Women's Role

Here's National Election Survey data on voters' view of the question of the role of women in society. Specifically, "Some people feel that women should have an equal role with men in running business, industry and government. Others feel that women's place is in the home. Where would you place yourself on this scale or haven't you thought much about this?" The question asks you to locate yourself on a seven-point scale, I've graphed just the two extreme values which show a sharp trend in favor of the egalitarian position.

This is one respect, at least, in which the United States has become a far less conservative country since the 1980s. What's more, if you look at these demographic breakdowns you'll see that while a lot of the shift is accounted for by cohort replacement, a lot of it represents within-cohort change of heart.

Comments

These data points make for nice comparisons over time, but at this point, on questions of racism, sexism, homophobia, etc, we really need to get at the latant level.

Nearly every human being knows the expected correct answer to this question, so they're going to supply it, despite the fact that they might think that women PROBABLY should be in the kitchen.

Same thing with polls on racism. While hardly anyone will admit to being racist to a pollster, a good percentage of the population harbors suspicions that blacks are more violent, or less intelligent, etc.

In the age of political correctness, we need some sneaky polls to get at people's true feelings.

Posted by Paul | November 20, 2007 5:55 PM

This is important. We progressives need to do a better job reminding the world -- and ourselves!-- about how successful we have been on the terrain of sex and gender. Views that would have been considered far to the left a generation ago are mainstream now. While economic inequality has increased over recent decades, the position of women and gays has gotten much, much better. And we on the left should not be shy about taking (some of the) credit for that.

Posted by lemuel pitkin | November 20, 2007 6:03 PM

There's an inherent bias in this study-- the extreme value is to suggest that women should play an equal role in society. To be truly neutral, it should include "women should play a dominant role in society" as an option. While this is not in keeping with our cultural biases, and would not poll highly, the past seven years have taught us any proposition, however extreme, can have its adherents if framed correctly. One of the reasons why we still have people saying "a woman's place is in the home" on this survey is that it is suggested as a position, and we would be able to see that more easily if there were an option at the countervailing extreme.

Posted by Anthony Damiani | November 20, 2007 6:33 PM

In the age of political correctness, we need some sneaky polls to get at people's true feelings.

So Paul, you're saying that America has gotten substantially more politically correct since the 80s? Somehow I doubt this. If anything, Republican electoral victories have probably emboldened people to be less politically correct, not more.

Posted by Mr. Noah | November 20, 2007 6:34 PM

the freaky thing in that graph is the downward segment of the upper line, from '92 to '96.

it's the most severe departure from an otherwise egalitarian trend.

weird.

what could have caused large numbers of people in the years 1992-1996 to feel that women should *not* have an equal role with men in running business, industry and government?

i mean, was there anything happening in 1992, say, to suggest that women's involvement in politics, for instance, was not a good idea?

or was there anything in the media around then suggesting that women's involvement in politics was not as desirable as people previous to 1992 had thought?

man. i'm stumped.

anyhow--i'm glad it got back to trending the right way again.

Posted by kid bitzer | November 20, 2007 7:11 PM

I imagine the trends lines on acceptance of gays will look similar 30 years hence. And the reason will be much the same: the failure of society to melt down as gays greater visibility.

Posted by Jeb | November 20, 2007 7:33 PM

i mean, was there anything happening in 1992, say, to suggest that women's involvement in politics, for instance, was not a good idea?

Perhaps people tied the question to radical feminist and socialist healthcare reformer HRC.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | November 20, 2007 7:33 PM

SomeCallMeTim: Hillary Rodham Clinton a radical feminist and socialist? You must be joking. She only seems to use feminism when it benefits her and is a corporate DLC Democrat.

Posted by Jenn | November 20, 2007 7:54 PM

Why do "Equal Role" and "In the Home" have to be mutually exclusive?

Posted by kwo | November 20, 2007 7:59 PM

Does the question mean "women should be given the same opportunities as men to run business or government," or does it mean something stronger?

Posted by ed | November 20, 2007 8:18 PM

What does this tell you about claims of a patriarchy?

Posted by jerry | November 20, 2007 8:29 PM

Re: Nearly every human being knows the expected correct answer to this question, so they're going to supply it, despite the fact that they might think that women PROBABLY should be in the kitchen.

This is way too pessimistic. I agree that people know what the "right" answer is, but the very fact that they are willing to give it despite possible disagreements at a more atavistic level is a definite form of progress since it means that they agree that this is the right answer and are ashamed enough of any thoughts otherwise that they will hide those thoughts. And if this happens in anonymous polls why not in anonymous voting booths too? I'd be a lot more worried if lots of people were still willing to proclaim bigotry openly. Moreover on the question of women working, I suspect a lot of men really don't have any trouble with the concept and would not want their wives in the kitchen: after all, that extra money is pretty damn useful and money really does talk.

Posted by JonF | November 20, 2007 9:18 PM

jerry -
do you actually know what the word means?

Seriously. Define it. Here. Now.

Posted by Dan S. | November 20, 2007 11:01 PM

Standard MSM diversity mongering.

Posted by kafka | November 20, 2007 11:05 PM

All you hear lately is that working mothers are bad and housewives are good. These results don't quite fit into that talk.

Posted by Peter | November 20, 2007 11:21 PM

All you hear lately is that working mothers are bad and housewives are good.

That depends very strongly on where you are hearing things. Go hang out at e.g. Feministing or Shakesville for a bit and get back to us.

Posted by live | November 21, 2007 1:11 AM

If I have a vote: working mothers are cool and housewives are good. Aside: I thought we didn't like the G messing in out home private business choices, etc.

Posted by JC | November 21, 2007 2:31 AM

The interesting thing would be asking the same people whether they were feminists. Then see if 60% still say yes. I suspect that number would go down.

Posted by Sam | November 21, 2007 11:18 AM

Am I reading something wrong or are the men more pro-equal in many years?

What's the explanation otherwise, men are more afraid to admit their sexist tendencies?

Posted by Johan Richter | November 21, 2007 1:21 PM

The question (obviously) "Should women play an equal role"? is loaded with enough leftist baggage to choke a hoarse.

The ridiculous fact that so many commentators slavishly accept its premises is testimony to the fact that they accepted their professors biases like gurgling infants sucking down baby food.

Traditional homemaker/breadwinner arrangements are only un-equal if you except paid commerce as the only valid social role. The capitulation of feminism to capitalist values adds irony to critique. Women do and always have exercised power in society through the domestic realm. Even on a purely economic level women make the spending decision for 80%+ of every dollar of household income. If “the power” = money: then the discretion of how that “power” is applied lies directly in the hands of females.

It is testimony to the intellectual vapidity of feminism that so many of today’s most educated and sophisticated women forgo (literally) hundreds of thousands if not millions of dollars in life time earning potential in order to be “un-equal” to their husbands & stay home to raise their children.

Posted by Fitz | November 21, 2007 2:43 PM

This sort of sliding back or standing still with regard to perceptions and attitude is not enabling Western feminist paradigms to propagate globally. Step into South America or Asia or other vast areas and the survey results would be a very sad graph indeed. So what we have are modest negative forces within the US and very strong negative forces from without. One example that links both forces is the explosive growth of international dating (read: American men and foreign women). How will more men be convinced to do more housework if they are off seeking women who would not compel them to do it?

Posted by Fash | November 21, 2007 6:46 PM