1

Did the women’s movements effort to redefine cultural models and gender roles hurt the

modern American mother?

Abstract

More mothers are working full-time as serious income earners than ever before, many of

whom are delaying marriage and having children in favor of securing a certain level of financial

stability and independence. In the last fifteen years, however, many of these working mothers are

expressing a perceived inability to balance their roles as parent and employee. The data, both

qualitative and quantitative, suggest that women are now working harder and in more roles than

they were before the Feminist movement with only slightly more assistance from their partners.

These conflicts have led researchers worldwide to pose the question, “has the second wave

feminist movement helped or hurt educated working women and their families?”

Introduction

In 1963 Betty Friedan wrote that a woman, “does not have to choose between marriage and

career…it is not difficult...to combine marriage and motherhood and…career.” (Friedan, 1963, p.

412) There is no doubt that she was envisioning for all women a better world in which they believed

they had a say in their lives. Since Friedan delivered her first call to arms nearly sixty years ago, the

professional workforce of the middle class has undergone an undeniable demographics change.

More mothers are working full-time as serious income earners than ever before, many delaying

marriage and having children in favor of securing a certain level of financial stability and

independence that was unheard of in Friedan’s time. In the last fifteen years, however, many of

these working mothers are expressing a perceived inability to balance their roles as parent and

2

employee. As a result, many of them feel forced to choose between maintaining their

meaningful positions in the workforce and taking a more active role in nurturing their families

(Haussegger, 2002). They continue to feel that their work in the home is undervalued in society,

and believe they are more invested than their partners in areas of domesticity such as household

chores, bill-paying, child care, and scheduling. Mothers have found themselves feeling

unfulfilled or divided no matter what their socioeconomic circumstances. In the early sixties,

many middle-class and well-educated women were able to assign a cause to their dissatisfaction,

depression, and somnolence. The data, both qualitative and quantitative, suggest that women are

now working harder and in more roles than they were before the Feminist movement with only

slightly more assistance from their partners. These conflicts have led researchers worldwide to

pose the question, “has feminism hurt moms by leading them to think they can “have it all?”

The claim most often repeated is that feminism over-emphasized paid work at the

expense of women’s caring roles and that women have now become disillusioned by the struggle

to integrate motherhood with demanding work roles. This paper seeks to explore this question

using two models of the midcentury; these theories were presented by two respected yet

controversial thinkers: Ayn Rand and Betty Friedan. The latter’s model being particularly

important because it was the introduction said model to the world at large. Her beliefs sparked

one of the most powerful social shifts in global cultural models and gender roles and changed the

image of the modern American mother.

Women Speak Out

3

In 2002, journalist Virgina Haussegger wrote an explosive and controversial op-ed piece

entitled, “The Sins of Our Feminist Mothers.” She sought to describe her unfulfilled child-less

life and the unintended implications the Women’s Movement had on working women. 1 In 2011,

Merrindahl Andrews penned a comprehensive thesis2 in which she explored the “exhaustion,

guilt, and disappointment that accompany many women’s attempts to create fulfilling lives that

include motherhood and meaningful paid work.” (p. 1) Books, articles, and interviews featuring

highly visible women began to emerge, many of whom discussed the tough choices these women

felt pressured to make to leave their careers to care properly for their families. It seemed that

once again as had been noted by Freidan, something was very wrong with the way American

women were trying to live their lives

In 2012, after leaving a coveted position as Head of Policy Planning at the US State.

Department, and former dean at Princeton University, Anne Marie Slaughter, brought this

conflict to light. In an article for Atlantic Monthly, and then in a series of talks and interviews

entitled, “Why Women Still Can’t Have It All,”3 she openly shared her experiences as a working

mother in a highly competitive field and her decision to choose her family responsibilities over

her career as well as the repercussions that she experienced from other women who were

successfulin juggling it all (Slaughter, 2012). Her article quickly became the most read, most

shared article of that publication’s history. Within a few days, it had ignited a fire of discussion

and controversy on the front page of the New York Times, as well as a series of released

interviews and comments from the Secretary of State herself, Hillary Clinton.

1 “…here we are, supposedly ‘having it all’…excellent education; good qualifications; great jobs; fast-moving careers; good incomes…the truth is…the career is no longer a challenge…I am childless and I am angry that I was so foolish to take the word of my feminist mothers as gospel… (I was) daft enough to believe female fulfilment came with a leather briefcase.” http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2002/07/22/1026898972150.html

2 Andrews, M. (2011). Social Movements and the Limits of Strategy: How Australian Feminists Formed Positions on Work and Care. Australian National University. Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/1885/49281

3 Slaughter’s article can be found here: http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2012/07/why-women-still-cant-have-it-all/309020/

4

Slaughter was critical of the feminist movement as well as current cultural models, but

more accurately, women themselves, and the role they play in contributing to and furthering

cultural standards that are unrealistic and elitist. She depicts her efforts to make a change in those

models and describes the responses she has experienced as a result of those efforts. “The

decision to step down from a position of power—to value family over professional advancement,

even for a time—is directly at odds with the prevailing social pressures on career professionals in

the United States.” (Slaughter, 2012) She quotes Mary Matalin,4 former assistant to George Bush

and Dick Cheney, to explain why she left her job, “I finally asked myself, ‘Who needs me

more?’…I’m indispensable to my kids, but I’m not close to indispensable to the White House.”

Slaughter admits to being “the one telling young women you can have it all and do it all…which

means I’d been part…of making millions of women feel that they are to blame if they cannot

manage to rise up the ladder as fast as men and also have a family and an active home life.”

(Slaughter, 2012)

The emerging attitudes and conflicts posed in these articles positioned feminism as a

force that had incredible influence over changing cultural models, which sought to highlight the

significance and value of unwaged reproductive labor but which had applied its power in a

fashion that had the unintended effect of making women’s work harder, more complex, and less

satisfying. (Carrico, 2011; Thomas, 2013) Women now had an expectation from society to be

more than “just a housewife”, while the role of “housewife” became one of diminishing status

and was soon relegated to the first and last few hours of the day.5

Happiness: Theories and Studies

4 Matalin’s interview in People magazine can be viewed here: http://www.people.com/people/archive/article/0,,20139543,00.html5 A. Hochschild published “The Second Shift” http://www.unc.edu/~kleinman/handouts/second%20shift.pdf to address this issue.

5

To fully understand the struggle of the modern mother, one needs to understand what is

meant by happiness and personal fulfillment in terms both of her contemporaries as well as

herself. The turn of the century psychologist, Abraham Maslow, introduced a theory of what he

determined was a universal hierarchy of needs. Within his widely accepted list of needs, he

conceptualized the most basic of human needs to the most illustrious, ending with the goal of

“self-actualization.” The two needs that most directly related to the plight of the mid-century

women who pioneered the women’s movement were undoubtedly his “Esteem Needs” as well as

the “Need for Self-actualization.” The "esteem needs" are defined by Maslow (1954) as,

The desire for strength, for achievement, for adequacy, for confidence in the face of the world, and for independence and freedom…the desire for reputation, recognition, attention, importance or appreciation…being useful and necessary in the world (p.91)

He further defines his “Need for self-actualization” as,

The individual doing what he is fitted for. A musician must make music, an artist must paint, a poet must write, if he is to be ultimately happy. What a man can be, he must be. (Maslow, 1954, p.92)

In 2011, Tay and Diener, sought to test Maslow’s theory and to refine it with their study,

“Needs and Subjective Well-Being around the World.” Their study confirmed Maslow’s theory

and went on to say, “a person can gain well-being by meeting psychosocial needs regardless of

whether his or her basic needs are fully met.” (Tay & Diener, 2011)

Now that happiness and personal fulfillment have been defined, one must examine how

the overall happiness of women has been measured and shown to be in decline worldwide, as

well as whom the “least” happy of these women report to be. There have been many attempts to

research and quantify levels of happiness and satisfaction both before and after the Women’s

6

Movement. Economists Stevenson and Wolfers,6 in their 2009 working paper for the National

Bureau of Economic Research entitled, “The paradox of declining female happiness” found,

By many objective measures the lives of women in the United States have improved over the past 35 years, yet we show that measures of subjective well-being indicate that women’s happiness has declined both absolutely and relative to men. The paradox of women’s declining relative well-being is found across various datasets, measures of subjective well-being, and is pervasive across demographic groups and industrialized countries. (p.2)

This meant that while women believed their opportunities were significantly improved, their

overall happiness with their lives had suffered a steady decline. Stevenson and Wolfers offered

several theories for this but were able to determine that there appeared to be no positive

correlation between greater measured unhappiness and working mothers versus other subtypes.

They also observed that men of all subtypes were experiencing a marked increase in their

reported happiness. (Stevenson & Wolfers, 2009)

It is important to note that the Stevenson and Wolfers study included women of all

socioeconomic backgrounds while many of the surveys and studies discussed in this paper were

conducted among a subgroup of educated middle-class mothers. For purposes of this paper, this

subgroup will be the one considered as historically the one that pushes reformation of public

policies as they pertain to women’s rights and opportunities.

To begin the analysis of fulfillment and happiness among this subset of individuals, one

must begin by looking at Betty Friedan’s now infamous 1957 survey of 200 Smith College

graduates.7 In 1957, while Friedan was compiling data regarding the lives of the female

graduates for a reunion, she stumbled upon a recurrent theme. She found that of the 200 women

she surveyed, 89% of these college grads were fully engaged in the role of housewife, and that

6 This working paper can be accessed here: http://www.nber.org/papers/w149697 A photocopy of the 1957 survey can be found here http://www.bradley.edu/dotAsset/97509d24-9d49-4e4d-bc94-91a25017641a.pdf

7

the majority of those women reported themselves as feeling emotionally unfulfilled in these

roles. Further, they reported having a low opinion of themselves; they felt they were

unchallenged and not reaching their full potential. (Friedan, 1963) Fifty years later, in 2007,

Smith conducted the same survey with a similar number of graduates to assess any differences in

their graduate’s outlooks and experiences and discovered a similar dissatisfaction, not particular

to being limited to the roles available to them, but to the ability to meet the demands of all of

their current positions. (Cole, 2007)

The majority of the women surveyed reported to be gainfully employed, married, and

raising a family. Their unhappiness came from the pressure they felt in “juggling” their time

between these chosen commitments. While their jobs and families ranked as the primary source

of satisfaction in their lives, they also presented the greatest amount of stress and conflict.

Unequal division of household duties and childrearing coupled with a “lack of time and over

commitment” plagued these graduates. Nancy Whittier, professor of sociology at Smith, noted

“some of the dilemmas women face are frighteningly similar” to those faced by their

contemporaries in 1957. (Cole, 2007)

Stevenson and Wolfers (2009) concluded that,

Women of all education groups have become less happy over time with declines having been steepest among those with some college...this shift holds across industrialized countries...this finding…raises questions about whether modern social constructs have made women worse off...the decrease in gender discrimination since the 1970s has not improved the subjectively perceived lot of women. (p.20)

Rand and Friedan: Opposing paths to shared goals

To answer the question of whether or not twenty-first-century Feminism has hurt or

helped the American mother, one must revisit the period of time in this country that directly

8

preceded the women’s movement. Post-war America had entered the Cold War, and very

powerful political and social theories were gaining popularity. Two of these models had

dynamic and outspoken women at the core of their foundations and success. These women

approached the subject of sexual equality and fairness from two very opposing models, agreed

that women should be allowed the choice to become whoever they could dream to be, and yet

offered opposing viewpoints to women on how they should seek to achieve this equality.

Ayn Rand was the childless female voice of the Objectivist movement, which purports

to be a philosophy and model of humanism, fairness, and equality. Betty Friedan was the

woman who bolstered the second wave of the Feminist Movement into popular culture with her

book, “The Feminist Mystique”. These were two women who actively played an unquestionable

role in shaping the role of the modern woman. They shared common views on equality and

opportunity, and self-actualization through work outside of the home but had significantly

different ideas on how to realize those goals. This positions their theories to be used to

objectively debate the question of harm versus hurt.

Ayn Rand (1905) and Betty Friedan (1921) were born within sixteen years of each other

into Jewish Russian middle class families. Rand immigrated to the United States from Russia

shortly after the Bolshevik Revolution in 1925, Friedan was the daughter of a Russian immigrant

and his Hungarian wife. Both women graduated from college at the age of 21, which was rather

rare for their social class at the time, Rand with a degree in History and Philosophy, Friedan with

a degree in Psychology. Friedan was raised enjoying democracy and free enterprise from the

time of her birth in the US, while Rand appreciated both from the unique perspective of having

had a front row seat to the destruction of the Russian empire. Rand was a fierce critic of leftist

politics and values for the entirety of her life, valuing individualism, realism, reason, neutral

9

affectivity, and logic, shunning all notions of collectivist concepts. Friedan valued the altruistic

qualities of groups politically steered by their desire for social and economic equality for all. She

was a collectivist and idealist who used her emotionally affective pleas to successfully lead

women in the largest bid for gender equality seen since the passing of the 19th Amendment.

These two viewpoints would come to be known in today’s current political structures as social

liberalism and Libertarianism.

Ayn Rand, who lived and wrote extensively during the period of time Abraham Maslow

was actively engaged in his theory of needs, introduced a still controversial philosophical debate

and her own personal model in a wildly popular novel, Atlas Shrugged, that addressed the needs

of the individual versus the needs and happiness of a collective society. In her model of

Objectivism, she proposed the idea that true integrity and honest realism demanded that people

were to be concerned with furthering their own personal desires and success, her virtue of moral

self-interest. (Rand, 1957) William R. Thomas, (2013) Director of Programs at The Atlas

Institute, a Washington, D.C. based non-profit, dedicated to research and continuing

philosophical debate on the subject writes that, “

Objectivism holds that... that all men and women have…the same rights…should be free to live as they choose. It rejects traditional restrictions on women and regards productive work as a virtue for women as well as men, it shares many of the views of classical, individualist feminism (Thomas, 2013).

In the book that made her a household name, Rand argued that for an individual to be a

victim, they had to allow the victimization with passivity and awareness, or had to disengage

from the reality of the situation. Rand insisted that, “ Evil requires the sanction of the victim”

and encouraged women and men equally to cast off the label of victim as a first step toward

gaining their own emotional independence and self-reliance. (Rand, 1957, p. 1066)

10

This became a prevalent feature in most of her written work. Rand (1957) further

explored her belief that all people, including women, needed to be honest with themselves at all

times and in all circumstances.

Thinking is man's only basic virtue, from which all the others proceed. And his basic vice…is…the act of blanking out, the refusal to think…the refusal to see…the refusal to know. It is the act of unfocusing your mind and inducing an inner fog to escape the responsibility of judgment…By suspending your judgment, you are negating your person.8 (Rand, 1957, p. 14)

This discourse by Rand is echoed quite succinctly in the pages of Betty Friedan’s book.

Friedan argued that the American mother had been the subject of a failed social experiment in

which women had been encouraged to ignore their own ideas, intelligence, desires, hopes, and

dreams to fulfill unrealistic and unyielding gender roles and cultural norms that emerged out of

the country’s post-war society. She called this cultural model, “the feminine mystique”. (Rand,

1957)

Each suburban wife struggled with it alone…she was afraid to ask even of herself the silent question — "Is this all?" Most adjusted to their role and suffered or ignored the problem that has no name. It can be less painful for a woman, not to hear the strange, dissatisfied voice stirring within her. I don’t think the mystique would have such power over American women if they did not fear to face this terrifying blank which makes them unable to see themselves... (Friedan, 1963, p. 1)

While there was no single issue the second-wave women’s movement focused on, it did

develop a broadly consistent position on the issues of self-actualization, productive work, access

to child care, higher education, reproductive health and the family. It viewed women as a

collective group and sought to help improve the status of all women as a way to help them as

individuals. The movement generally prioritized gainful employment over housekeeping; there

is little doubt that this emphasis was influential both in policy terms and in terms of widespread

changing perceptions about gender roles. (Andrews, 2011) In The Feminine Mystique, Friedan

8

11

(1963) details precisely how women should reject the “housewife image” and also that “A…

woman can find identity only in work that is of real value to society-work for which, usually, our

society pays.” (p. 441)

Friedan was careful not to find fault directly with women for allowing their alleged

subjugation, stating, “The reluctance of women in the last twenty years to commit themselves to

work, paid or unpaid, requiring initiative, leadership and responsibility is due to the feminine

mystique.” (1963, p. 443) She believed that once women recognized that they were truly free to make

choices and reject the Feminine Mystique, our country would experience a “drastic reshaping of the

cultural image of femininity that will permit women to reach maturity, identity, and completeness of

self.” (Friedan, 1963, p 443) She called for the government to subsidize the education of housewives

everywhere, and likened her plan to the GI Bill, arguing that education and educational reform were

requisites to the success of the program for mothers to make their way into the professional and

competitive workforce. She promised women that they would be able to efficiently manage the

demands of work and family as long as they adopted “a new life plan— in terms of one’s whole life as

a woman.” (Friedan, 1963, p. 413)

Rand would find fault with many of Friedan’s theories during the concurrent courses of

their lives and careers. In an interview in 1979 with Phil Donahue, Rand called the Feminist

Movement “phony” and said she felt that women were not “entitled” to any special privileges,

but rather had to earn their rightful place in the workforce and as leaders, the same as men.9 She

believed that any woman could and should strive for positions of leadership and responsibility

but that these positions should not be handed to them because of their sex but rather fought for

and earned. She agreed that wage discrepancies between men and women were unfair

9 Donahue, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ehtOCshHNXs

12

employment practices and needed to be eradicated. However, she felt that the Feminist

Movement was creating an environment of entitlement while not acknowledging that women had

been and continued to carve out for themselves, a place among the greatest thinkers and

achievers in the world. She believed that women should be allowed to choose the course of their

lives whether they are career-driven or family oriented. She charged that adopting modern

feminist theory to combat the concerns of inequalities in the workforce and home life was akin to

“fighting evil by adopting it yourself.” (Donahue, 1970)i She was an outspoken critic of the

welfare state, and was harshly opposed to governmental interference and funding of many social

programs, believing that altruism and benevolence were two of the great evils of society as she

believed they begot erosion of an individual’s ego and self-motivation.10

A Dialectic Approach

Understanding the models that these powerful theorists employed to understand and

affect change in the world around them is critical when one is considering what each would say

about the current dilemmas facing modern mothers. Having these models on hand allows one to

take a dialectic approach to answering the question of whether or not the women’s movement

hurt or helped the American woman.

First, and most importantly, one needs to answer the question of why women continue to

be unhappy and to feel unsatisfied in their lives as working mothers. Division of time, attention,

and focus predominate women’s complaints about balancing motherhood with professional

career. Lack of partner support, competition in the workforce with younger childless females,

and the perceived stigma of older women returning to the workforce after a period of absence for

family responsibilities follow closely behind. Guilt about doing too many things, and being

10 Rand, Atlas Shrugged

13

“overcommitted” sharply contrasts with the guilt that mothers report facing because they feel

conflict about not having enough time to spend with their children. All are critical features of the

recent resurrection of the decline of female happiness.

Rand would take a systematic, fact-based, rational, and neutrally affective approach to

answer these questions, while Friedan would likely examine the causative factors through a

psychosocial and anthropological approach in which the current emotional status of the

American mother and the health of the country as a culture (and collective) were queried.

When a mother complains that she feels her time, attention and focus are fractured, which

makes her feel like she can’t perform any of her jobs well, Rand would say that it’s simply

because she can’t. Rand would argue that because the day is limited in its number of hours and

is too much for any one person to do and really excel at concurrently. Objectivism for Rand held

that while, “ women need to engage in a career of productive work. Child-rearing may be an

important part of her life, but if she so chooses, she should approach raising children with the

seriousness of engaging in serious work.” (Thomas, 2013) Rand would ask these women if they

were ready to face the reality of their situations, if they were ready to choose to prioritize their

lives in such a way that their own happiness and self-actualization would be insured. Rand was

extremely candid when discussing her disdain for altruism and self-sacrifice as a guiding

principle of decision and policy-making. She upheld her belief that there was no honor in

subjugating one’s true desires and drives to uphold those of other individuals, and completely

rejected traditional religious indoctrination that called for self-sacrifice as a means of achieving

self-actualization.

Friedan (1963) would look at the issue and answer, “ Women must be educated to

integration of roles…serious, lifelong commitment to society with marriage and motherhood.” (p.

14

441) She believed very strongly that the more women educated themselves and made choices to

outsource the responsibilities they reasonably could, such as cleaning the house, ordering groceries,

and procuring truly quality childcare providers, “the less conflicts and unnecessary frustrations they

would feel as wives and mothers”11 She would also likely look at current social and welfare programs

that offer working parents incentives to use early education programs for children and that subsidize

childcare centers. She would be critical of the reported high cost of childcare compared to the low-

income threshold guidelines that the current state and federally-funded childcare subsidy programs

have. She would likely pressure policymakers to support legislation to support those families and

mothers who traditionally would not qualify for the same support that low-income earners have.

Classically these higher income earners are college graduates in student loan repayment plans at the

time they have young children and have little disposable income. She would encourage companies

that offer generous maternity leave and work-from-home arrangements to continue to do so, as well as

to celebrate those employers who invest in their workforce by operating workplace-based daycare

centers that allow for parents to spend time during the workday with their young children.

Interestingly, both Friedan and Rand had parallel beliefs about the importance of women

engaging in productive work that offered them challenge and exploration of themselves as

individuals. The difference of these two women came in the implementation of the approach they

believed should be taken with how to realize this goal while still allowing working mothers to

meet their familial obligations. This introduces the ever-present complaint heard regarding

unequal partnerships within the household. As early as Friedan’s first survey of Smith College

graduates (1957), American women had identified unfair division of labor with regards to

childcare and housekeeping. Women have consistently reported that they find they are doing the 11 Friedan, Betty (2013-02-11). The Feminine Mystique (50th Anniversary Edition) (p. 444). W. W. Norton & Company. Kindle Edition.

15

lion’s share of the domestic duties, and in the most recent survey of Smith College graduates in

2007, women rated this issue as a primary source of continuing stress. To this charge of

inadequate partner support, Rand would likely reply that no man or woman should place

themselves, (or allow themselves) to be placed in a position of dependence on another, even if

that individual is a spouse.

Rand would assert that these women allowed their reality to be defined by collectivist

special-interest groups, groups that asked for a chance to work outside them home and were

granted that wish. She would cite her prediction that allowing a group to create a social system

where rights were demanded and almost simultaneously granted without factual, evidence-based

proof, or a sound plan for time management had left women unable to navigate between their

two worlds without the assistance of others. Self-reliance was a foundational argument for Rand,

and a quality she tied deeply to integrity and individuality. Her belief that the pursuit of one’s

own self-interest, provided that it did not come at the cost of another’s pursuit of self-interest

was the highest form of morality one could aspire to. She would revile at the notion that a

woman would make the decision to reject any portion of her responsibilities by forcing or

demanding that her partner take up the slack. This would interfere with her partner’s pursuit of

self-interest and would be in direct violation of Rand’s code of virtues.

Friedan would decidedly disagree with Rand and through her strong ingrained ideals of

social justice, would demand that women put down their mops and leave their partners to

perform an equal amount of the day to day domestic duties. As previously stated, Friedan was an

avid proponent of outsourcing, and felt that there was no reasonable expectation that any woman

would feel the pride of self-actualization through insisting on performing the routine and

negligible chores of a housewife. Friedan touted that once women were free to interact and

16

procure meaningful paid work that the issues of childcare and household chores would be

naturally worked out over time. (Friedan, 1963)

With regard to educational and workplace stigmas and competition that women report

they are facing today, Rand would ask women what priority they had placed on each of their

roles, and would challenge them to accept the choices they had made in their younger years that

led them to be either older women in prominent leadership roles who desired to have children, or

older women who, having chosen to start their families younger, were now finding their way

back to an education or the workforce. Rand was known for the idiom, “You can’t eat your cake

and have it too,” a realist’s answer to a situation without a realistic exit strategy. (Rand, 1957)

Friedan would once again, disagree with Rand, and look to policy and legislation to ensure equal

opportunities for women of both groups, so that choice for a woman would not relegate her to

only two options: career or family. Friedan wanted women to believe that they could mold their

world into something that would support their corresponding desires for fulfilling paid work and

a rich family life.

Finally, to the issue of what has been called “The career woman’s guilt.” (Friedan, 1963)

Women have recently exposed their deep-seated guilt and frustration regarding the lack of time

spent with their children and families as well as their increasing over-commitment. Women have

blamed their drive to be involved with activities that require significant amounts of their time

when not at work on the nagging feeling that something is still missing from their lives. They

will often engage in fostering their children’s involvement in similar activities as a way to

assuage the guilt they report feeling from being away from their families for long periods of

time. This further fractures the attention, time, and focus these women have to spend on their

other priorities.

17

Rand would attack the frivolity of guilt as a useless and archaic emotion, and insist guilt

is a method of manipulation of both self and others. Rand was not shy about her intense distaste

for individuals wielding guilt against others, nor did she approve of them wallowing in it

themselves. For her, guilt was one of the most terrible vices a person could have as it indicated

that one was engaging not in self-interest, but instead was measuring one’s life against prevailing

societal and cultural models. Guilt indicated to Rand that the sufferer believed there was

something wrong with their pursuit of self-interest, and signaled an individual lacking in

integrity and the ability to be honest with one’s self. (Rand, 1957)

Friedan would counter that argument with a more moderate and benevolent response.

She, too, like Rand believed that guilt was a tool, but in her book, The Feminine Mystique, she

describes how women wore it as a shield to protect them from making a real commitment to a

career. (Friedan, 1963) She agreed with Rand that it was essentially an instrument of the worst

sort, but they disagreed on who allowed it to permeate our culture. Friedan believed that it was a

religious remnant that had taken up root within the mystique, and blamed it for a type of

brainwashing that forced women to pay for the sin of not being satisfied with all they had at

home. She details many examples of women who, even after they asserted themselves within a

career or gainful employment, suddenly experienced a setback that they then ascribed to their

own selfishness and petty whims. One mother even blamed her position with a local theater

company when her young son was hit by a car. She told Friedan that she felt had she not been

gone; the accident would never have occurred. Friedan explained this phenomenon of “Career-

woman’s” guilt as avoidant and fearful behavior and challenged women to reject the easy way

out of change. She spent a great many pages in her conclusion preemptively countering this guilt

18

as a way to remove it as a crutch for the women she was trying to enlist to the collective cause.

(Friedan, 1963)

Conclusion

While Friedan and Rand both contributed to the women’s movement of the mid-century,

I believe they would have two very different opinions on where the modern woman should

proceed from here as well as if the women’s movement hurt or helped the working mother.

Rand would surely be critical of the women’s movement and its effects on the cultural modeling.

This model now has expectations of what a working mother should be reasonably expected to

accomplish. She would also indict modern mothers for accepting this cultural norm instead of

questioning whether or not it worked in tandem with their own model and system of values.

Rand would not allow modern mothers to become victims of society’s image; she would take

mothers to task and challenge them to act in their own best interests to realize their personal goal

of self-actualization.

Friedan would likely cite the improper application of her emancipation efforts, as she did

in her book titled, The Second Stage (1981), wherein Friedan argued that the women’s movement

had gone too far, alienating women who wanted to be wives and mothers, and that the home and

family was feminism’s new frontier.12 Friedan would still support her belief that women could,

and should, seek fulfillment and happiness through meaningful and paid work, but she would

probably agree that the current cultural model held by the middle-class educated mother is

unsustainable as it currently exists. She would say that feminists would have been better served

to fight for recognition of a caregiver’s important role in society. Instead of just telling women

they could "have it all" she would say that she should have first shown them how this was

possible and made certain the world was appropriately structured to give it to them.

12 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08164640701361725

19

Rand would reiterate to mothers that to deny their own mind would ensure a lifetime of

suffering for not only themselves, but their children and partners as well. Friedan would

certainly agree with Rand on that point, and they would both tell modern women that to shed

guilt would lighten the enormous burden they had already shouldered for themselves when

deciding to be working mothers. They would both agree that guilt and self-sacrifice to a fault

have no place in the life of a happy and self-actualized women, and would encourage mothers to

reject these traps as erosions of their precious and limited resources: energy and time. Rand

would undoubtedly believe that the current cultural model that calls for financial subsidies and

government intervention as a support for women to leave the home and their children is akin to a

form of socialism and a danger to capitalism and the individual’s rights of others. Friedan would

strongly disagree, and would ask that more intervention and regulation occur to raise the level of

social equality, ensuring that older mothers maintain their positions at work for extended lengths

of time if they choose to take a leave of absence to begin families. Further, she would attempt to

envision a world in academia where older mothers as newer learners were encouraged and

subsidized so that once her children were sufficiently old enough, she could make a seamless

transition to the workforce without having to worry that her age and family status might color an

employer’s opinion of her ability to perform in a competitive position.

Lastly, Rand and Friedan would most certainly be divided on the issue of how best to

enculturate society on the issues of shared household duties and the concern of mothers

everywhere that in trying to “Have It All” they feel they are not “doing it all” well, or to a their

own standards. Rand would demand that these women reevaluate their standards and adjust

them to a more realistic level, or would simply insist that they open their eyes to the facts before

them. As each woman is an individual, so too are her circumstances and her truth. Rand would

20

tell women that as long as they are being honest and using the principle of self-interest to guide

their choices, any decision they make for themselves will benefit their families as well. Friedan

would insist that women logically outsource, ask for help though family and friends, seek to

change and maintain legislation regarding equality and access, and most certainly would ask that

women follow their hearts. Because our current cultural model of the American woman

considers both the individual and the collective, it makes good sense that women undertake

determining for themselves what path they should forge for themselves in their bid for self-

actualization.

21

BibliographyAndrews, M. (2011). Social Movements and the Limits of Strategy: How Australian Feminists

Formed Positions on Work and Care. Australian National University. Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/1885/49281

Carrico, C. (2011). Review of The Problem with Work: Feminism, Marxism, Antiwork Politics, and Postwork Imaginaries by Kathi Weeks. Anthropology of Work Review, 34(2), 108-110.

Cole, K. (2007). Fifty Years Later, Friedan Survey Finds Women’s Roles Changed, Frustrations Remain. Press Release Smith College. Northhampton, MA.

Friedan, B. (1963). The Feminist Mystique ( (50th Anniversary Kindle Edition) ed.). New York: W. W. Norton & Company.

Haussegger, V. (2002, July 23). The Sins of our Feminist Mothers. The Sydney Morning Herald.

Maslow, A. (1954). Motivation and personality. New York, New York: Harper.

Rand, A. (1957). Atlas Shrugged. New York, New York: Random House.

Slaughter, A. M. (2012, June). Why Women Still Can't Have it All. Atlantic Monthly.

Stevenson, B., & Wolfers, J. (2009). The Paradox of Declining Female Fappiness. The National Bureau of Economic Research.

Tay, L., & Diener, E. (2011). Needs and Subjective Well-Being around the World. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101(2), 345-365.

Thomas, W. R. (2013). The Atlas Society: Objectivism on Feminism. Retrieved from The Atlas Society: http://www.atlassociety.org/feminism-and-objectivism

i