OK. So, I've been dreading writing an ending review on this book. I don't think you really want to know what it says. Nor do I want to tell you--because it is so depressing. Not only that but she passes off as gospel truth a study that has no control group and has a severe socioeconomic bias. Click here if you want to check out Part 1 of my review.Basically, in the second part of the book she tries to prove that stay-at-home mothers live in a concentration camp, are progressively dehumanized, create psychological problems for their children (i.e. autism and infantilization) because of their constant mothering, create marriage problems because they are always hounding their husbands or fantasizing about sexual escapades, and basically create all of society's problems. If you don't believe me, read it. Then again, don't.
She also says that there is a marketing conspiracy trying to keep women at home so they will buy more household products. You see, stay-at-home mothers buy most of the products on the market. She fails to point out that companies market products to every demographic of people, including working mothers, men, and children. She doesn't think working mothers have time to shop. But, really who has more money to spend--single income families or double income families? According to Friedan, companies trick us into believing it is a good thing for mothers to stay at home, so they can get us to buy more products.
I wish she had written about women's right to work or equal pay for equal work, but she didn't. I wish she had supported all women. That wasn't the focus of the book. She basically tried to make women believe that if they stayed at home with their children, they were destroying themselves, their families, and their marriage. Right here is where the animosity between working mothers and stay-at-home mothers begins. And that is really too bad. We women have to deal with enough criticism just trying to do what's right for our families without having another woman tell us that every stay-at-home mom lives in a concentration camp.
So, if all these things are true about stay-at-home mothers, surely things should have turned around now that more than half of all mothers work outside the home. We should have lower obesity rates, sexual problems, financial problems, emotional problems, depression, autism, etc. Clearly these problems do not stem merely from a mother who chooses to stay home with her children. There are multiple reasons for these social problems.
So now I think I'll go back to my concentration camp, take a hot, steamy shower, and visit the bodies in the basement. Then, I'll dehumanize myself by making homemade bread and soup. I'll ruin my children by hugging them too much--and I might even help them with their homework. They will have autism and not be able to function in the real world. Then, I'll organize our 4H project, teach history, drive an elderly woman to the bank, do laundry, and print up a high school transcript. (All of which any mentally handicapped or eight year old could accomplish.)
Rating: 2 stars
Pages: 395
Published: W.W Norton, 1963
Author: Betty Friedan
Excellent analysis of that woman's work of fiction, Heidi! I appreciate three things specifically about what you've said here and in the first part of your review: 1)you pinpointed and laid out clearly the flaws in her logic; 2)you confidently and accurately demonstrated the same thing through your personal experience in your conclusion, which brought a big smile to my sympathetic face; and most importantly 3)you pointed your readers to the truth about why we are here and in Whom we should find our identity. Loved it!
ReplyDeleteThank you, Laura. Her conclusions were a definitely a stretch.
DeleteHow sad that Friedan felt so angry and trapped when she wrote this book. Even sadder, that she apparently did not interview enough women to get any other perspectives. Or did she choose to ignore them?
ReplyDeleteThe problem was the limited socioeconomic class she surveyed. She initially did a survey of her college peers, ten years after graduation. Then, she got hundreds of letters from women after writing an article in a women's magazine.
DeleteShe did do other research, and that may have been sound. But her conclusions were outlandish. For example, she said that in the Polish community the parenting style was harsh with screaming, hitting, etc. Studies showed that the kids grew up to be well-adjusted. So, her conclusion was that nurturing stay-at-home mothers caused neurosis in their children. (They were too nurturing.)
Ai Yi Yi, right? I'm a mixed bag on all this stuff. I'm glad I work. I'm glad you stay home. I'm glad that we have husbands that listen to us and support us in our desires. Do stay at home moms think working women are evil? I guess I never contemplated that I could rub another woman the wrong way by working outside the home. As a working woman, it's never even crossed my mind to stick my nose into someone else's choice to work or not. Maybe I'm unique because I did stay at home for 9 years and now I work. The author surely does seem uninformed on these issues. Thanks for the good review. Was the soup and bread good?
ReplyDeleteI'm so glad that we can work at just about any job now. I wish she had talked about that. I would never tell a working mother that she caused all of society's problems. Where's the encouragement?
DeleteHa! I didn't make bread. But, how would that be dehumanizing? It is so yummy to smell fresh bread cooking!
Speaking from the perspective of a "working" non-woman with a "non-working", stay-at-home wife, I think it's a significant error to use the word "work" at all in this context. I can say with certainty that my wife works hard at home - maybe even harder (certainly longer hours) than I "work" at work. What does a paycheck have to do with "working," anyway?
ReplyDeleteI have no intention on ever reading this book in question, but based on this review, it sure seems to me the author has missed some really important points about life in general. Makes me feel sorry for the non-woman in her life.
Good point. We all are working. But, she tried to say that the work a stay-at-home mom accomplished any eight year old could do. It was demeaning work.
DeleteWow! For dreading writing this review, you did an excellent job. I, for one, love my concentration camp. :) What's baffling is how thoroughly Friedan seems not to have realized that everyone is different. Or, perhaps, she just thought that everyone else was oppressed, repressed, delusional or unenlightened?
ReplyDeleteIt sounds like she had a lot of anger, which can't make for a very pleasant reading experience--regardless of how much you agree/disagree with the opinions presented.
Eighty-nine percent of married women were at home in the 50's, and she felt they were deceived into it by the "feminine mystique." Then you begin to understand that the only way to get women to work outside the home was to prove they were hurting themselves and their families. She tended to glamorize the working mother--they had better sex lives, they got their housework done so much quicker, they weren't slaves to marketing, they had outside stimulation, they let their kids be more independent which caused them to be better well adjusted, etc. The problem was she didn't really have a control study to prove that.
ReplyDelete