Feminist Sociologists Are Out of Touch with Reality

Sociology is supposed to be a social science. Its ostensible objective is to increase our knowledge of the social world. To this end, it is theoretically empirical in orientation. The assertions it makes presumably derive from an accurate evaluation of observable data.
And yet this is not what one perceives when one reads feminist research into the nature of contemporary marriages. These assure us that we are in the midst of an unfinished revolution. Much like their Marxist forebears, these ideologues are convinced that they understand the predestined endpoint of history. As a consequence, they believe it is their job to facilitate the inevitable.
One reason they are convinced of the manifest destiny of their cause is that they believe it is inherently moral. Much as progressives are confident that they are champions of “social justice,” so sociological feminists conceive of themselves as defenders of justice for women. As they see it, they—and only they—possess the correct formula for meeting the proper needs of the vast majority of women.
According to most of these feminists, the relationships between men and women must be based on complete equality. Not only must the genders be morally equal, they must be operationally equal. To be more precise, there must be no distinction between what men and women do, either at work or at home. Thus, when someone like Judith Lorber claims that everything should be 50/50, that is exactly what she means.
With respect to marriage this translates into half of all the housework and half of all childrearing being done by both men and women. This, however, does not mean equal time spent on these tasks. No, it demands equal time on the same set of tasks. Both men and women are supposed to contribute equally to cooking and to tending infants. Moreover, they should engage in these activities in essentially the same way.
Arlie Hochschild, among others, has argued that we are in the midst of a domestic revolution. In her view, marriages are evolving from the traditional, through the transitional, toward the egalitarian. For her, it is the egalitarian marriage that is both necessary and inevitable. Only it meets the essential needs of both genders. Only it is worthy of proselytizing.
One of those who currently subscribes to this agenda is Kathleen Gerson. Her book The Unfinished Revolution: How a New Generation is Reshaping Family, Work, and Gender in America is an effort to forward the feminist program. Although presented as a report of disinterested research, it is anything but. Not only is its actual goal advocacy, but it engages in this effort with egregious partisanship.
Based on interviews with almost two hundred twenty-something’s, Gerson uses their words to bolster the feminist thesis. What she claims to find is that there is little to decide between different sorts of families. According to her, children can succeed or fail in either traditional or single parent families. As she insists, neither divorce, nor being raised by a single father, are impediments to ultimate happiness.
Although she would probably disagree with this assessment, Gerson leaves the impression that most men are cads. They are described as treating their wives and children so abusively that there is little choice but to exclude them from the household sphere. About the only men she finds admirable are those who raise their own children when their mothers have abandoned them.
Actually, this is not quite right. Gerson customarily attributes these opinions to her interviewees. They are presented as the experts on what went right (or wrong) in their parent’s marriages. It is their interpretation of these and their projections of their own preferred relationships that are presented as incontestable evidence of where marriage is headed.
This, however, is unreasonable on several counts. First, how likely is it that twenty-something’s understand the internal dynamics of their parent’s lives? Indeed, how well does anyone understand the realities of other relationships? Mightn’t the perceptions of the inexperienced progeny of these relationships be shaped by their own roles in these events?
Second, how much do twenty-something’s who are not yet in permanent relationships know about what makes these arrangements work? They may have fantasies based on the unfinished business derived from their families of origin, but can they be sure these will unfold as they imagine? To present their daydreams as the best evidence of what will eventually occur is no more than wishful thinking.
Third, and this is the most damning criticism of her allegations, Gerson’s interviews do not ring true. Despite what allege to be extensive quotes from her informants, these do not sound as if they were uttered by actual human beings. In fact, they sound as if Gerson elicited exactly what she intended to find. In other words, she may have cherry picked to get the results she desired.
This is a strong accusation, but it is based on the fact that much of what these informants say contradicts what other—more plausible—research has uncovered. For example, David Buss’s investigations into mating practices provide convincing evidence that men and women approach these matters differently. His evolutionary perspective suggests that they seek dissimilar qualities in their mates and then utilize distinctive techniques to maintain their consequent unions.
Such documentation makes it extremely unlikely that men and women will one day be interchangeable. Nor is this material consistent with the feminist argument that their objectives are being stymied by male obstinacy. Maybe these men are on to something. Maybe complete equality between the sexes is rendered moot because the sexes differ genetically.
But if the genders do differ—and the empirical evidence of this is substantial—then manipulated projections of a future in which they don’t lose their power to persuade. These verbal gymnastics are revealed to be out of touch with reality. Instead of illuminating fundamental truths about heterosexual alliances, they provide little more than misleading propaganda.
Melvyn L. Fein. Ph.D.
Professor of Sociology
Kennesaw State University