Betty Friedan explored the unhappiness of housewives. Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

Glosswitch on Betty Friedan: The ennui of the Middle-Class Mummy

While it might do so through the filter of middle-class angst, The Feminine Mystique provides a blistering critique of the ways in which female subordination and lack of choice are marketed to women as their very opposite.

This piece is part of the New Statesman's "Rereading the Second Wave" series. Read the other essays here.


Betty Friedan’s “problem that has no name” is, on the face of it, sickeningly trivial: the self-indulgent ennui of the middle-class mummy:

Each suburban wife struggled with it alone. As she made the beds, shopped for groceries, matched slipcover material, ate peanut butter sandwiches with her children, chauffeured Cub Scouts and Brownies, lay beside her husband at night, she was afraid to ask even of herself the silent question: ‘Is this all?’

Like many, I struggle to read this without rolling my eyes. The opening lines of The Feminine Mystique play straight into the hands of all those who would characterise second-wave feminism as an exclusive club for the unfulfilled. Together with Friedan’s rampant homophobia and her comparisons of the housewife’s plight to that of concentration camp victims, it creates the impression of a book you’d want to read quickly, with your eyes half-closed, skimming over all those elements of “old feminism” that you’d rather not see. Nonetheless, there is a reason why this book, flawed as it is, has stood the test of time.

Published in 1962, The Feminine Mystique is often credited with launching feminism’s second wave, although such a claim is problematic. The notion of waves privileges the activism of certain groups and ignores the work of others. It defines feminism in chronological terms, suggesting a form of progression where there may be issues which can never be considered “done”. The wave approach encourages us to take a messy, complex collection of ideas, file it away and act as though we’ve moved on. I don’t think we have. On the contrary, we’ve barely begun and this book, now over 50 years old, provides an excellent illustration of why.

While it might do so through the filter of middle-class angst, The Feminine Mystique provides a blistering critique of the ways in which female subordination and lack of choice are marketed to women as their very opposite. That alone makes it relevant today. I defy any woman to read Friedan’s work and not recognise at least some of the trends she pinpoints - not just in relation to housework and childcare, but to fashion, beauty, sexual exploitation, interpersonal relationships and paid work. Friedan’s focus might be the myth of the “happy housewife” but her arguments are entirely in line with today’s insistence that women can be the domestic goddess, the lean-in high achiever, the empowered sex object and the stay-at-home earth mother, all without benefiting from any form of social, economic or political change.

Friedan’s research combines interviews with housewives with an analysis of the worlds of advertising and women’s magazines. Although written before women had the same legal rights to property, equal pay and bodily autonomy, the focus is very much on the world of the mind, and in this way it engages with questions that feminists are still coming to terms with today: how do you challenge those elements of inequality which are not literally inscribed into law? How do you take on the marketing of ideas without being told that you are the illiberal one? How, in short, can you change how women are told to see themselves when choice is the ultimate good and making any form of judgment the ultimate sin?

Reading Friedan’s description of a 1960 issue of McCall’s I can’t help thinking of the current crop of women’s magazines and wondering just what, if anything, has improved:

The image of the woman that emerges from this big, pretty magazine is young and frivolous, almost childlike; fluffy and feminine; passive; gaily content in the world of bedroom and kitchen, sex, babies, and home. […] It is crammed full of food, clothing, cosmetics, furniture, and the physical bodies of young women, but where is the world of thought and ideas, the life of the mind and spirit?

What is the difference between this and today’s issues of Heat, Closer or Grazia? The only one I can see is that today’s magazines will include more images of women who are famous for the trappings of fame alone – the surface without even a passing interest in the core – and that the consumerism will be even more aggressive. Of course, that’s not what we tell ourselves. We tell ourselves that this time it is different because young women are more critical and knowing; they decide for themselves. The trouble is, that’s what people were saying in the 1960s.”Occupation: housewife” was being bigged up in the same way that “Occupation: lap dancer” or “Occupation: mother” are today. But are these choices really as free as they seem?

In the chapter entitled "The Sexual Sell", Friedan talks to a marketing executive about the ways in which “American housewives can be give the sense of identity, purpose, creativity, the self-realisation, even the sexual joy they lack – by the buying of things”. The idea is not that housewives are stupid or lacking in critical awareness. They are trapped by the models of womanhood they have grown up with – and is it really so shameful for a woman to admit that this is where she finds herself? There is, I think, an ongoing taboo surrounding the idea of “failing”. Today’s young women are forced to engage with multiple mystiques. It’s a battle on several fronts and if everything is empowering, how can you find the words to articulate how disempowered you feel? Any criticism of the restrictive context in which choices are made is cast as an attack on other women, those who have made the choices you wish to resist. Hence a million inter-feminist phoney wars over fashion, motherhood and objectification, all of them distracting women from demanding real change in terms of how women’s work is rewarded and how their bodies are employed.

Defining the problem is one thing; coming up with a solution is harder. I don’t think Friedan has the definitive one; her vision is too narrow, heteronormative and insular. Her belief that education is “the key to the trap” and insistence that girls develop “resources of self” seems to foreshadow a self-help culture that would ultimately leave women to fend for themselves. Friedan is brilliant at capturing the way in which “womanhood” is sucked of all nuance then sold back to real, flesh-and-blood women, but not so good at addressing practical concerns such as time and money. She often seems to wish them away. Your kids will be fine in nursery. Housework doesn’t take much time anyhow. Of course you’ll have a husband. Of course you’re straight and middle-class. Of course money’s no object. It’s not always so easy. We need to change not just hearts and minds but working structures, systems of reward and our treatment of others on the basis of race, sexuality and class. What Friedan offers is a meaningful starting point. She offers us the right to critique but not the answers. We still need to find them for ourselves.  

It’s interesting to note the degree to which Friedan could have predicted the fate of her work in the public consciousness; she’d seen something similar happen to feminists before her (and we’d do well to consider whether the same could happen to us). In the book’s fourth chapter, "The Passionate Journey", Friedan outlines the ways in which first-wave feminists came to be mischaracterised as “neurotic victims of penis envy who wanted to be men”:

In battling for women’s freedom to participate in the major work and decisions of society as the equals of men, they denied their very nature as women, which fulfils itself only through sexual passivity, acceptance of male domination, and nurturing motherhood.

Part of what Friedan is attempting to do is pay her dues to the discredited feminists who went before her.  Right now, in 2014, I think we’re faced with exactly the same challenges and are owing exactly the same debts, only this time to women such as Friedan herself. As long as our neoliberal obsession with choice takes the line that “sexual passivity, acceptance of male domination, and nurturing motherhood” are worthy ideals as long as they are freely chosen (and that no one is permitted to question the context and nature of “free” choice), then we will remain incapable of appreciating Friedan’s message.

Indeed, I fear that if Friedan were alive and writing today, she would be vilified in the same way she saw earlier feminists being vilified – only this time the vilification would be led by other feminists rather than anti-feminist men. She’d be told she was denying women agency and self-determination. She’d be told she had no right to judge other women’s lives and that “Occupation: Housewife” was, to many, a source of pride. She’d be fed the same lines that the happy housewives of the 1960s were fed, only they’d come from not just from marketing moguls, but from “liberated” women who insisted women were now empowered by everything women did.

But progress towards equality is not so easily achieved. We do not have free choice just because we say we do. Women’s decisions are not made in a vacuum; the costs and benefits remain influenced by gender prejudice, stereotype threat, economic inequality and fears for personal safety. Friedan made mistakes, huge ones, but she also struck a massive blow for the myth of women’s freedom under capitalism. If we’re not doing the same, maybe it’s not because we’ve become more inclusive and understanding. Maybe it’s because, unlike Friedan, we lack the nerve. We shy away from judgment because we simply can’t bear to risk making mistakes. Yet although when Friedan is wrong, she is very wrong, when she gets it right -- and a lot of the time she does – she is so right that it hurts.


Glosswitch is a feminist mother of three who works in publishing.

Show Hide image

7 problems with the Snooper’s Charter, according to the experts

In short: it was written by people who "do not know how the internet works".

A group of representatives from the UK Internet Service Provider’s Association (ISPA) headed to the Home Office on Tuesday to point out a long list of problems they had with the proposed Investigatory Powers Bill (that’s Snooper’s Charter to you and me). Below are simplified summaries of their main points, taken from the written evidence submitted by Adrian Kennard, of Andrews and Arnold, a small ISP, to the department after the meeting. 

The crucial thing to note is that these people know what they're talking about - the run the providers which would need to completely change their practices to comply with the bill if it passed into law. And their objections aren't based on cost or fiddliness - they're about how unworkable many of the bill's stipulations actually are. 

1. The types of records the government wants collected aren’t that useful

The IP Bill places a lot of emphasis on “Internet Connection Records”; i.e. a list of domains you’ve visited, but not the specific pages visited or messages sent.

But in an age of apps and social media, where we view vast amounts of information through single domains like Twitter or Facebook, this information might not even help investigators much, as connections can last for days, or even months. Kennard gives the example of a missing girl, used as a hypothetical case by the security services to argue for greater powers:

 "If the mobile provider was even able to tell that she had used twitter at all (which is not as easy as it sounds), it would show that the phone had been connected to twitter 24 hours a day, and probably Facebook as well… this emotive example is seriously flawed”

And these connection records are only going to get less relevant over time - an increasing number of websites including Facebook and Google encrypt their website under "https", which would make finding the name of the website visited far more difficult.

2. …but they’re still a massive invasion of privacy

Even though these records may be useless when someone needs to be found or monitored, the retention of Internet Connection Records (IRCs) is still very invasive – and can actually yield more information than call records, which Theresa May has repeatedly claimed are the non-digital equivalent of ICRs. 

Kennard notes: “[These records] can be used to profile them and identify preferences, political views, sexual orientation, spending habits and much more. It is useful to criminals as it would easily confirm the bank used, and the time people leave the house, and so on”. 

This information might not help find a missing girl, but could build a profile of her which could be used by criminals, or for over-invasive state surveillance. 

3. "Internet Connection Records" aren’t actually a thing

The concept of a list of domain names visited by a user referred to in the bill is actually a new term, derived from “Call Data Record”. Compiling them is possible, but won't be an easy or automatic process.

Again, this strongly implies that those writing the bill are using their knowledge of telecommunications surveillance, not internet era-appropriate information. Kennard calls for the term to be removed, or at least its “vague and nondescript nature” made clear in the bill.

4. The surveillance won’t be consistent and could be easy to dodge

In its meeting with the ISPA, the Home Office implied that smaller Internet service providers won't be forced to collect these ICR records, as it would use up a lot of their resources. But this means those seeking to avoid surveillance could simply move over to a smaller provider.

5. Conservative spin is dictating the way we view the bill 

May and the Home Office are keen for us to see the surveillance in the bill as passive: internet service providers must simply log the domains we visit, which will be looked at in the event that we are the subject of an investigation. But as Kennard notes, “I am quite sure the same argument would not work if, for example, the law required a camera in every room in your house”. This is a vast new power the government is asking for – we shouldn’t allow it to play it down.

6. The bill would allow our devices to be bugged

Or, in the jargon, used in the draft bill, subjected to “equipment interference”. This could include surveillance of everything on a phone or laptop, or even turning on its camera or webcam to watch someone. The bill actually calls for “bulk equipment interference” – when surely, as Kennard notes, “this power…should only be targeted at the most serious of criminal suspects" at most.

7. The ability to bug devices would make them less secure

Devices can only be subject to “equipment interference” if they have existing vulnerabilities, which could also be exploited by criminals and hackers. If security services know about these vulnerabilities, they should tell the manufacturer about them. As Kennard writes, allowing equipment interference "encourages the intelligence services to keep vulnerabilities secret” so they don't lose surveillance methods. Meanwhile, though, they're laying the population open to hacks from cyber criminals. 


So there you have it  – a compelling soup of misused and made up terms, and ethically concerning new powers. Great stuff. 

Barbara Speed is a technology and digital culture writer at the New Statesman and a staff writer at CityMetric.