Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Friday, June 19, 2009
Suzanne Fields :: Townhall.com Columnist
Glass Ceilings Aren't Glass Slippers
by Suzanne Fields
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
 
Poll
Will the Dems' health care Christmas Present to America be an improvement or detriment to our health care system?


You don't have to be from Venus or Mars to notice that Sonia Sotomayor was appreciated more for her Hispanic roots than for female gifts. That's how President Obama introduced her. Firsts are firsts, after all, and Sandra Day O'Connor was followed by Ruth Bader Ginsberg, and that was that for a woman expecting recognition as a pioneer.

No one any longer regards it as worth remarking when a woman becomes a doctor, lawyer, editor, astronaut or CEO. Women have shattered a lot of glass ceilings, and when nobody notices the broken glass, that's a sign of progress. If women haven't gained equality (or superiority) in numbers sufficient to please feminist advocates, few argue that women can't compete with men on level playing fields (with certain exceptions, such as the NFL and the NBA). All they have to do is show up.

Even the double standard has been turned upside-down. Sotomayor will probably have to answer questions at her confirmation hearings next month about her membership in the Belizean Grove, an all-female club of generals, ambassadors and Wall Street executives that describes itself as "a constellation of influential women."

Earlier male judicial nominees were roundly excoriated by certain Democratic senators for membership in all-male social clubs, even rustic fishing clubs. Democratic silence about Belizean Grove so far is deafening.

Choice is the operative word for what most women do these days, and many women still choose to stay home with young children, work part-time or move at a more deliberate pace than men. The "househusband" remains mostly a feminist fantasy. Most househusbands are actually men who aren't looking for a job.

Women have higher high school and college graduation rates, and they're healthier and live longer than men. They still carry the babies -- nature hasn't changed that -- but men are helping out at home in ways that would shock their grandfathers, who never changed a diaper or scrambled an egg. Many get husbandly help with the housework even from men working longer hours.

Despite these gains, women more often express unhappiness with their lives, measured across lines of race, income, education, age and marital status, according to an extensive survey reported by the National Business Economic Research Organization, a nonprofit organization in Cambridge, Mass. Researchers were stumped for all the reasons, constantly refining their questions.

"Relative declines in female happiness have eroded a gender gap in happiness in which women in the 1970s typically reported higher subjective well-being than did men," say Betsey Stevenson and Justin Wolfers, authors of the survey. "These declines have continued, and a new gender gap is emerging -- one with higher subjective well-being for men."

Numbers never tell the whole story, and it's easy to see how traditionalists might say the pressures of feminism increased the stress in their lives. Feminists, on the other hand, could blame a halted revolution -- a revolution that didn't change men to their prescription.

Both groups will look for ways to validate their opinions, but so much attention is given to women who have become stars in the public square that women get scant cultural reinforcement for quietly "doing their thing, their way." The woman's honored place at the hearth no longer gets much respect. The archetypal all-knowing, all-giving Jewish-Italian-Greek mother has become a source of jeers, not joy -- a stereotype to be mocked, not imitated.

The career woman who is a small cog in a big office, hospital or even corporate firm gets respect for her job skills, but not always for her womanly qualities. Chivalry is mortally wounded. Men with good manners are more likely to be gay (or thought to be) than eligible heterosexual suitors. The sexual revolution gives women the freedom to say yes, but not to say no. (Ask any co-ed.)

But there may be another revolution stirring. The current fashion craze of little girls is for "princess dresses." Little girls yearning to be a pink sleeping beauty, a lavender Rapunzel or a pale-blue Cinderella wouldn't dream of suiting up in pants like their mother's. They're dreaming of a glass slipper, not the glass ceiling, weaving the magic of pint-sized femininity.

Barbie's career clothes are stuff only for a yard sale. In the upcoming Disney cartoon, "The Princess and the Frog," the fairy tale is told awry. Tiana, the princess who kisses a frog, turns not into a prince but becomes the frog. No doubt it will all work out in the end, but the prospect of serving time as a croaking amphibian can't be a good omen for living happily ever after. Miserable as Tiana may be, she's in touch with the times.

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author

Suzanne Fields is a columnist with The Washington Times.

Be the first to read Suzanne Fields' column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com delivered each morning to your inbox.

©Creators Syndicate
Smearing Sotomayor

My guess is that democrats are quiet about the Belize group because they see it as a reasonable womens' support group, something that men really don't need. In contrast, republicans are having a fit because they see it as another opportunity to smear Sotomayor.

Fields then goes on to site a ridiculous survey carried out by that famous research group, the "National Business Economic Research Organization". She claims that "Relative declines in female's happiness .... have continued, and a new gender gap is emerging -- one with higher subjective well-being for men."

Unfortunately, for Fields this highly questionable study by the business! group is contradicted by legitimate research done in scientific fields of psychology and sociology. Why doesn't Field's show how "happiness" was measured? Happiness is assessed using different measures now compared to the 70's, so comparisons are problematic to say the least. Why doesn't Fields show the actual results, so that the reader knows whether a "relative decline" and "gender gap" actually exist? Why doesn't Fields mention the contradictory findings done by legitimate researchers?


Nature and Design
will always tell the real story.

Women were designed to be women and men were designed to be men, and only dissatisfaction results from attempting to live otherwise.


Joining private clubs.

Joining private clubs is also known as a form of networking.

Liberals oppose networking for white males but support networking for eveyone else.

Its called lack of integrity.

"Something that men really don't need"??
I have no problem with Judge Sotomayor's membership in an all-female group. Or all all-Hispanic group. Or an all-female Hispanis group. Or an all-female Hispanic judges group.

"Something that men really don't need"??
(whoops - hit "enter" by mistake on that last one).

WE HAVE FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION IN THIS COUNTRY.

Or at least, that is what the Constitution says.

Judge Sotomayor should have every right to associate with women in a club if that's what she wants to do. And so should men.

As a female, I am fed up with the demonizing of accomplished men (and men in general).

"Men don't need" clubs, companionship, comrades, support, friendship, networking? Including golf, cigars, fishing, football, or whatever else they feel like doing/talking about?

Says who?

Conservatives are WAY OFF when they b1tch about liberal attitudes (in this case, towards free association), but then demand that those same unconstitutional and unwarranted standards be applied to everyone.

OK, OK - hypocrisy - I get that part. But hypocrisy is liberals' stock in trade. Big deal. Conservatives should call them out, and then praise Sonia Sotomayor for enjoying the company of her sex, if she likes, while insisting that of course, she would support the same rights for men.

The answer to hypocritical liberals' calls for restricted liberty for some should not be conservative calls for consistent restricted liberty for all.

Chivalry mortally wounded?
Chivalry mortally wounded? I hope Suzanne was meaning that in a vary narrow sense concerning politeness.

If anything, we entered the age of hyper-chivalry approximately 30 years ago. The current situation with society, government policy, and law has placed women in the very enviable situation of benefit without risk.

Women have retained most of the traditional protections and privileges while avoiding the obligations and risks of men. Our institutions get in a tizzy when female paychecks aren’t exactly the same as those of a male… regardless of experience and overtime and many other factors.

Some examples of continuing chivalry:

Occupational fatalities 93% male – society thinks that is the way things should be

Suicides are 85% male – society starts programs to help females and improve their self esteem

Military fatalities are 98% male – society says shhhh, the mantra is “our men and women in uniform”. We like the implication that the contributions are equal.

The list goes on and on. We are certainly in an age of hyper-chivalry.

language
Women's clubs are "networking." Men's clubs are sexist. Hispanic and black only clubs on campus are "diversity," white only clubs are non-existent because they were racist. Gay-lesbian-trans-gender-bi-sexual clubs/associations are "supportive," while any dissent by anyone of their initiatives is "homophobic." Fiscal suicide (i.e. trillions spent, no accountability and overseen by unqualified appointees) is "stimulus" while frugality and fiscal restraint is mean-spirited. Sensitive, caring men (easy to control) is good, risk-taking, aggressive men, bad.
Barbie bad,
Michelle O, good.
Any questions?

JohnnyP
"Military fatalities are 98% male – society says shhhh, the mantra is “our men and women in uniform”. We like the implication that the contributions are equal."

SSSHHHh! Someone will accuse you of being un-chivalrous.

The first female I had to work with in the Navy I had to carry her welder for her up about 9 ladders. Guys smaller than her had carried their own.

If women are equal...
...then why aren't they?

If men and women were genuinely equal in the way it is commonly noted, then how could there have ever been a "glass ceiling?"

If the sexes are supposedly equal, how could one have supposedly kept the other down?

Of course in reality, women really are equal -- just not the same as men. And that is not something we created, but rather something that is natural and we have no control over. But equality and sameness are completely different things, yet we're making a futile and destructive attempt to achieve "sameness" so as to then declare: equality.

Suppose too that we did actually accomplish the impossible and women and men were the same. How much fun would that be and why would anyone want to live like that?


Women are destroying the country
As Ann Coulter has pointed out, there would be no Democratic Party without the votes and support of women. It was women, with their inherent insecurities and desire to be "taken care of," who put the current socialist president into office, and he is destroying the country as a result.

Elevating women above men, as feminists and leftist do, is a formula for national suicide. It is men who keep the country and its inhabitants (including women) safe. If you neuter and feminize your own men from childhood, then ultimately someone else's men will take you over.

Disparage manhood at your peril.

Women are equal ONLY under the law!
Same premise that all Americans are equal---UNDER THE LAW. I am not my husband's equal in any other sense as I couldn't be nor do I want to be.

I have to agree with the poster that says American women are wrecking this country POLITICALLY. They vote "feelings" which is the dumbest way to decide anything. There is a difference between a gut feeling for making a decision at a particular moment in time which is usually the right one. However, it must be based on knowledge, past experience, or the situation at hand. To make a decision on candidates requires LOGIC and most women I have encountered do not possess a very fine sense of it. I am by no means a dummy but my husband can frequently bring another point of view to light by pointing out the pure logic in a consise and ordered manner. I, on the other hand, think outside of the box and bring new ideas to the discussion. In this manner we both learn something. In no way do I feel that we are not intellectual equals on matters such as politics, religion, or family. Not enough women have a relationship with their spouse that is condusive to that or they are unwilling to give it a try. Has women's lib added to the problem? Absolutely! In fact, I never saw or FELT any ceiling; my parents taught me that the sky was the limit and I lived it because I believed it.

The only women worthy of a position in government are those like Margaret Thatcher. If that makes me a betrayer of my gender then so be it. I'm sick to death of over dressed botox queens with a need to prove themselves that I could puke. Most couldn't run a lemomade stand at a profit and most have no concrete knowledge of American history and the Constitution. I'm not interested in their gender any more than their race. It's what is between the ears that matters and not what they may or may not have between their legs. Sounds to harsh? TOO DANG BAD! Send the ditzes packing!

Women
Tarring women in general with the "liberal" brush is unfair and incorrect. Jaybird cites Ann Coulter (a woman), who clearly disagrees with the liberal, feelings-motivated citizen and voter. I get the impression that Jaybird is a bit angry at women. I can't help that, but it doesn't help to undo the anger liberal women feel about men either. That's much of what fueled the women's liberation movement, to the harm of our society. This movement has done more to harm women than any other I can think of. It's also led to many more men deciding that they don't have to live up to responsibilities they used to.
As for a woman's desire to be taken care of, that's been cited for years in descriptions of how women are made. I can't argue with that, either. Frankly, I want my husband (except that he quit the job through divorce) to support me so that I can be the support of my family, especially my husband. Not that that means I can't work, but it frees me up to take care of the home and children. Now that I am a divorced mother (Ann decries the use of the term "single mother" as only for those who chose to never marry), I have to do all of it, while Daddy plays hero to the kids. I would certainly never have had children without a husband, first.
Sorry this rant is potentially off-subject. I'm just tired of being expected to live up to someone else's expectations. Women do have a lot of choices, but other people's choices also affect ours. By the way, I am not on government dole and fight to keep it that way. But the more time I must devote to keeping off the dole, the less time I have to devote to my child. However, I WILL continue to raise my child myself, and demand others do the same without government supporting bad choices (whether her choice or dads).

I apologize
for my previous post. I guess I'm taking things too personally and am in a bad mood today. Usually, I'm more upbeat than that.

I do believe, though, that qualifications for any occupation should not be gender specific, but apply to the needs of the job, rather than the applicant.

Sexist Sotomayor
Having lived the women's revolution I refuse to join women's clubs which are just as sexist as all-male clubs. Sotomeyer is a sexist or stupid if she doesn't see that excluding men from her clubs is what men did to women like her at one time.

Suzanne Fields is one of us!
I've been welcoming Kathleen Parker to the liberal side; now I'm going to welcome Suzanne Fields. She's one of us, or very nearly so. Why do I say this? Consider that in this column she even notices such things as the glass ceiling and refers to discrimination against women. No conservative can even see such fantasies of the liberal mind-set. As a conservative, moreover, Ms. Fields should support male dominance in society and be opposed to any policy that would threaten this dominance. Some of the TH readers get what a real conservative position should be on women's issues. Ms Fields, I suspect, is one of those 'conservative' women who has benefitted from opportunities first opened up by left-wing feminists, but she will not admit it. Rather like Clarence Thomas, who was affirmative actioned into Holy Cross and Yale Law School, but has turned his back on blacks ever since.

Hmmmm . . . .
the decline in happiness doesn't - by chance - coincide with the increased "gains" over the same time frame?
Relax - give it time. When they quit looking at the glass ceiling for their happiness and just do what they want most, their 'happiness index' will improve.
Same as with the guys.

I am interested in how the membership in Belizean Grove pans out. I'm pretty certain it will be supported by the current flock of Liberal Activists (there ARE sensible Democrats out there - why condemn them, too?) as much as the all-male clubs were once condemned.
I am prepared to be surprised, though.

Terry says:
"But equality and sameness are completely different things" -- and she is so absolutely right.
MerryCollin does a fine job of putting some of that into words. Even when equating "emotional" with "abstract".
It is the confusion equating "equal" and "same" by people who cannot grasp, handle, or tolerate distinctions that underlie much of our self-inflicted difficulties. The logical may seem heartless, sometimes, but the emotional cannot make the hard choices necessary when the going gets rough.

The distinction between "logic/Conservative" and "emotional/Liberal" isn't that one is bad - the other good; nor that one is preferable to another. It is only that they are different - and often compatible. BOTH are needed to work out problems, but we are so busy fighting each other, nothing happens - all because we insist our way is the ONLY way.
This is what we have in Washington right now - and why I am disturbed - and a little fearful.
Having a government firmly controlled by a single mentality - Liberal Activist, in this case - will be a juggernaut The People will have difficulty holding in check. Normally, we would let the Three Branches do most of the "checks and balance", but with the vast majority lined up in one direction, it won't happen there for some years to come.
We may continue to hold up the Constitution and claim to be "the land of the Free"; but right now, we are heading anywhere but.



Glass ceilings/fogged up
Like many women, when I was young and had a child, I felt "inadequate, unfulfilled, worthless". Why? Because I didn't "work". After all one gets paid for "working" So, I did what many did, I left my darling daughter and got a job. I got paid. Looking back(after a second child, a divorce, a remarriage and finally two more children), I know realized I had been fooled, mislead. I no longer have to be paid for what I do to have value. In fact, for over 20 years, I have "worked" for nothing, while being able to enjoy the children of my second marriage. I have been able to do amazing things, and have permanent and positive impact on hundreds, maybe thousands of women and mens lives. What I do has value because it is valuable. Dear sisters, do not sell yourselves into slavery and a form of prostitution which in the end leaves you with a dry spirit. Glass ceilings fool us into thinking that there is greener grass on the other side, and this is very seldom the case.
Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.