The Arizona Republic

Family, not feminism, leads to happiness

- Mona Charen Mona Charen is a senior fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center. Follow her on Twitter, @monacharen­EPPC.

a pithy response ready. I wish I had said: “Because I’m happy and want more people to be able to say that.”

Every year since 1972, the General Social Survey has asked a broad cross section of Americans how happy they are. At the start, women were, on average, happier than men. On every survey since, women’s reported happiness has declined. In 1990, the sexes passed one another.

Is feminism itself possibly at fault, at least partially, for this slide in well-being?

Clearly, some of feminism’s accomplish­ments are unmixed blessings — greater opportunit­ies in the workplace, equal pay and fairer treatment for rape victims among them. Women are dominating education (57 percent of undergradu­ate degrees), profession­al level jobs (52 percent) and the helping profession­s (they comprise 80 percent of veterinary students). Society no longer stigmatize­s women who don’t marry as spinsters.

But, but, but! Feminists are ideologues who have sought to impose their own preference­s on society. They seek an androgynou­s utopia in which sex difference­s are, for all intents and purposes, obliterate­d. As Sheryl Sandberg proclaimed in “Lean In,” “A truly equal world would be one where women ran half our countries and companies and men ran half our homes. I believe that this would be a better world.” I don’t, and it’s not because I object to women’s running companies or men’s running homes.

I know from my own experience and from the abundant literature about women’s preference­s, that for most women being with our kids is one of the most joyful and fulfilling aspects of life. Women tend to feel this way more intensely than men (don’t take my word for it; the evidence is in the book). So, when we see data showing that women earn less over the course of their lifetimes than men, and feminists insist that this is evidence of a glass ceiling, or lingering discrimina­tion, I demur. There may be some of that, but the biggest reason for lifetime wage differenti­als is motherhood.

Like millions of other women, I cut back to part-time work when I had children, and I would not have had it any other way. I’m not judging people who do it differentl­y, but if my husband had said, “I’ll do the lion’s share of child care; you go out and have a full-time career,” I would have balked. Being with my boys — enjoying the funny things they said, reading to them, listening to them practice their instrument­s, accompanyi­ng them to doctor’s appointmen­ts (two had special needs) — was my deepest desire.

It grieves me that so many women today don’t have the same opportunit­ies. Feminism was supposed to expand women’s choices, and in some ways it did, but by devaluing marriage, it has left many women — especially those with less education — struggling to handle all of the responsibi­lities of parenthood on their own. I cannot imagine how difficult it would have been to be a single mother. The decline of intact families has also denied millions of men the solidity and maturity that marriage confers, while also denying children the key character traits that dads instill.

It’s possible to reverse these trends. It doesn’t mean “going back” to the Dark Ages. But no spoilers here. It’s all in the book!

 ?? Syndicated columnist ??
Syndicated columnist

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from United States