Modern Feminism Makes Women Miserable

[ThatRobGuy]

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2025/02/25/modern_feminism_makes_women_miserable_152414.html

In 2021, Columbia University professors put out a study on depression among 12th graders, looking at data from 2005 to 2018. They found "female liberals reported worse internalizing symptom scores over the study period than all other groups."

A 2017 study by a Penn State University professor noted "politically conservative participants were significantly more optimistic and satisfied with life than their liberal counterparts."

The implication is that liberals are depressed because they care so much about the world's problems.

While this is a factor, there's a deeper explanation.

Feminists originally argued for equal opportunity in voting, education and the workplace. That happened. But second-wave feminists went further. They disparaged marriage and religion as tools of the patriarchy. They didn't view children as a source of deep meaning and fulfillment, but rather as an obstacle to career success.



These findings aren't all that surprising. When you consider the words of Simone de Beauvoir (arguably one of the most prominent philosophers of modern feminism) who said that women shouldn't be given the option of saying home and raising children, because too many women would make that choice.

That statement, alone, is an acknowledgment of the fact that many women actually do prefer the (much maligned) "traditional gender norms", and forcing them into roles they never wanted in the first place in the name of "progress" perhaps was a bit haphazard.

 

[Bradskii]

Feminism, however you want to define it, isn't compulsory. You don't get thrown out of The Sisterhood if you get married or have a baby. If you're unhappy being single, then look for a husband. If you are depressed because you don't have children, then go get pregnant. You don't even need the husband.

 

[comana]

There are a lot of assumptions regarding why women are happy or not happy in that article. The whole thing reads as the point of view from a man who wants women back in the kitchen.

 

[FireDragon76]

Correlation is not causation. It could be that people with negative life experiences are attracted to feminist ideology as an explanation. Humans are narrative driven creatures, after all.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Feminism, however you want to define it, isn't compulsory. You don't get thrown out of The Sisterhood if you get married or have a baby. If you're unhappy being single, then look for a husband. If you are depressed because you don't have children, then go get pregnant. You don't even need the husband.

But some do get shunned or viewed as if they've done something "less than" if they forego the professional/career path among the feminist circles.

 

[GoldenBoy89]

Modern life seems to be making everyone miserable.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

There are a lot of assumptions regarding why women are happy or not happy in that article. The whole thing reads as the point of view from a man who wants women back in the kitchen.

I don't think that what it's suggesting at all.

I interpreted it more as the acknowledgement that for a (perhaps not so small) portion of the population, encouraging people to abandon certain biological instincts because it doesn't conform to certain narratives is going to lead to depression among some people.


You can imagine that if there's a woman who actually does want to be part of the more traditional gender role of raising kids and making a home for someone, and many of their peers/friends are making the "you're just caving in to the men who want you to be in a 1950's/back to the kitchen system" kinds of comments, that can certainly be a form of quasi-bullying.

 

[Larniavc]

That statement, alone, is an acknowledgment of the fact that many women actually do prefer the (much maligned) "traditional gender norms", and forcing them into roles they never wanted in the first place in the name of "progress" perhaps was a bit haphazard.

Another way to look at is that you don't miss what you do not have or think you deserve.

 

[Larniavc]

But some do get shunned or viewed as if they've done something "less than" if they forego the professional/career path among the feminist circles.

There's always some people who get shunned by the people closest to them for not believing the right thing.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Modern life seems to be making everyone miserable.

I think Modern feminism (in comparison to its earlier 1950 and 1960's counterpart - which was focused on equal rights) puts undue pressure on a lot of women.

Not only in the form of the things I mentioned before (which is that there undoubtedly are women who want to be a homemaker and raise a family)

...but, also in the context of how it's discussed with regards to the kinds of professional outcomes it's advocating for.


Modern feminism often highlights (and makes a mission of seeking equitable outcomes for) only the most high-power/high-stress/high-pay professional positions.

It almost always focuses on the C-Suite and Sr. Management when making the "Women only account for X%, and we need to correct for that" type arguments. It's never the "lower" positions that would allow for a better work/life balance.

You'll often hear the "Women only make up 17% of the C-suite positions and 32% of the Sr. Management positions, despite being 50% of the population" cited.

But you'll almost never hear those kinds of arguments about the trades or other fields though. I've yet to hear anyone say "It's not fair that women only make up 4% of the field of plumbing", or "Despite being 50% of the population, they only make up 7% of HVAC technicians", or 20% of car sales reps, etc... (The kinds of jobs where a person can still clock out at 5 and still get to be there with their family most of the time)


It's almost like the expectation is getting set at "unless you're willing to implement the cut-throat corporate ladder climb that culminates in a corner office on the top floor, then you're doing it wrong"

 

[durangodawood]

Conservatives seem to be bent on making it increasingly difficult to raise children in this country. Their model is: youre on your own, sink or swim - in a setting where kids = voluntary impoverishment for many.

 

[durangodawood]

....While this is a factor, there's a deeper explanation.....

Maybe. But in the article we just have to take his word for it.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

Conservatives seem to be bent on making it increasingly difficult to raise children in this country. Their model is: youre on your own, sink or swim - in a setting where kids = voluntary impoverishment for many.

Childcare costs are especially egregious. I live in a relatively low cost of living area, and daycare costs about as much as my mortgage.

 

[durangodawood]

Childcare costs are especially egregious. I live in a relatively low cost of living area, and daycare costs about as much as my mortgage.

The conservative answer is: dont do day care, mom stay at home! But a single income supporting a whole family with kids is rarely feasible.

Perhaps conservatives are hoping the Elon Musk model will provide a replacement level birth rate. Billionaires who can afford a whole roster of support payments sprinkle their seed far and wide.

 

[iluvatar5150]

These findings aren't all that surprising.

lol, what findings? The author cites a handful of studies and then just asserts that they're wrong.

When you consider the words of Simone de Beauvoir (arguably one of the most prominent philosophers of modern feminism) who said that women shouldn't be given the option of saying home and raising children, because too many women would make that choice.

That statement, alone, is an acknowledgment of the fact that many women actually do prefer the (much maligned) "traditional gender norms", and forcing them into roles they never wanted in the first place in the name of "progress" perhaps was a bit haphazard.

Her point with that comment was that the structure of the family should be different, that it should be more of an "it takes a village" approach rather than assigning the childrearing duties to one person.

Either way, I think it's a little tough to argue that one of the most prominent philosophers of "modern" feminism is someone who's significant works pre-dated second-wave feminism.

You can imagine that if there's a woman who actually does want to be part of the more traditional gender role of raising kids and making a home for someone, and many of their peers/friends are making the "you're just caving in to the men who want you to be in a 1950's/back to the kitchen system" kinds of comments, that can certainly be a form of quasi-bullying.

One can imagine a lot of things. What you're describing isn't driven by feminism; it's driven by a form of status-seeking, which afflicts both genders. At least around here, the progressives I know have mostly moved beyond that mindset. Lots of families have opted to have one (educated, professional) parent stay at home and most of the rest of us have at least entertained it and run the numbers. But the culture around here, while being almost painfully progressive at times, largely isn't one that emphasizes wealth and professional status.

 

[Laodicean60]

Childcare costs are especially egregious. I live in a relatively low cost of living area, and daycare costs about as much as my mortgage.

Yes, I've dealt with it and now my kids are dealing with it, that's why I send them money to lessen their burden.

The conservative answer is: dont do day care, mom stay at home!

This is a lie! Anyone especially conservatives knows that mom can't stay at home in today's economy.

"The researchers from Columbia speculated that political events might have contributed to liberal depression."

I blame the gloom from left-wing media on how feminists feel.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

The conservative answer is: dont do day care, mom stay at home! But a single income supporting a whole family with kids is rarely feasible.

I don't think it has to be a single income...I get that both parents need to work in some cases.

The part I touched on in the previous post was that modern feminism has tended to put disproportionate attention on achieving "equitable" outcomes between the two sexes specifically pertaining to the top 1% of the "high-power jobs", and not so much for the rest of the jobs.

Without acknowledging the reality that those types of jobs are the ones that don't typically lend themselves well to having a good work-life balance especially in regard to being able to stay actively involved with your children.

Being in the C-Suite often times forces people to prioritize the "corporate life" over the "personal life" (which obviously isn't ideal for people with kids)


I'm in the DINK situation (a dual income, no kids household), neither of us want children and precautions have been taken to make sure it doesn't happen. We both have nice incomes, but even if either of us did want kids, neither of us had the type of job that would be conducive to that as we both have jobs that can (and often times do) entail "Drop everything, we need you at this client site ASAP" situations, and it doesn't matter if it's 11pm, doesn't matter if it's a holiday, doesn't matter if it's a weekend, doesn't matter if you have a relative in the hospital, etc...

 

[ThatRobGuy]

what you're describing isn't driven by feminism; it's driven by a form of status-seeking, which afflicts both genders.

But the status-seeking is tied to the attitudes of modern feminism...

Like I noted earlier, it's quite common to hear modern feminism advocates discuss the issue of workplace disparity almost exclusively in the context of Gender Equality in the C-Suite, but you never really hear about that in terms of other positions or mid-level positions.

So, it's always "only 17% of people in the C-Suite are women, and women only make up 9% of Fortune 500 CEOs", and almost never any complaints about "Women only make up 7% of Electrical Engineers or Carpenters"

Those jobs pay well, those are six-figure jobs

In a way, they've set the benchmark at "gender equality success" almost exclusively to the small subset of jobs that require one to sacrifice significant parts of their personal life in order to be a "company person".

Is it an "authority-based" thing, where they see it as "it doesn't count as a win unless you're a "big boss" who people answer to" or something like that?

 

[FireDragon76]

lol, what findings? The author cites a handful of studies and then just asserts that they're wrong.



Her point with that comment was that the structure of the family should be different, that it should be more of an "it takes a village" approach rather than assigning the childrearing duties to one person.

Either way, I think it's a little tough to argue that one of the most prominent philosophers of "modern" feminism is someone who's significant works pre-dated second-wave feminism.


One can imagine a lot of things. What you're describing isn't driven by feminism; it's driven by a form of status-seeking, which afflicts both genders. At least around here, the progressives I know have mostly moved beyond that mindset. Lots of families have opted to have one (educated, professional) parent stay at home and most of the rest of us have at least entertained it and run the numbers. But the culture around here, while being almost painfully progressive at times, largely isn't one that emphasizes wealth and professional status.

Very true. In reality, we are just as likely to hang out at coffee shops that use thrift store second-hand mugs and drink tea out of mason jars. We really don't care about impressing anybody. And some of us aren't particularly wealthy. Most of the people at my church have less wealth than you'ld find in the typical conservative Evangelical church, and most have or had careers as underpaid civil servants.

Have you looked into Spiral Dynamics? It explains alot about what goes on in terms of contemporary culture and politics. Most Americans are in the material wealth and status-seeking stage, only a small minority of the population have gotten beyond that.

 

[iluvatar5150]

But the status-seeking is tied to the attitudes of modern feminism...

No, the status seeking is status seeking that happens to be informed by a flavor of feminism that had its heyday in the 80's and 90's. It's basically the feminism of the older Gen X'ers.

Like I noted earlier, it's quite common to hear modern feminism advocates discuss the issue of workplace disparity almost exclusively in the context of Gender Equality in the C-Suite, but you never really hear about that in terms of other positions or mid-level positions.

That's because, AFAIK, those lower positions have mostly evened out (on average; there are disparities within certain fields), or at least the existing disparities can be pinned on things that are hard to address with better HR policies.

So, it's always "only 17% of people in the C-Suite are women, and women only make up 9% of Fortune 500 CEOs", and almost never any complaints about "Women only make up 7% of Electrical Engineers or Carpenters"

Those jobs pay well, those are six-figure jobs

You don't hear complaints about sexism in computer & engineering fields? Really? Last I recall, much of the discussion had turned from criticisms of the workplace to criticisms of cultural issues that motivate women to not pursue those fields in the first place (or to switch majors away from them in college).