Feature
- Mental Health Screenings Not Necessary in Abortions
- The Burqa Ban is ON!
- Middle-Class Moms and Alcoholism: A Rising Epidemic?
- Murderous Moms: The Peters Tragedy
- Does Being a Pear-Shape Affect Long-Term Memory?
- Is Joan Rivers a Matriarch of Feminism?
- Mother-Murdering Teen Addresses the Media From Jail
- Forget Ron Burgundy ... Anchorladies on the rise!
- Celebrate! Argentina Legalizes Same-Sex Marriage!
- Saudi Group Using “Prophet of Four” Concept to Control Women
Back in June we wrote about a study in the UK claiming that women are losing their happiness. This week the New York Times posted an article with the same idea, but including a canvass of experts to explain the lost happiness.
The NYT gives a cursory head nod to the idea that the pressure to look good also impacts women’s happiness. This idea deserves more than a cursory glance, though, as it is the heart of the issue. Why would male happiness increase and female happiness decrease since the 1950s?
I take issue with the idea that we must, obviously, blame the feminist movement. How about the counter-feminist movement also known as mainstream culture? What has happened since the 1950s?
Porn has exploded as an industry and influenced all forms of media, especially advertising and music. Society has become more risque, revealing more body parts to be the object of the male gaze; it’s not enough anymore to have a nice figure. People obsess over every purportedly “misplaced” dimple. Women worry about whether their triceps are defined enough.
As a result, eating disorders are on the rise, according to this article by the Scripps Howard News Service.
“There has been a definite rise in anorexia and bulimia every year since the 1950s,” Yager said. “That may have to do with society’s preoccupation with slimness, as fashion models and actresses have gotten slimmer on TV and in magazines. That creates a lot of social peer pressure to be an unhealthy low weight.”
This isn’t really that complicated. As clothing grows skimpier and porn becomes more prevalent, naturally men are going to be happier. Women, on the other hand, are finding more surface areas of bare skin to hate about themselves.
-
-
41
var feedback_widget = new GSFN.feedback_widget(feedback_widget_options);
I can tell you what, if I was wearing that bikini, I’d be pretty damn unhappy. It makes any normal person look like a huge-boobed freak, and that model look like she’s the same weight as the average 5 year old (and really, if you think about it, she must weigh at LEAST as much as an 8 year old!). Not flattering on anyone.
The great thing about feminism? I don’t have to wear it. I don’t have to wear or NOT wear anything I don’t want to. I can wear a burqa or a thong and pasties if that’s what I personally feel like wearing. Other women need to realize that, then they’ll be happy.
That being said, as a) a female, b) a female of color, and c) a female of color being the product of a mixed-race union, I can safely say I would nOT have been happier in the 50s. I would much rather be unhappy about my tummy bulge then be able to fix it by buying a more modest top than have to worry about being lynched for going to school with people of OTHER RACES….or existing. Ditto for being expected to get married this year, start pushing out babies next year, and spending the next half century cooking and cleaning for an unappreciative husband. It says a lot about women if they’d honestly be happier being surpressed and bossed around by men. Not that we aren’t still, but nowadays, there’s nothing wrong with complaining about it and demanding that it change. I would rather be naked all day every day than bring up a feminist issue and just be patted on the head and told ‘how cute, now go make me a sammich.’
The implication that pornography is something new is a bit silly, and I don’t think the porn industry is to blame for this.
Agreed.
Porn certainly isn’t new, but it is much more accessible and becoming continually more intense than I think anyone could have imagined 50, even 20 years ago. It disrupts relationships and leads to sexual dysfunction by fostering unrealistic expectations so that nothing in real life can measure up. While it is certainly not the entire source of unhappiness that women face, it is naive to think that porn has no broader reach in society than the individuals who use it.
Women have brainwashed themselves into believing they don’t need a man to be happy, it ain’t so. Nothing is more depressing than growing old ALONE. We’re going against nature.
btw, that model looks revolting. Is it even possible for a human to have less body fat? These gay designers must all be a pack of misogynists to make models look like that.
Nature in no way dictates that you need to grow old with a partner, and neither should you.
Not having a man does not make you alone. If someoneone grows old alone, it’s because they chose to do so. Think of all the women, and men, who are elderly and do not have partners (either because they chose not to have one, or because they are widowed). Those who make the most of life live happy lives, and having a partner does not ensure you will be happy.
Thinking like that is why women will spend their lives miserable with a man they don’t love- because it’s better than being ‘alone’.
That picture makes me want to throw up a bit. Do they eat regular meals?
They eat one grape a day, 2 glasses of water, 16 cigarettes and a vile of coke.
More water, its good for your skin and makes you feel less hungry.
yeah! agree
I think models need a course on “Basic Training on Eating”!!
i think think that the women are-less-happy-because-of-so studies and so are a pile of crap
happiness cannot be measured
a side comment, i feel like wanting to feed the model in the picture!
i know she’s supposed to be “sexy”, but it kind of reminds me of concentration camps :S
Happiness can be measured and it is measured regularly
Welcome to the social sciences
Models, actually, are not supposed to be sexy. People fail to realize it. You aren’t suppose to look at the models, you are supposed to look at their clothes. This is why the models AREN’T healthy-looking. If they looked great, you’d look at THEM. Believe it or not, models aren’t chosen for their ability to make women want to look like them, despite what many self-centered teenager girls and the magazines they read would have you believe
Is that really true? What about Victoria’s Secret and their hot models? I guess it makes sense when I think about it, but I’ve never even considered that before…
But thanks for making me think:)
That’s ridiculous.
If that was the case, do you not think they would use fat models? Because many people would far rather look at the clothes than the fat person wearing them.
And what about girls who are ugly? Even if they were just plain looking, people would prefer to look at their clothes instead of their faces.
There are piles of different sizes, shapes, and levels of attractiveness that people would ignore in favour of clothes. But the majority of runway models are of one frame, and one general appearance.
Where the hell did you get this argument from? It makes absolutely no sense.
Ignore the Wicked 7. The reason they don’t use fat models is that because overly fat models make the clothes themselves look bad. Lingerie models have to make bras look good. While a ball gown in weird shapes will look nice like it’s on a mannequin when it’s on a sticky-thin model, a bra and panties will look gross on the same model (case in point, the picture accompanying this article. I wouldn’t but that swimsuit in a million years…ridiculous as it is, the model still has to make me think ‘my boobs and ass will look great in that’). So Victoria’s Secret models have to be a little bigger. And think about it: anyone who watches TV or reads magazines can name at least a handful of VS models. People know who they are, and their product is somewhat inexpensive and certainly consistent (as in, the colors and decorations may change, but the bra is always going to perform the same function and look more or less the same), so it really doesn’t matter that no one really pays attention to the product, because they will buy it anyway. There is a VS in every mall across America, in every economic situation. Millions of women, starting at about age 10 and up through the elderly shop there. Their target demographic is half of the human population. On the other hand, high-fashion models are totally unknown…..I doubt you could name more than one or two off the top of your head unless you actually followed fashion week or whatever. Most of them actually have QUITE short careers, and you DON’T ever get to learn who they are. Why? Because when they walk by wearing a ridiculous outfit, you aren’t supposed to see Adriana Lima and her awesome sexy face and body. You are supposed to see a Chanel ball gown. Most people don’t waltz into Chanel and browse around, debate over which one and how many to buy, then settle on both and pick up something for their daughter. People who go to Chanel are either incredibly wealthy or trying to appear that way. And to spend as much money on clothing as Chanel and other high-fashion brands charges, even the wealthy probably have to pause for a second to weigh the benefits of buying a 15,000 dollar dress that they will only wear once. They have to remember the PRODUCT, not the model. The purpose of Victoria’s Secret (and other brands aimed at the working, middle, or upper-middle class) models is to remind you that they still exist, and perhaps convince you that your cleavage will be epic if you buy their new bras. The purpose of Chanel models is to present a dress to you, period. The only reason they use models instead of hangers is because hangers can’t move by themselves or show how the dress looks with shoes on.
^ Well reasoned.
How can they do an accurate study on happiness levels?
What precisely are they comparing?
I’d love to see the control group…
Women that were queried back in the 1950s are definitely not going to be wanting to show a lot of flesh in the new century….
It sounds sensationalist and borderline idiotic…
I know I’ve said this a couple of times before but I really do believe that 50s fashion was better for women than modern day fashions. Back then you wriggled in to your girdle and other undergarments and they shoved your body in to shape and made you look good in your clothes. Now we’re expected to have perfect smooth bodies without any of that stuff. I know feminists didn’t suggest the skimpy clothing and downright slutty outfits some women wear in public nowadays but we can blame feminism for fighting against corsetry and such. Woohoo, we have the freedom to look frumpy or spend hours in the gym to look good. Not something to celebrate IMO.
Plus the clothing was so much prettier in the 50s =]
We still have those types of things, though. Sure, we don’t wear 50s style girdles, but we wear spanx and push-up bras and other things that perform the same basic job as girdles and corsetry (which, BTW, I think had been LONG out of fashion in the 50s). The differences is that women who DON’T have that smooth body naturally are apparently too stupid to a) buy Spanx and the like, or b) wear clothes that look nice on them. I blame the women as individuals. They focus on the size as opposed to the fit (so a perfectly slim size 5 will cram into a size 1 and look like a beached whale), or whether it’s trendy as opposed to whether it’s flattering on them (for example, maybe 1% of women look anything other than revolting in those tights-as-pants thing, but that doesn’t stop the other 99% from wearing them). It’s not feminism, it’s the bad judgement of the women as individuals. The things that would make them attractive in their clothes are available at any Target or Wal*Mart, but they are just too lazy or stupid to go buy them.
I would waaaay rather just do some some crunches and put down the down the donuts than have a hot, itchy girdle cutting into my fat folds. Gross.
I read this blog of an anonymous, anorexic actress once who said that the reason why actresses in Hollywood strive to be so thin is because they have to wear spaghetti straps and sleeveless tops all the time. She said it’s easy to look good in 50s dresses and says that’s why the girls from “Mad Men” can be curvier because they wear sleeves.
Just because – I would also like to add that this picture of Stella Tennant is really, really old – like I think it’s from the 90s. Stella now has three children and looks much healthier. I actually think we wear MORE clothes now then we did back then.
One thing I’ve noticed is, now that we’ve become obsessed with showing that celebrities are just like us, we’ve sort of opened another doorway to things to obsess over.
TMZ, and other male run celebrity news sources like that, are constantly pointed out every inch of cellulite, every pimple, and every roll (even if it is a size 0 celeb who happens to be bending over).
To me, it doesn’t necessarily make me feel better seeing that Charlize Theron has cellulite too. It’s pointed out by the media as being a BAD thing, not a normal thing, making me feel like it’s something that needs to be fixed.
On the other hand, as a teenager, I would google the words “celebrity acne” and seeing closeups of celebrity skin would make me feel a thousand times better about my acne.
Have you taken a look at Evil Beet
Did anyone ever stop to think that maybe the ladies of the 50’s were “happier” than we are today because they did not have an outlet? It plan out was not socially acceptable to be anything other than content with your lot in life…
Why are you putting happier in quotations like it’s not true?
Of course there were a few women who didn’t enjoy their life back then, there will always be people who don’t enjoy their lives. That said, I see nothing wrong with being content with your lot in life. Far better to be realistic about what you can do and what you should do than being miserable all the time thinking that you should have a better job or a bigger house or slimmer thighs.
In many ways women in the 50s were more mature than a lot of women nowadays. I hear women in their 30s saying they’re too young to get married or too young to have a baby. If you don’t want to settle down and breed that’s your decision but if you really feel you’re not mature enough to do that by the time you’re 30 (even 25 is a bit ridiculous) then clearly something has gone wrong. Women who think they’re too good to clean their own houses or raise their own kids fall in to this category too. I know some moms who get take out all the time or hire a cleaner or hire a nanny so they can go out shopping and get pedicures and such without the kids. When did people get so lazy and irresponsible?
I am a nanny and I know that kids are a big responsibility. Women in the 50s might have had kids earlier but in no way does that mean that they always took better care of them or that they were mature enough for them.
At what time in their life somebody is ready for a child is entirely up to them and I’d rather have people wait to have children until they really feel ready instead of having children when they aren’t really “feeling” it.
I first started being a nanny when I was 19 years old. Was I mature enough to take care of children? No. I stopped and did something else for 7 years. In these years I had jobs that people would consider to have “more responsibility”, definitely jobs that are more respected than being a nanny.
About a year ago, I started to get the “feeling”. I am ready for children and I realized that I COULD be a good nanny now too because I feel mature enough to take care of children now. It is a feeling that came from deep inside of me.
I am going to be 28 in a few weeks. I know there are people out there who feel that way when they are 21 years old and that there are people out there who feel that way when they are 35 years old. But it’s nothing you can force.
So I am glad that people are having kids when they feel ready for it. Because there are definitely enough stupid, bad, unloving parents out there as it is.
And maybe I misunderstood you there – but for a mother to take a few hours off and get a babysitter because she wants to meet her friends or have a pedicure – there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. Of course if that’s all the time, that’s bad and irresponsible but once or twice a week, I think that’s good and makes for a more balanced mother.
Honestly, you think women having NO CHOICE but to stay home pushing out babies and cleaning the house is better? No, that is not more mature. That is not their ‘lot in life.’ Back then, women didn’t HAVE a choice in regards to many things. Someone choosing not to have kids the second they’re an adult isn’t immature and irresponsible….especially since people in their 20s have to be DAMN lucky in this day and age to have a well paying job….and most families have to have BOTH parents working to be able to even just feed and clothes their kids and send them to school. Not ready may mean they think they actually need to make money and not be slavishly reliant on their husband while taking care of another person’s life. As far as hiring a cleaner or a nanny, I don’t know any woman without a job who hires help of that kind. And that cleaning lady or nanny also probably has kids herself who SHE has to support, so mommy number one is giving her a job and making it so SHE can feed her kids. It’s not immature or irresponsible for women not to have to whore themselves to men or children at all times. And it’s not irresponsible to hire a babysitter because a woman wants some time to herself; she is a person with social and emotional needs too, despite having given birth. And frankly, people back then were ‘more mature’ (actually, they weren’t, they were adolescents who THOUGHT they were mature) because you were an ‘adult’ at 14. You’re a kid until high school, and by 14 you need to start scoping for a man so you can slavishly bend to his every whim by the time you’re 18. Back then, women didn’t go to college to better themselves, they went to college to find husbands. The college students who joined sororities didn’t want sisterhood or connections to powerful people connected to that organization, they joined sororities to have access to the men in the right fraternities. A girl who got married didn’t do it because she loved the man, or hell, even because her parents forced her to, but instead so she could stop going to school or working and immediately start being a homemaker. From the time a girl in that era got her period, her entire life revolved around finding and pleasing a husband. And then what happens when she got married at 17, never finished high school, had her first kid at 19, and then she looks up, is 30 with 4 kids, and realizes her husband is cheating on her. Or beating her. Or is just an asshole in general (and trust me, men back then were more asshole-ish than they were now….chivalry means nothing if you treat the woman you’re opening the door for like a sex object, a meal dispenser, or a punching bag). Nowadays, most married women have some kind of education and could leave their husbands and continue to exist without him giving her an allowance. Back then, if you wanted a divorce, even if he treated you horribly, it probably wasn’t happening. And if you somehow did get one, oh well, you are still fucked, because you don’t have the educational level even a secretary needs.
It baffles me that anyone would think that a time of paranoia, sexism, racism, xenophobia, moral outrage over nothing, and general asshaterry is preferable to a time like now where we have rights that can’t be taken away because we have the wrong skin color, sex organs, or last name.
By the way, Rhonda….we are disagreeing! I guess it’s because the topic isn’t ‘150 Ways That People Frondi Doesn’t Like Hate Christianity.’
I am wondering why she hasn’t shown up yet to point out that Muslim women are so miserable and they wear head to toe clothing…
There are a lot of women who are supposedly SAHMS and housewives who hire help and I’m not talking about getting a mother’s helper for a few hours a week or a baby sitter so they can go get their hair done once in a while. It’s especially prevalent in higher income brackets. I know a lot of women who stay home but still hire a cleaner (at least one actually has a daily housekeeper for several hours per day) and they get an au pair or nanny to take care of the kids while they’re out at their tennis lessons and going to lunch and getting spa treatments. My mother cleans a few houses for some money on the side; one woman is a SAHM with both kids in school, another has grown kids and does some volunteer work, and the third has an adult child and works about 10 hours a week. There’s no reason those women can’t clean their own homes, they just want the status that comes from hiring someone else to do your dirty work for you.
I have no issue with women hiring household if they’re working full time or they’re otherwise overwhelmed; special needs kids, caring for an elderly relative, etc. It’s the women who are home all day with no kids for at least 6 hours or so out of the day who sit on their butts while their husbands are out working so they can hire people to clean their houses that make me sick.
The thing, Rhonda, is….you are talking about an INCREDIBLY small number of women, one that CAN’T POSSIBLY have affected the rates of unhappiness that much. And anyway, those same women who hire Rosalita the cleaning lady and Natasha the au pair are the same ones if, in a similar financial situation in the 50s, would have the Negro wimminz coming over to clean, cook, and babysit while they went to their friend’s to smoke and play mah-jongg. Your example really doesn’t explain anything. The social change was between the average women, not the wealthy. Rhonda, you are INCREDIBLY priveledged to not have to work. Period. It’s great that you actually put forth effort cleaning and caring for your son, but just the fact that you don’t have to work means you are already much wealthier than almost everyone in the country will ever be. The average woman, back in the 50s, didn’t have to work and instead had to stay home and clean. The average woman NOWADAYS does not have that luxury, and has to go to work full time, and probably also has the majority of the cleaning, cooking, and childrearing. (Hm, maybe the fact that women often take over both paid and unpaid work while men generally do not contributes to women’s unhappiness? I know this is by no means universal, but it is the case much more often than not)
Whaaat? I’m pretty sure you’ve got it backwards: women in the fifties weren’t less immature than modern women, they were just shittier mothers. Just look how the baby boomers turned out.
While over-the-top notions of female beauty are definitely an element in most women’s happiness, there is also a connection between comparing what you have to what you think you deserve. Now I want to make this clear that this doesn’t apply to all women and this is only my very very humble opinion.
In the 1950s, I think a lot of women completely believed that their role as a housewife and mother was their only possible role. So they defined their happiness in the only role they believed was right. Now in this more enlightened age, the roles women have access too are varied, but we are much more aware of the sexism that exists. So many of us are “stuck” in a role, but can see through some sort of glass ceiling where we could be, and thus, our happiness suffers. In essence, we are more aware of our great possibility and unfortunately the great obstacles in the way. The women of the 1950s didn’t see obstacles in their perceived “right” role in the home, excelled in that role, and were happier for their success.
OK, please don’t bash too hard.
In a way, women today have a more difficult life than the women ofthe 1950’s did.
Think about it. Most women today have a career AND all of the responsibilities of home and family. Don’t kid yourselves – men today largely do little more in the way of housework than they did in the ’50s.
Would I trade my life for one in the 50s?
Hell NO.
As stated by previous posters, this is an opinion.
that photo terrifies me.
well, the model in this photo does not look good to me – but beauty is subjective. i don’t find emaciated, hard looking girls pretty – i prefer the look of women from the 30s and 40s: myrna loy, kate hepburn, lauren bacall, vivian leigh etc. my own style of dress has been dubbed “victorian governess” by my friends (lots of cardigans, scarves, long dark skirts, ruffley shirts,riding boots and little velvet jackets), i wear my hair in a bun, i don’t own a pair of heels or a bikini and i am happy. if i wanted to wear leggings, high heels and a tight t-shirts like some other girls then i would and i would be happy with it. i think it’s about how you feel, not what you wear. just wear what makes you feel pretty or special and don’t give a damn what others think. my sister in law teaches 2nd grade and most of her wardrobe is totally wacky, primary colors, crazy patterns and “theme” jewelry her students have given her (cats, palm trees, etc). her outfits are not what i would wear, but she is strong, fun and unique, and i always wonder what crazy thing she will be wearing when i see her – although maybe some people wonder that about me! she is comfortable in who she is, and that is true empowerment, IMO, not bowing down to someone else’s dictum of fashion.
Sometimes I wonder if articles like this surface just to make women less happy or to make women question the happiness they have. What’s this study based on? What are the facts? I’d like to know the details about it–where it was conducted and how many women were in the test group. I’m not sure I buy it.
you cant really blame men 100% for what fashion in America is now of days since were not the ones going off shopping for your clothing yes men like to see women in sexy clothing but just because we tend to enjoy it doesnt mean we think women should dress to meet our (somewhat true somewhat stereotypical) standards(most of us dudes like the feeling that we get when we manged to impress a girl on a date night) when i see someones outfit i tend to think its cute(yes guys can use that word too) not that mixing that top with those shoes was a horrible choices and that she should just hide in a corner somewhere away from me. Men dont care what you change your appearance to which is why we typically dont stop to consider how long and how much care you put in to your appearance.(also women who obsess about there appearance tend to be a turn off and not just in the usual way)
I feel sorry for those of you that cant get the extra time needed to make yourself look extraordinaire (why do we use that word to mean excellent?) I can sort of relate to that since being a guy society says that im only allowed to grab the first pair of blue jeans in the mens section and go over to the elections or auto parts section of the store and god forbid I enjoy the concept of different products that humans have been using for thousands of years!
*sorry for ranting, not having the best grammar or sentence structure, or if I offended you in some way.
P.s. the last part has been bugging me lately and it seemed to sort of fit since the topic was of womens clothing and it kind of seemed to be part of one of the double standers that generally dont make alot of sense upon thinking about it.
I look forward to any replys including but not limited to- how I should view something, why I should think differently about it, what I should have asked instead,why I am putting so much effort into something that no one will probable read, and I why I forgot to mention the guns part of the store. remember just like how theres never a bad question theres never a wrong opinion.
and once again im really really sorry for the bad wrighting skill.
forgot to say in my post:I think its realy sad that we allow people to allow people who nearly and typically do end up starving them selfs to death to be presented to us as the perfect models for the clothing that we need to buy and should look good in.(not that all clothes liners use these models even though most do) if the modeling industry wants to show off starving women wearing the next hot thing just send the clothing to Africa at least then your helping someone.