Anytime you give someone the opportunity to question their decision about something, there is an opportunity for unhappiness. If you go to a restaurant that only serves one dish, say grilled chicken, you go in, order, and are happy with your meal. If instead you went to a restaurant with a menu that has 15 pages, the grilled chicken might not be what you want the most…you spend part of your meal admiring everyone elses dish, because they might look better than yours, and wonder if you made the right decision. What could make this even worse is if everyone around them keeps talking about how much the love their meal.

So sure, some women might struggle with the decision that they have made, to have a career, or to raise a family. The fact that an option exists is enough to cause someone to second guess themselves and not know if they are maximizing their happiness.

Where does all this lead? I think most people would agree that the 15 page menu is superior to the single item menu. Likewise, it is important for women to have that option, but I think it is also important that we have a society that accepts both equally — because once we start talking about how great one decision is and how bad another is, it just leads to second guessing, and more unhappiness. This applies to men as well — how is the stay-at-home dad going to feel if he is constantly asked how he feels giving up a career to stay at home?

If you make the jump into the world where we have women be the primary caregivers and stay at home as an exercise in maximizing happiness, an anti-feminist movement — why would you not take things a step further and direct the men into certain career at an early age as well? Many guys may struggle with career choice later on in life. We could just take away that choice and they will be happier as well.

Maybe we could begin arranging marriages again. You would probably have fewer divorces, since there is no second guessing if you met “the one”, and there really is not other option anyway.

And so on.

So why draw the line at just feminism?

2. The distribution of labor you suggest is that which is dominant in Africa and the Middle East. I cannot agree that “the benefits … far outweigh the costs.”

You raise an important issue regarding divorce. I agree that divorced women in your hypothetical situation would have a tough time — they would only be able to rely on family and friends.

However, you misconstrue my point. I am not saying that women should not have educations or jobs. It is that they should be a second priority. Imagine this order of priorities:

Men — jobs and educations, then family
Women — family, then jobs and education

This would be an efficient (and natural) division of labor that would benefit society greatly. Of course, there would still be problems, but the benefits would far outweigh the costs.

2. You are completely ignoring the specter of divorce. Divorce occurs for many reasons, of course, but a good reason for it to exist is domestic abuse. According to one survey, about 25% of women have been involved in an abusive relationship (wikipedia/Domestic_violence).

If society were to do as you suggest – reorient women toward motherhood, encouraging them to forego education and careers – then, if those women managed to escape an abusive marriage, they would have nothing. They’d have no education; they’d have no skills; they’d have no experience. In short, they would be unable to support themselves and their offspring. Women and children would be begging in the streets as they still must in cultures that did not allow them education or jobs.

I guess I don’t really understand why you make this point every other week

Because I think the negative affects that feminism has had on society are important to point out for society’s benefit. And these posts get me a lot of traffic.

and then follow it up with “feminism”, as if the entire thing boils down to one simple fact, that more women are working instead of finding a man to stay home and cook for.

As you probably read in my essay, it does not simply boil down to “feminism” itself — the various, unintended consequences of the movement have created much of the havoc that we see in society today.

And I don’t believe that women should not work at all. Women worked part-time throughout most of recorded history. But the problem comes in when women erroneously believe that they can “have it all.” No one can.

When women want to have multiple master’s degrees and a distinguished career, they find that the amount of time they could have devoted to their family suffers. And since women are generally programmed — by nature and nurture — to be maternal caregivers more so than men, they become unhappy when this basic instinct is not fulfilled as much as they want.

As I wrote in the essay to which I linked in the post, the blame falls on both men and women (for different reasons).

However, the fact does remain that women call most of the shots in the dating world. Women decide which men of all those who flirt with and hit on them have a chance. Women decide how far they will go sexually at each point in the dating process. Etc. If women are single and do not want to be, then for the most part it is their own fault for being too picky.

And, no offense, but I am not going to discuss me or anyone else personally on the blog.

Who cares if some women never marry, or some men never marry? Some of it could be the result of an age gap, so what? If they want to get married, but can’t find a partner, they are being too picky and a long term relationship isn’t really that much of a priority for them, or they just aren’t all that much of a catch to begin with.

I guess I don’t really understand why you make this point every other week and then follow it up with “feminism”, as if the entire thing boils down to one simple fact, that more women are working instead of finding a man to stay home and cook for.

Genius: Exactly. As I’ve written in several posts, women harm their own chances by waiting — intentionally or not — longer and longer to get married.