of course, the economy doesn't help. No one can afford to stay home... or pay for day care. Huh. That pretty much fucking sucks all round.
All that said, as a woman, all these issues are worth it; it's not cool to be a person without a true sense of equality, no matter what it costs.
This is pretty much how I view this. I think our sole difference is really simply semantics on what caused the change. But, I think we agree there was a change... on women having to do more and there almost being a negative connotation directed towards stay-at-home moms (which is obviously wrong).
That's the title of the article, is it not? You didn't post any link or anything... :?
It's poor writing, period. I had to read it a few times just because it was so poorly written. As for my question on men, I don't think you have any idea without research.
I agree with Brian, I thought how odd it was that this is from the WSJ. Doing a quick search to see what the readership percentage of the Journal is, I came up with this: "...the Journal's daily readership is 62.3% men and 37.7% women." The link shows that the Journal is trying to get more women readership though. http://www.20-first.com/1358-0-women-ma ... r-war.html
Still, it's a men's paper. That says a lot about why this article was place there and I can't help but agree with Prince about what this is truly all about..
Not trying to be rude, but the wsj is a pretty well-known paper with a high-quality editorial staff. I totally understand that people don't like the substance or disagree with it; but to pick on the quality of writing? I don't know, I didn't think the quality was that poor. I'm pretty sure they have fairly high-quality editors, just like a NYT or the like. Seems like a weak argument to dismiss something as poor-writing that was printed in a well-known, not dumbed-down paper like WSJ, NYT, or FT.
As for the make-up of who reads the paper, I'd respond... who cares? Not saying you can't dismiss the piece or disagree completely based on content of opinion. But, this isn't a piece with data or anything like that. The source, in this case, shouldn't really matter. It's opinion. I feel like sometimes people here look at who posts something and immediately want to take a stance based on the poster or the source, not the topic. It's almost like a game. Anyway, that may even be a more relevant approach when the post is political, dealing with data on a political issue, so one questions the source. This isn't. It's op-ed. So, it seems really silly to dismiss it based on where it's from and the readership. Sure, questing the data she uses, should be done. But, I think this was interesting piece because it certainly highlights an important issue, regardless of where you stand on the issue. All opinions are welcome. There's no right or wrong answer here. And the reality is there's no going back, even if we wanted to.
But to address your point Inlet, this is what I think. Since we all have choices as to how we live, it is up to us to know our limits. Yeah, there's a lot of single women (and men) that have to work, not be there for their kids, etc. We have to draw the line somewhere and decide what's more important for us for our health, sanity and level of happiness in our lives. If that means working less to spend more time with our families, then we have that choice to make. If it means living without more stuff and living on less, simplifying and buying only what we can afford, in order to balance everything out, so be it. If someone enjoys their stuff more than their children (they are out there), that's their choice. We do what we have to do to get by. Some people are working too much, and it's the American corporate machine and lifestyle as well as societal pressure to be super humans and be able to do it all. But it all comes back to personal choice.
I agree that we have to draw the line somewhere. We have to make choices. I totally agree.
I'm simply saying the choice is a bit more difficult now because society AND finances are pushing women in one direction, while instinct and desire (in some cases) may be pushing the other way. This was not always the case.
I also think Inlet, that you are focused on women being separate. We aren't. We are all people here and we're supposed to be equal. This topic, like I said before, just pigeon holes women in particular, and quite unfairly. It's like you're trying to squash the progress that the 60s produced.
This is simply unfair. I'm not trying to do anything. Really, think about what you're writing before you hit submit. Explain "how" I'm trying to squash the progress the 60s produced? I've said all along, I'm for women having choice to work or to not work. I feel bad they have to do so much these days, when that wasn't always the case. I never said we should go back in time and change anything. I'm simply saying the Sexual Revolution wasn't all it was cracked up to be. I believe that. Basically, sometimes to get something we don't realize what we're giving up. What I've added was reflective more than anything. Equate that with what you wrote above. Posts like this are exactly what's wrong with this place.
feminists and it seems most people here, in my opinion seem to have a double-standard with regards to biological determinism.
This double-standard is of course not limited to femals/feminists. But, from one perspective, it is said(known) that homosexuality is biologically determined and not a choice, and the role of biologically is greatly highlighted.
From another perspective, when the biological differences, with psychological and behavioral implications, between men and women are highlighted via scientific research, they (feminists) deny that there are preferred roles for men and women, in order to blur the notion of genders. So basically, your saying that biology cannot be used to speak about gender roles.
So why is it that the biological implications seem to be highlighted in one case and neglected in another case?
I'm simply saying the choice is a bit more difficult now because society AND finances are pushing women in one direction, while instinct and desire (in some cases) may be pushing the other way. This was not always the case.
I would agree with this point here. I almost see the choice to stay at home now and raise the kids is a luxury. I only know one friend who does it--and she loves it and chooses to do so--but her husband makes over $200,000 a year so they have that option. She's also had her career for about a decade before she had children, and decided to leave that once her kids came along. I still think being able to have the choice for women is a good thing. That being said, I think that finances play one of the larger roles in that decision.
I also think Inlet, that you are focused on women being separate. We aren't. We are all people here and we're supposed to be equal. This topic, like I said before, just pigeon holes women in particular, and quite unfairly. It's like you're trying to squash the progress that the 60s produced.
This is simply unfair. I'm not trying to do anything. Really, think about what you're writing before you hit submit. Explain "how" I'm trying to squash the progress the 60s produced? I've said all along, I'm for women having choice to work or to not work. I feel bad they have to do so much these days, when that wasn't always the case. I never said we should go back in time and change anything. I'm simply saying the Sexual Revolution wasn't all it was cracked up to be. I believe that. Basically, sometimes to get something we don't realize what we're giving up. What I've added was reflective more than anything. Equate that with what you wrote above. Posts like this are exactly what's wrong with this place.
do you feel bad that men have to work so much...?
and what was "given up" since women have be allowed to make their own choices...?
I also think Inlet, that you are focused on women being separate. We aren't. We are all people here and we're supposed to be equal. This topic, like I said before, just pigeon holes women in particular, and quite unfairly. It's like you're trying to squash the progress that the 60s produced.
This is simply unfair. I'm not trying to do anything. Really, think about what you're writing before you hit submit. Explain "how" I'm trying to squash the progress the 60s produced? I've said all along, I'm for women having choice to work or to not work. I feel bad they have to do so much these days, when that wasn't always the case. I never said we should go back in time and change anything. I'm simply saying the Sexual Revolution wasn't all it was cracked up to be. I believe that. Basically, sometimes to get something we don't realize what we're giving up. What I've added was reflective more than anything. Equate that with what you wrote above. Posts like this are exactly what's wrong with this place.
do you feel bad that men have to work so much...?
and what was "given up" since women have be allowed to make their own choices...?
Here we go again, the random poster who pops in here and tries to start arguments insinuating that I'm saying women shouldn't be able to make choices... this gets really, really old.
Do I feel bad men have to work so much? No. I feel bad that families can't support their household as easily as they once did on one income.
What was given up? Well, in my personal opinion, I think that a woman's ability to choose to stay at home with their child was easier in the 50s for a variety of reasons I've already discussed throughout the thread.
So, if I were you, I'd re-read the entire quote you sliced up in that context.
This is simply unfair. I'm not trying to do anything. Really, think about what you're writing before you hit submit. Explain "how" I'm trying to squash the progress the 60s produced? I've said all along, I'm for women having choice to work or to not work. I feel bad they have to do so much these days, when that wasn't always the case. I never said we should go back in time and change anything. I'm simply saying the Sexual Revolution wasn't all it was cracked up to be. I believe that. Basically, sometimes to get something we don't realize what we're giving up. What I've added was reflective more than anything. Equate that with what you wrote above. Posts like this are exactly what's wrong with this place.
do you feel bad that men have to work so much...?
and what was "given up" since women have be allowed to make their own choices...?
Here we go again, the random poster who pops in here and tries to start arguments insinuating that I'm saying women shouldn't be able to make choices... this gets really, really old.
Do I feel bad men have to work so much? No. I feel bad that families can't support their household as easily as they once did on one income.
What was given up? Well, in my personal opinion, I think that a woman's ability to choose to stay at home with their child was easier in the 50s for a variety of reasons I've already discussed throughout the thread.
So, if I were you, I'd re-read the entire quote you sliced up in that context.
no need to get upset...this thread is long and convoluted....sorry I had the audacity to ask a question or two...
I find it interesting that you feel bad for women working and not men...this implies that women should be home cooking, cleaning, and birthin...while the men are working to support the family unit...
No need to read through this thread, I get you loud and clear....men work and women stay home...that's your stance...I get it, I just think is silly and passe...
and I find it amusing that folks get all nostalgic and pine for "the good old days"...it's funny and sad that folks want to go back instead of forward....
He outlived her and still has nothing but good words for her. Maybe we weren't as "happy" but I'm absolutely certain that watching my mother take her life back was good for each of us in different was- my father because he needed to learn some things, my sister because she is awesome and is her own person both in her marriage and her career and my brother and I because we know what it means to both love and respect women. No way are any of us going back to "the good old days"!
Yes! Excellent example to which I can relate, although for totally different reasons.
And inlet, I may not agree with you on all fronts, but I think your perspective comes from a good place. This is an interesting topic, for sure.
Here we go again, the random poster who pops in here and tries to start arguments insinuating that I'm saying women shouldn't be able to make choices... this gets really, really old.
Do I feel bad men have to work so much? No. I feel bad that families can't support their household as easily as they once did on one income.
What was given up? Well, in my personal opinion, I think that a woman's ability to choose to stay at home with their child was easier in the 50s for a variety of reasons I've already discussed throughout the thread.
So, if I were you, I'd re-read the entire quote you sliced up in that context.
no need to get upset...this thread is long and convoluted....sorry I had the audacity to ask a question or two...
I find it interesting that you feel bad for women working and not men...this implies that women should be home cooking, cleaning, and birthin...while the men are working to support the family unit...
No need to read through this thread, I get you loud and clear....men work and women stay home...that's your stance...I get it, I just think is silly and passe...
and I find it amusing that folks get all nostalgic and pine for "the good old days"...it's funny and sad that folks want to go back instead of forward....
Why would someone not get upset when you decide to speak for them?
Obviously, you like to put words in people's mouths. The whole "men work and women stay home" has not been said by me once in this thread. You said that. Why? Ask yourself.
I've said repetitively I think it's good that women have the choice to work. My issue is that sometimes women want to stay home with their children, but it's more difficult nowadays (due to societal and financial pressures). I suppose you disagree with that. Good for you.
That's the title of the article, is it not? You didn't post any link or anything... :?
It's poor writing, period. I had to read it a few times just because it was so poorly written. As for my question on men, I don't think you have any idea without research.
I agree with Brian, I thought how odd it was that this is from the WSJ. Doing a quick search to see what the readership percentage of the Journal is, I came up with this: "...the Journal's daily readership is 62.3% men and 37.7% women." The link shows that the Journal is trying to get more women readership though. http://www.20-first.com/1358-0-women-ma ... r-war.html
Still, it's a men's paper. That says a lot about why this article was place there and I can't help but agree with Prince about what this is truly all about..
Not trying to be rude, but the wsj is a pretty well-known paper with a high-quality editorial staff. I totally understand that people don't like the substance or disagree with it; but to pick on the quality of writing? I don't know, I didn't think the quality was that poor. I'm pretty sure they have fairly high-quality editors, just like a NYT or the like. Seems like a weak argument to dismiss something as poor-writing that was printed in a well-known, not dumbed-down paper like WSJ, NYT, or FT.
As for the make-up of who reads the paper, I'd respond... who cares? Not saying you can't dismiss the piece or disagree completely based on content of opinion. But, this isn't a piece with data or anything like that. The source, in this case, shouldn't really matter. It's opinion. I feel like sometimes people here look at who posts something and immediately want to take a stance based on the poster or the source, not the topic. It's almost like a game. Anyway, that may even be a more relevant approach when the post is political, dealing with data on a political issue, so one questions the source. This isn't. It's op-ed. So, it seems really silly to dismiss it based on where it's from and the readership. Sure, questing the data she uses, should be done. But, I think this was interesting piece because it certainly highlights an important issue, regardless of where you stand on the issue. All opinions are welcome. There's no right or wrong answer here. And the reality is there's no going back, even if we wanted to.
But to address your point Inlet, this is what I think. Since we all have choices as to how we live, it is up to us to know our limits. Yeah, there's a lot of single women (and men) that have to work, not be there for their kids, etc. We have to draw the line somewhere and decide what's more important for us for our health, sanity and level of happiness in our lives. If that means working less to spend more time with our families, then we have that choice to make. If it means living without more stuff and living on less, simplifying and buying only what we can afford, in order to balance everything out, so be it. If someone enjoys their stuff more than their children (they are out there), that's their choice. We do what we have to do to get by. Some people are working too much, and it's the American corporate machine and lifestyle as well as societal pressure to be super humans and be able to do it all. But it all comes back to personal choice.
I agree that we have to draw the line somewhere. We have to make choices. I totally agree.
I'm simply saying the choice is a bit more difficult now because society AND finances are pushing women in one direction, while instinct and desire (in some cases) may be pushing the other way. This was not always the case.
Dude, just because the paper is of high quality doesn't mean all of its writers are great all the time. You've read this thread, I'm not the only one to fine the quality of writing in this article poor. If you want to think it's great (because you agree with its content), fine. I'm making an objective comment about the article, that its quality could have been a lot better. I find it strange that for a quality paper like WSJ with its readers being mostly male, that this article about women and the sexual revolution being in there. It does seem to be out of place, just like Brian said. You have to wonder why they ran it. There is a lot of psychology behind what and why mediums run the stories they do. That's a fact.
For your last paragraph, I still think that everyone has a choice. So what if society is pushing one direction? Who says we have to go with it? There are no rules except the ones we choose to follow. If we want true happiness, we have to make up our own rules and get off that status quo rules path.
Comments
absolutely its womens decision to make. all i ask is that i be allowed to do what i want when i want .. actually im not even asking... i just do it.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
First, that does sound suicidal. I'm working two jobs right now so my wife can stay home with our child. I see many women in my life struggling as they want to stay home, like my wife, but they can't. It's tough. That's basically my point. I get that life is tough sometimes and it can be for the greater good, but I really do believe there's a connection here.
For your other points - I don't think unions are "good" - so bias be known at the outset. But, I do agree that they prop up wages. Nevertheless, I don't think they are/were "more important". Would be tough to prove either way. To me, the most destructive force over this time span was the Fed.... causing inflation... which hit nominal wages, amongst all prices... making everything across the board almost immeasurable (comparatively) over time. But, I also think that "more" women entering the labor force, pushed real wages down. It just makes sense. My main argument is that more families use day care now, without wanting to, then back then. I'm pretty sure that's undeniable. The question is really why? I think this has something to do with it.
<object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869"></param> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
I'm not pretending anything. I'm saying that women work more (in aggregate) now... when one includes both at home and at work. I'm asking the question and I think it's a worthwhile question to ask.
I don't understand the latter points. First, I'm not blaming women for their being fewer jobs. In fact, I know, with 100% certainty there are more jobs now then there were back then (even post recession). So, that doesn't make sense at all and I don't know where you got that. Second, as for wages, I don't think wages are lower either, they are higher. So, your latter point saying wages are lower doesn't make sense. My point was regarding real wages.... wages adjusted for inflation. My hypothesis was that as women entered the labor force (more and more), they pushed labor supply to the right (or increased it). That forced real wages down (holding all else equal). This isn't rocket science. I don't even think uber-uber liberal economists like Krugman would disagree that I'm right here to some degree. He'd just say other things were more important than my argument. And I think that's fine, but to deny it played any role, is probably not true.
<object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869"></param> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
Maybe you and your wife should have made better choices and not had a baby that you couldn't afford to support?
Actually... that gives me an idea... let's go back to... um... OK, let's just say that straight people should BOTH stay home and care for the babies and us homos who can work late without having to inconvenience the sitter... let us have all the jobs?
Or maybe we could place blame where it belongs and not women wanting to be treated like equal human beings?
homos have kids too.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
Yes, and we'll pay you nice people to look after them. It's in the bible.
Or... meh, it will be once we rewrite it and give it a nicer ending.
im not that nice.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
You seem like a very, very angry person.
I'm not a male chauvinist, bro. There's absolutely no need to go and start insulting people. I brought up a topic, was interested in people's opinions (particularly women) and was respectful to everyone's points of views, despite at times disagreeing. You come in and clearly want to argue. I don't know why you're so bitter.
But, since you started on the subject of me: My wife and I are lucky. I work and can support her and my family. She stays home with our children. This wasn't always the case, but we figured it out and were lucky. We know many who can't do this and aren't so fortunate. In a lot of these situations, the wife would like to stay home with their kids, but can't because of their financial situation. They hesitantly choose day care, but would prefer not to.
As for you: I know you're gay and like to bring it up in pretty much every thread - so congrats. You did it again. That's awesome - but I don't really get your point quoted up there on that subject.
To quote your last sentence on "treating women like equal human beings"... that's the whole point. I know you enjoy arguing, but think about it. Just because you disagree with me on this subject, doesn't mean you can't respect my point of view. I know that may be a first for you. But, I'm not looking to change women's ability to work, and in fact I think that's a good thing. I'm saying that "maybe, just maybe" the sexual revolution wasn't all it was cracked up to be... that's pretty much it... and I've now provided plenty of examples in the thread on why I believe that could be considered the case.
Some parting advice: Grab a glass of wine, or a beer, or whatever floats your boat and chill out. We're on a rock band's message board, not debating topics at the UN.
<object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869"></param> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
Too bad.
edit - for what it's worth, I thought it could've been a good discussion.
Hm... that sounds familiar... where did I hear that before...
Oh right...
Yes, life is harder than it was in the 50, before the sexual revolution. But trying to tie those two together is pretty sexist. Maybe we should say that "maybe life was better before..." and blame it on men who are unable to deal with not having more than their next door neighbor, spending more than they have to "keep up?"
-Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
Onward.
In a good part of western society, It's been really good for women in that they have way way more options available to them, and clear legal rights to defend most of those choices. It's turned kind of bad, however, in that somehow everyone got it in their heads that women should be able to do way way too much all at the same time. Their roles didn't change as much as they simply expanded dramatically. Now women think they should be super women. And that is causing women too much stress in today's society.
It's sure as hell not a one or the other situation though! Feminism is a very good thing. It's what we're doing with it that isn't so hot all the time. There IS a balance, and women need to find it. Also, every household having two parents working full-time with kids being raised at shitty day cares isn't exactly what I think of as a reflection of a well-rounded society. Again, feminism isn't to blame. It's how our attitudes about having children have changed. Where in the hell did the idea that people can have kids and everyone can still have serious full time careers at the same time come from??? I know it's POSSIBLE. But I don't get where it's admirable. It just brings way more stress to all family members, yet these days people practically look down their noses at stay-at-home moms. What the prob is is that women aren't allowd to take large breaks from good careers to raise kids, and then come back. If they choose family over work, they essentially give up their career... and then what happens when all the kidsbarebolder? It's stupid. Of course, the economy doesn't help. No one can afford to stay home... or pay for day care. Huh. That pretty much fucking sucks all round.
All that said, as a woman, all these issues are worth it; it's not cool to be a person without a true sense of equality, no matter what it costs.
I'm sure there would have been people happier being hunter/gatherers but that doesn't mean we should not have invented farming
Has the Sexual Revolution Been Good for Women? No
That's the title of the article, is it not? You didn't post any link or anything... :?
It's poor writing, period. I had to read it a few times just because it was so poorly written. As for my question on men, I don't think you have any idea without research.
I agree with Brian, I thought how odd it was that this is from the WSJ. Doing a quick search to see what the readership percentage of the Journal is, I came up with this: "...the Journal's daily readership is 62.3% men and 37.7% women." The link shows that the Journal is trying to get more women readership though. http://www.20-first.com/1358-0-women-ma ... r-war.html
Still, it's a men's paper. That says a lot about why this article was place there and I can't help but agree with Prince about what this is truly all about.
But to address your point Inlet, this is what I think. Since we all have choices as to how we live, it is up to us to know our limits. Yeah, there's a lot of single women (and men) that have to work, not be there for their kids, etc. We have to draw the line somewhere and decide what's more important for us for our health, sanity and level of happiness in our lives. If that means working less to spend more time with our families, then we have that choice to make. If it means living without more stuff and living on less, simplifying and buying only what we can afford, in order to balance everything out, so be it. If someone enjoys their stuff more than their children (they are out there), that's their choice. We do what we have to do to get by. Some people are working too much, and it's the American corporate machine and lifestyle as well as societal pressure to be super humans and be able to do it all. But it all comes back to personal choice.
I wonder, is the author saying that women should go back to Pre-Sexual Revolution days...?
wooo hoo, time to get back being Barefoot and prego, ladies...!! Get back in that thar kitchen and makes me a sammich....in you know what's good for you...because, according to Mary Eberstadt, you're not "happy" with the the current Post-Sexual Revolution....
feminists and it seems most people here, in my opinion seem to have a double-standard with regards to biological determinism.
This double-standard is of course not limited to femals/feminists. But, from one perspective, it is said(known) that homosexuality is biologically determined and not a choice, and the role of biologically is greatly highlighted.
From another perspective, when the biological differences, with psychological and behavioral implications, between men and women are highlighted via scientific research, they (feminists) deny that there are preferred roles for men and women, in order to blur the notion of genders. So basically, your saying that biology cannot be used to speak about gender roles.
So why is it that the biological implications seem to be highlighted in one case and neglected in another case?
Yes, I agree. I think the bigger issue is that we all want to have it ALL, and that's the American lifestyle. The house, the family of 2-3 kids, the nice cars, the dual careers, etc. What the big issue is knowing what we want and knowing what we can handle. Easier said than done. I have male and female friends that have kids because they want them... but don't think of the cost of having kids. They're strapped, so their life choices may be a bit more limited. But, still, they have choices.
This is pretty much how I view this. I think our sole difference is really simply semantics on what caused the change. But, I think we agree there was a change... on women having to do more and there almost being a negative connotation directed towards stay-at-home moms (which is obviously wrong).
<object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869"></param> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
Not trying to be rude, but the wsj is a pretty well-known paper with a high-quality editorial staff. I totally understand that people don't like the substance or disagree with it; but to pick on the quality of writing? I don't know, I didn't think the quality was that poor. I'm pretty sure they have fairly high-quality editors, just like a NYT or the like. Seems like a weak argument to dismiss something as poor-writing that was printed in a well-known, not dumbed-down paper like WSJ, NYT, or FT.
As for the make-up of who reads the paper, I'd respond... who cares? Not saying you can't dismiss the piece or disagree completely based on content of opinion. But, this isn't a piece with data or anything like that. The source, in this case, shouldn't really matter. It's opinion. I feel like sometimes people here look at who posts something and immediately want to take a stance based on the poster or the source, not the topic. It's almost like a game. Anyway, that may even be a more relevant approach when the post is political, dealing with data on a political issue, so one questions the source. This isn't. It's op-ed. So, it seems really silly to dismiss it based on where it's from and the readership. Sure, questing the data she uses, should be done. But, I think this was interesting piece because it certainly highlights an important issue, regardless of where you stand on the issue. All opinions are welcome. There's no right or wrong answer here. And the reality is there's no going back, even if we wanted to.
I agree that we have to draw the line somewhere. We have to make choices. I totally agree.
I'm simply saying the choice is a bit more difficult now because society AND finances are pushing women in one direction, while instinct and desire (in some cases) may be pushing the other way. This was not always the case.
<object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869"></param> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
This is simply unfair. I'm not trying to do anything. Really, think about what you're writing before you hit submit. Explain "how" I'm trying to squash the progress the 60s produced? I've said all along, I'm for women having choice to work or to not work. I feel bad they have to do so much these days, when that wasn't always the case. I never said we should go back in time and change anything. I'm simply saying the Sexual Revolution wasn't all it was cracked up to be. I believe that. Basically, sometimes to get something we don't realize what we're giving up. What I've added was reflective more than anything. Equate that with what you wrote above. Posts like this are exactly what's wrong with this place.
<object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869"></param> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
This is a very interesting point.
<object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869"></param> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
do you feel bad that men have to work so much...?
and what was "given up" since women have be allowed to make their own choices...?
Here we go again, the random poster who pops in here and tries to start arguments insinuating that I'm saying women shouldn't be able to make choices... this gets really, really old.
Do I feel bad men have to work so much? No. I feel bad that families can't support their household as easily as they once did on one income.
What was given up? Well, in my personal opinion, I think that a woman's ability to choose to stay at home with their child was easier in the 50s for a variety of reasons I've already discussed throughout the thread.
So, if I were you, I'd re-read the entire quote you sliced up in that context.
<object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869"></param> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
no need to get upset...this thread is long and convoluted....sorry I had the audacity to ask a question or two...
I find it interesting that you feel bad for women working and not men...this implies that women should be home cooking, cleaning, and birthin...while the men are working to support the family unit...
No need to read through this thread, I get you loud and clear....men work and women stay home...that's your stance...I get it, I just think is silly and passe...
and I find it amusing that folks get all nostalgic and pine for "the good old days"...it's funny and sad that folks want to go back instead of forward....
And inlet, I may not agree with you on all fronts, but I think your perspective comes from a good place. This is an interesting topic, for sure.
(just didn't think it'd be so divisive!)
Why would someone not get upset when you decide to speak for them?
Obviously, you like to put words in people's mouths. The whole "men work and women stay home" has not been said by me once in this thread. You said that. Why? Ask yourself.
I've said repetitively I think it's good that women have the choice to work. My issue is that sometimes women want to stay home with their children, but it's more difficult nowadays (due to societal and financial pressures). I suppose you disagree with that. Good for you.
<object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869"></param> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
Dude, just because the paper is of high quality doesn't mean all of its writers are great all the time. You've read this thread, I'm not the only one to fine the quality of writing in this article poor. If you want to think it's great (because you agree with its content), fine. I'm making an objective comment about the article, that its quality could have been a lot better. I find it strange that for a quality paper like WSJ with its readers being mostly male, that this article about women and the sexual revolution being in there. It does seem to be out of place, just like Brian said. You have to wonder why they ran it. There is a lot of psychology behind what and why mediums run the stories they do. That's a fact.
For your last paragraph, I still think that everyone has a choice. So what if society is pushing one direction? Who says we have to go with it? There are no rules except the ones we choose to follow. If we want true happiness, we have to make up our own rules and get off that status quo rules path.