by Aaron MG Zimmerman of The Mockingbird Blog
In an
article that came out yesterday, a columnist mused on a recent
study (by two economists at the National Bureau of Economics Research--the most boring club in Cambridge, MA, except
when Larry Summers shows up) that showed women to be unhappier than men across the board--rich or poor, black or white, punk or prep. Here's what the study's authors say:
"By many objective measures the lives of women in the United States have improved over the past 35 years, yet we show that measures of subjective well-being indicate that women's happiness has declined both absolutely and relative to men. The paradox of women's declining relative well-being is found across various datasets, measures of subjective well-being, and is pervasive across demographic groups and industrialized countries."
In other words, things are better for women than they used to be, but their happiness is declining.
Why? The columnist offers some possible answers. But he ultimately lands on the fact that there are more and more single mothers out there, and that the single parenting gig is, if I may be a little faux-folksy here, a tough row to hoe. He writes that "
the steady advance of single motherhood threatens the interests and happiness of women." Now there's an understatement.
What's really interesting is what he says next. How to reduce single motherhood-ism? Public policy will only get you so far, he says. Instead, "
some kind of social stigma is a necessity." We used to have a stigma that ostracized the "fallen woman," he notes, and that this kept a lid on what we have today. The problem was that it was one-sided and misogynistic: all the stigma was on women. What we need now, he says, is "
a social revolution that ostracizes serial baby-daddies and trophy-wife collectors as thoroughly as the 'fallen women' of a more patriarchal age."
Is he right? Would a social stigma work? (Things to think about: smoking, Crocs, high school, fur, anorexia, and Rush Limbaugh)
Comments (23)
Do you really want a guy around who doesn't want to be around? I can see that sort of situation backfiring, ending in more abused women and children and/or two very unhappy parents (instead of just one).
Did socially stigmatizing women stop prostitution or underage sexual activity? Didn't think so. So why is this approach supposed to work with men?
This problem needs a new solution... not an old one that's not very effective to begin with.
I don't understand the stigmas? What does high school have to do with smoking, fur, awful shoes, eating disorders and fat, loudmouth drug users?
@scrambledmegzntoast@hardestlevel - I think it's to do with the peer pressure associated with those things. Like how you won't want to wear Crocs if your friends make fun of you enough.
Took me a while to figure that one out, too.
Would it work? It depends on what "problem" you're trying to fix. A stigma may convince more men to stay with the baby-mama, but it's not necessarily going to make women happy.
What we need to do is get rid of the single-mother stigma. Plenty of children are better off being raised by their single mother than if their dead-beat dads were in the picture. And plenty of children are being raised by single mothers who did not give birth to them, but chose to give a child a home even though she didn't have a man to help out. Kudos to them!
@LadyLibellule@xanga - Thanks for clearing that up. I too was completely lost.
Why is this all saying that if there is a stigma attached to a man having multiple children by multiple women that this would get him to stay with the woman? Maybe it might make him think twice about getting the second one pregnant, or the third...It does not necesarily mean he will stay with a woman.
I think that social stigmas do work very effectively for the most part. There are always exceptions to the rule, but there are a lot of people who refrain from doing things because of what others will think and as it is we look down on the women having children by multiple fathers but never say anything about the fathers. We never even think to criticize them. Things would change if we could get the point across that REAL MEN do not leave their children (regardless of whether they live with the mother and children or not, they don't leave the children, they stay a huge part of their lives...it is a cowards way to not be there for his children.) Most men do not like being told they are not acting like a "real man" or a "grown man" or some other adjective with man, but the thing is, we should make them earn that title.
... duh- no.
It's easy to say, but I don't see how they'd effectively implement it. If a guy sleeps around, society isn't going to give him a negative label the way it would give a woman.
Yeah. As above. A prostitute is still a prostitute and a man who uses one is still just a man who uses one. There's no name for a man who does that because it isn't seen to be as serious.
Society isn't going to lable men and women equal until the root issues are dealt with, no matter how much lip service it's given on the surface. Since when has creating stigmas done anything except alienate people? If someone wants to sin, they'll do it anyway and just hang out with other people who do the same thing to justify themselves.
I mean since when has the stigma of being 'easy' ever stopped a woman who wanted to sleep around from sleeping around? Stigmas are for 'other' people, because in our own minds, we can always justify our actions.
And christians have been just as bad in the past in regards to inequality. In fact in a recent bit of research I did out of interest - out of 579 bible translators I was able to find on the net for the most commonly used protestant bible translations today - only 11 were women. When you look at some of the sexist language and phrasing used in the bible and then compare it to the original wording in the greek or hebrew or in context with other passages - you have to ask why we in the church have allowed this?
Morality and obedience to a higher power that actually believes in and supports the equality of the genders (even if both have different roles and strengths/weaknesses) is the only way you will ever see equality become real in a society.
Yet for all the christianity we've had in our countries in the past - that has yet to happen. Probably because a lot of it was cultural christianity that bows to cultural norms at large, including sexism. A christian nation is not necessarily a nation full of christians. It's simply a nation that believes a certain religion. How much they follow it at any given time is relative. And to be able to believe in a God who is as equally supporting of both genders, you have to be reading a bible that also supports that view. Not one with a sexist bias.
Run that by me again....stigmatize serial baby-daddies and trophy wife collectors??? wtf ??? Proof positive think tanks don't know everything.... It'd be better if everyone involved, the ladies and the fellas: were taught early on to respect and treat each other well and do the right thing...if you bring life into the world together, you should own up to your joint responsibilities and raise your child together.... or at least as involved single parents (as a unit), for those times when both parents can't stand being around each other.
Oh yes, social stigmas will show those sinners what for.
Make up your minds, people. Is "the world" full of sinners, Satan's paradise, while Christians are taken out of the world, or not? If so, leave our society alone and take your stigma somewhere else.
ahh ....no ......
I wonder what it would look like if the church got involved in helping single mothers. I rarely see single mothers in churches, especially those who are pregnant and not married. The church puts tons of resources (human and financial) into the pro-life movement, but does little to support and uphold the same lives we fight for.
Society holds the mother responsible for the kids- very little is done to enforce child support payments and resources for single moms are minimal. When we see a single mom, we think "oh look, she had these kids and has no job" without mention of the father. We judge single moms who don't work, but don't take into account the cost of childcare and lack of flexibility in jobs when their children get sick, car breaks down, gas leaks in the house, doctor appointments, etc. When a couple divorces, we assume the kids will go to the mom and the dad is free to his life and start over if he wants. Rarely do we shun him. Yet, the women don't even feel free from judgement in churches!
I'm not sure shunning the fathers will work at this point, but it is not too late for the church to help single mothers. Our church recently started a ministry to single moms that provides mentoring with other moms in the church. Mentors are primarily to serve as a friend, but also to be there for that 9PM run to the pharmacy when the single mom's kids are already asleep. We will offer workshops focusing on parenting, personal and child health and nutrition, budgeting/finances, cooking, car repair, etc. We'll use people from the church to teach and provide dinner for the women as well as provide free childcare. We're setting up a shop where women can take clothing (for kids of all ages), baby gear and toys for their kids (all free and donated by the church and community). We'll have a playgroup and other ways to bridge them into the church, if they desire. We also have a crisis action team that is set up to assist women in crisis situations- like if she needs to move out of her house immediately. In about a year, we'll start a minisry of practical helps for single moms where people in the church can volunteer to help moms in practical ways (home & car repair, childcare, taxes, etc.). Since we're just now getting organized to launch in the fall, I can't say if it will make a difference yet, but based on the enthusiasm thus far, I'm looking forward to seeing what God does. The entire ministry is grace based. One way love. There is no "point system" or way for women to earn help from the church.
I wonder what the implications on the fathers will be through this ministry. When they see their children being loved and the women they abandoned being served unconditionally. Knowing the power of the Holy Spirit, we'll wait expectantly.
last i checked, stigmas are NEVER a good thing.
as a woman, i would not want a guy involved in my child's life because he was afraid of being mocked. i'm perfectly capable of raising a kid without him, and i resent the stigma that i can't be happy without a man in my life.
the only answer for this world is the gospel. Fallen man will ONLY sin apart from God's saving grace. No program or resurgence of shame will effectively stop this problem. Changed hearts (God replacing hearts of stone with hearts of flesh) are the only thing that will bring the change we need to see.
We need to pray that God would move in this way on the hearts of men and women.
As believers, we would also do well to minister to single mothers (maybe reduced price grocery shopping, care packages etc) and preach the gospel to them while we serve them in this manner.
The gospel is the power of God unto salvation.
Yeah, I like it: Put a social stigma on the men who leave the women they 'knocked up". And make those men them pay $$ to keep the "discarded" women economically in a place they can be happy. Plus, add to that a little bailout $$ from the government. Oh, and a match dot com subscription so the fallen women can at least get laid occassionally.
No- creating a "stigma" based solely upon "fixing a problem" then you will probably not see a problem fixed, but instead you'll see a new problem rise- social boundaries, anger, cruelness, more deciet, and repression.
If instead people were seeking to submit to God and embrace his Holy Spirit, then all of these problems would begin to disapate as a bi-product of Gods presence and Spirit.
I don't think this problem has come about because of the lack of a "stigma" that previously existed, but is rather indicative of the more general decline in morality that has taken place over the last few decades.
We removed God & prayer from schools, teach our children that they came from monkeys, and are really just animals ( so why not behave accordingly?) It is true that the church in general has been judgemental and stigmatizing to single mothers rather than being a safe place they can count on for help. Reaching out to these women is a great idea. Pointing out people's sins seldom is effective in bringing them to the cross. As finger pointing as the church has been, statistics show that divorce is just as high in the church (or close to it) as society in general. Rather than setting a higher standard, we just blend in with society. What happened to us being the salt & the light of the world? If we can't get it right, how can we possibly expect non believers to do so??
A stigma is addressing only the symptom and weakly at that. The problem is with the foundation of the culture. It is crumbling and single motherhood/serial-baby fatherhood is only one of the symptoms. The answer? Spiritual revival. How does that come? Genuine mass confession, repentance, and supplication.
it's time for men to man-up and step into the role they should have already acknowledged prior to jumping into bed with someone.
Well, how do we know that the social stigma that was around back then was actually beneficial to their happiness at all? How do we know that they weren't totally miserable during that time period as well? I can't possibly imagine that all the little housewives back in the day were cheerful like Lucy.
I think what would REALLY help if that's what's depressing women (being mothers without help from the father of the child) is if they'd use some common sense. I know that some of the women who end up with crappy "baby daddies" didn't see it coming; they thought the guy would be around forever. But a ton, most even, of the women aren't like that and the baby is an absolute mistake. So, considering this, I'd say common sense (Protection, ta da!) would be the answer. If they use common sense, therefore protection during sexual acts, they won't end up with a baby. Therefore they'll have nothing to be depressed about.
Who knows, though. Every person is in charge of their own happiness. If they aren't happy or allowing themselves to be happy, they have no one to blame except for themselves.
I don't think women are unhappier b/c of single parenting. The secret to happiness is deciding on being happy with what one has, not what one can do to achieve happiness. If women (or men) are unhappy, it is because they choose to be so.
I think women think too much.
From my experience, guys don't overanalyze their entire lives and pick out all the things that are wrong or could be wrong or could possibly go wrong.
@gatorgirl54@xanga - haha I so agree with you 80000 percent! It's so crazy how much we overthink things and how guys are just "make a decision and live with it" even if the decision blows, they don't wallow and think where it went wrong (well maybe they do, I could never really tell) but not for years! We really need to get over ourselves.
Though thinking about it, across the divide men do get things easier so they don't need to think much. We've always been conditioned to be perfect, prim and proper and to always think before we speak, whereas men don't have to deal with it as much as we do. Maybe the answer really just lies in better parenting of children when young... It could be a start : )