Feminism: "Bad for your health"
I was not one bit surprised to see this politically incorrect article on a study which showed that feminism could be bad for your health (Thanks for sending me the link, Zan!):
Edit: LAF posted a link to a similar article on the same study with this note:
For years, feminists have fought for equality, believing it is the key to a better society.
Now researchers have found that parity between the sexes may be bad for your health.
A study in Sweden, arguably one of the most egalitarian countries in the world, discovered that men and women who are equal are more likely to suffer illness or disability.
Those who earn the same are also more likely to become unwell or suffer a disability.
People who have management jobs, male or female, were also found to die younger than those with a less pressured lifestyle.
So many people cannot wrap their brains around this simple universal fact: Men and women are different. Since the beginning of time, men and women were created to fulfill different roles and different purposes. When we try to fight against God's ordained plan, it only leads to the destruction of our families, our societies, and our individual health.
Edit: LAF posted a link to a similar article on the same study with this note:
That this story has actually made it into the mainstream press is amazing, since it is incredibly politically incorrect. While the authors of the study are quick to qualify their findings, we believe they are actually corroborated by many other researchers. What comes immediately to mind is Dr. Miriam Grossman's book, Unprotected: A Campus Psychiatrist Reveals How Political Correctness in Her Profession Endangers Every Student, which reveals the direct links between "equal opportunity" promiscuity and disease, depression, and suicide (not a book for young readers, but I'd put it into the hands of any parent considering sending daughters away to college) . There are also the writings of Dawn Eden, Janice Shaw Crouse, and Laura Sessions Stepp, who look at the emotional, physical, and spiritual consquences of the hook-up culture. I think we all know that a promiscuous culture is an unhealthy one and--let's be honest--a depressingly empty one. But our society has done its best to stifle that still, small voice, ever turning up the volume on meaningless intimate encounters between strangers. That this recent study emerges from Sweden should hearten us all, no matter how hard the detractors try to cover the obvious truth with their worn, tattered lies. ~ Editor
posted by Crystal Paine at 12:22 PM
14 Comments:
First, the newspaper you are citing is a tabloid. It's similar to citing the National Enquirer. I don't know anything about the study itself, but you have to take the analysis by the author of the article worth a grain of salt for that reason.
Second, the article says that women may suffer ill health when they take on stress outside the home and no one relieves them from stress inside the home. That is not equality. That's women working twice as hard by working both inside and outside the home. You don't need me or a tabloid to tell you that that stress could be relieved at least two ways - by limiting work outside the home or by limiting work inside the home.
From what I've seen, the Daily Mail has been pretty reliable in their articles - leaps and bounds more reliable than something like the National Enquirer! And honestly, I take most new sources with a grain of salt as they are all subject to enormous amounts of bias. Bias is impossible to get around.
On your second point - that's the point of why I posted this. Women weren't created to bear a "double curse" - to work outside the home and bear all the responsibilities of the home, too. It is a huge, huge load and I personally cannot imagine the enormous amount of stress it must produce. Yet, this is one of the direct consequences of the equality that feminists have pushed so hard for.
While I understand that in certain unfortunate situations wives and mothers must work full-time outside the home, I do not believe that most women have to work. Nor do I believe God designed women to be the bread-winners of the family. It is a role they were not intended or equipped for and this is why it will only produce stress.
I talk to many women who are stressed beyond measure who say they can't live on one income. I believe that is very rarely the case. They either don't know how to live on one income or they don't want to make the sacrifices necessary to live on one income. Many times, women are working full-time to support a more lavish lifestyle, to pay the various mortgages on the new cars and the new home, and so forth. No, this isn't always the case, but it is often the case.
That's why I so encourage women to explore ways they can be more frugal, ways they can make money from home during naptime, and learning to be content with what you have. If you want to be home with your children (and I believe that this is what God designed a mother for - to be the primary caregiver for her children, to be their nurturers and their encouragers), in almost every case, you can make it happen. Sure, it might mean some material sacrifice, but it will be worth every bit of it for the ability to be their with your child - watching them grow and develop, pouring love into them, teaching them, training them, and shaping them into future mature adults.
Crystal,
The results cited in this article are interesting- and not surprising. Stress is bad for people, and the competitive stresses of the workplace- different from the sleep-deprived, relational stresses of the home- do seem to be worse for women than for men. Biologically, men and women do seem to be disposed to handle different stresses- men seem "built" for sprints, women for endurance marathons. Men have the upper-body strengths necessary for battle and building, women have the high pain thresholds and mental capacities for bearing, birthing, and nurturing children.
However, there are two premises in your post that I would like to respond to. First, I think we should keep in mind that men and women are in fact "equal" - they are gifted differently, but they are equal. The home should not be denigrated by implying that it is a less stressful, less demanding arena, and therefore more suited to women, as though women were only suited to positions compatible with "weaker" capacities. We should not imply that because women are weaker, they are meant to remain at home. I would argue that women may be meant to remain at home BECAUSE they may be called to handles the pressures and stresses of the family in a more immediate way than men.
Secondly, I think we have to be careful not to say that men and women are destined for their respective roles merely by biological disposition. Our choices should be a function of grace and the freely willed gift of ourselves out of love. Biology is important, but Biblically, we know that it is the call of Christ that should be most determinative in our lives.
Absolutely, MM, and you will notice I never said that men and women weren't equal as in the sense of being both created in the image of God for His glory. :) They are, however, different -- designed and equipped by God to fulfill different purposes. That women were designed to be completors and nurturers, does not make them less than men, of course.
And of course, I was never saying that being a wife and mom and serving in the home is any less difficult or less of a place than working outside the home. I think you know I don't believe that! :) I am talking about women trying to do both - being a wife and mom and keep the home and trying to work full-time, too.
Hope that clears things up if there was some confusion.
I'd like to point out that LAF posted a different article on this topic in a different UK paper - The Independent, which is considerably more left-leaning than the Daily Mail.
Thanks for catching my oversight, Libbie! I corrected that. :)
I live in Sweden and work full time as a Pharmacist. I'm single, and I love my job but I can't imagine being able to both work and take care of the home alone when married(at least not doing both well and staying sane at the same time). While raised in a Christian family, I must admit I can be too "Swedish" in my thinking and I sometimes struggle with the equality thing in contrast to what the Bible says. I know what I believe but my thoughts and feelings are not always following.
While I really like my job, I know I'd much prefer to be a SAHW, and take care of the home and have my husband come home to a haven where he can relax after a hard day at work.(I know that is not the reality all days, but one can dream, right!;))
But, if I marry and my husband expects me to work outside home(which he probably will since NO women here stay home unless they have small children), I will expect us to share the load at home. Not because we're to be "equal", but because if he loves me he wouldn't want me to be all stressed out doing both work and ALL the housework.
The "funny" thing I've realized is that most Christian married couples I know of, where both work, are much more equal when it comes to sharing the housework than many non-christian couples. I have a pregnant coworker who has lived with her fiancé for 7 years, and he never cooks or cleans(shops for grocerys only if she writes the list, and not often even then). When she works late he eats sandwitches or goes out to eat. It doesn't matter that she is pregnant and very tired(you know what that's like!) and work full time in a stressful environment. This is not the only example I know of, there are even couples where he is unemployed and she works full time and he still does nothing at home...Sweden is definitely not come that far in equality, at least not in the home.
Ideally the husband would support the family and the wife be the keeper at home, but "thanks" to our equal society, that IS very difficult financially in Sweden.
Still I really really hope that will be possible if I marry someday.
Thank you Crystal for your example, I don't comment often but visit daily and find your posts thoughtprovoking and encouraging!=)
I’ve been reading this blog for a few months and really like it, but I haven’t commented before.
Like Sofia I live in Sweden (Hi Sofia!) – I’m married and have 5 children. I have been a keeper at home most of the years we’ve been married but have also studied fulltime at university level a couple of years because it is so hard to live on one income here. Like Sofia said, the politicians have made it almost impossible for most people to do that. We pay very high taxes and the politicians have been very successful in forcing women to work outside of the home – using the taxes. My husbands’ salary supports 7 people but he has to pay the same taxes as a single person – and some of that money pays for the childcare that all the two income families use… We all have to pay for that childcare whether we use it or not. When you use it you have to pay a fee, but most of it is paid with taxes.
It’s funny that I live in Sweden – but I haven’t heard about that study before… I’m not surprised though; politically incorrect studies are often swept under the carpet.
I have personally experienced what the study talks about. For a couple of years my husband worked fulltime and studied fulltime (it wasn’t as bad as it sounds as he could sleep and do some of the studying at work) and at the same time I studied fulltime at a University one hours drive from home. We had 3 children in school and 2 in a day care. Finally, about a year ago, I couldn’t do it any more. I was totally burned out. And this is really common in Sweden. Now I’m at home as I just can’t do both anymore, but financially it’s a hopeless situation – so we’re definitely going to have to learn to trust that God will help us when we try to live the way we think He wants us to live – with me at home again.
Women usually do most of the work at home even if they work fulltime outside of the home and eventually it gets too much. My husband has always done a great deal at home, especially when I’ve studied.
It’s funny – people here think it’s awful when you tell them you believe that the husband is the head of the home and that you submit to his authority – but those same people have been very jealous of my “equal” husband, as he’s never hesitated to fix dinner or change a diaper…
Karin
By the way, to Sofia and Karin (Thank you two both very much for sharing!) and others who are outside the US - my comments on most people being able to live on one income are referring to those in the US. I forget to qualify statements like that most of the time - so my apologies on that. From what I have read/heard, it is much harder in many foreign countries to live on one income than it is in the US. I'm not exactly sure why that is and since I've not spent any time at all in other countries (Can you believe I've never been outside the US? It is Jesse and my dream to someday be able to travel to many foreign countries!), I am very unqualified to speak on that. I DO know, however, that some families make it work, but I think it is - from what I have heard - much harder to make it work. I'd love to hear more from those of you who are living in other countries on this subject - especially those of you who are living on one income with a family.
Also, I know that if God calls you to something, He will provide the means to make it happen. After all, He owns all the cattle on all the hills. He is a big God and He can provide for our needs - even in situations where it might seem impossible.
We live on one income in the UK, and we now have four little ones. It is possible, but it does mean you can't have a certain 'standard of living'. We have what I call a 2 and a half bedroom house - two reasonable size ones, and one that you can't fit a full size single bed in. We were very blessed by being able to buy before the housing market went bananas over here.
I'm just getting back into keeping the house after many months of illness, and I'm learning how to do it all over again while being disabled. We have struggled with the extra financial burden of the hospital (We get 'free' healthcare on the NHS, but we still have to pay for the exhorbitant parking, and the only viable phone is a premium-rate one)
I am enjoying the challenge of getting the budget back on track, and we have been inordinately blessed with unexpected gifts and help from other believers.
I completely agree with Sofia about Christian men treating their wives more "equally." I know many more Christian husbands that help their wives at home, than non-Christian ones. A few domineering "Christian" men are used by feminists as examples of how mean Christian men are to their wives and how they keep their women down. They don't see the real Christian families who quietly mind their own business.
Even though I am home full time, my husband helps with dinner, baths, diaper changing and bedtime all the time.
I just can't imagine having to work full time with my two little kids. I was up every hour on the hour with my 1 yr old last night (he has a low grade fever from his vaccinations) and I feel horrible.I have been doing this the last three nights! If I had to go to work I would just want to shoot myself. Does a government who forces women to work understand little details about family life like lack of sleep? Sure, there is daycare during the day, but parents still have to take care of their babies during the night. Having little sleep makes me very irritable and I can't even think how irritable I would be after working at the hospital all day. I can't imagine the strain it would be to my marriage.
I think this study says more about today’s insane, 24/7 work culture than feminism (though I also think feminism contributed to today’s insane work culture by glorifying work outside the home. And I agree that feminism makes it harder for women who want to stay home).
I also think that while conservatives are absolutely right to warn about the drawbacks of daycare and to encourage mothers to stay home, they underestimate the difficulties of doing so, at least in certain parts of the country. I’m a working mother in the U.S. who would love to stay home with my daughter, but I have to work for financial reasons. I live in the D.C. area, which is very expensive. I’m sure it’s a lot easier to live on one income in the Midwest. Yes, people who live in expensive areas can sometimes move to cheaper areas, but this is not always possible, especially when you consider that most jobs are in large metropolitan areas.
The main problem is that housing prices have gone up so much in just the past 5 years or so. (You really don’t want to know how much our house cost!) My husband and I live pretty frugally, have no debt except our mortgage, buy clothes at Wal-mart, rarely eat out, etc., and I still can’t stay home b/c housing costs are so high. (Oh, and my mother-in-law watches our daughter during the day, for free, so we don’t have daycare expenses). It’s not that groceries, etc. are any more expensive in big cities than other parts of the country. Salaries have not caught up to the cost of housing. (Yes, we could rent, but renting isn’t *that* much cheaper in this area, and in the long run we’ll be *much* better off financially by owning a home).
What we need a massive cultural shift that puts family before work and policies that make it easier for families to live on one income. Probably not going to happen, though.
Two comments
First, the Daily Mail is a tabloid but regardless of this, it is important to go back to the orginal article when drawing conclusions from research articles. They are often misinterpreted in the press. There have been several health scares here, in the UK, from misinterpreted articles.
I haven't seen the original in this case but I'm trained as a doctor and have often seen the original articles in medical journals which are often not quite the same as in the headlines.
Second, about living on one income outside the US. I haven't been to the US but get the impression that the cost of living is far lower than here in the UK. One of the problems here is the price of property. I noted the comments here about not buying with a mortgage but that is virtually impossible here as interest rates are around 5-6% and property is going up at a much faster rate. A "starter" home here, in London, would be around £200K and usually a deposit of £20K is needed. Even this can be difficult for poorer couples. Many people have to rent but rents are high and can be higher than one can pay on mortgage.
Of course, it is possible to be frugal and save. The same basic principles apply and I have learnt lots about saving from US sites. However, many saving ideas such as double coupons just don't exist and we have to be careful around shopping around due to the high cost of fuel.
Having said that, this afternoon I brought £13 of food for £8.97 and also received points that can be saved up in a scheme. This was a really successful trip-I don't know how to make the massive level of savings, that you talk about Crystal, here. Perhaps some other UK readers have ideas?
Annaelisabeth
Didn't have time to read beyond the first comment, but I wanted to say that a similar study was in Dr. Laura's book, "The Proper Care and Feeding of Husbands." So I'd say it's reliable information - more so than tabloids, anyway.
Post a Comment
<< Home