Review: The Feminine Mystique by Betty Friedan
Title: The Feminine Mystique
Author: Friedan, Betty
Length: 587 pages
Genre: Non-Fiction, Women
Publisher / Year: W. W. Norton and Company / 2001
Originally Published In: 1963
Source: Christmas present from my parents.
Rating: 4.5/5
Why I Read It: It was a possible title for our Year of Feminist Classics project until we realized we were lacking in Non-Western authors and removed it. I’m glad of that because it meant I read it sooner 
Date Read: 27/12/10
Wow. I am conflicted at the moment. Part of me wishes we had kept this on our list so that I had a group of people to discuss this with. Part of me is happy that we didn’t so that I read it now instead of in June! The back cover of this edition reads:
The book that changed the consciousness of a country – and the world.
Landmark, groundbreaking, classic – these adjectives barely describe the earthshaking and long-lasting effects of Betty Friedan’s The Feminine Mystique. This is the book that defined “the problem that has no name,” that launched the Second Wave of the feminist movement, and that has been awakening women and men with its insights into social relations, which still remain fresh, ever since then.
I can’t agree more on the adjectives for this book. What shocked me most though was how relevant it all still felt. I really had to keep reminding myself that the book was written so long ago as it felt so current.
Friedan starts by talking about how she discovered the problem and how pervasive that it is. She also talks about how all these women were feeling like they were alone, and the relief they feel knowing that others know what they are talking about and feel the same thing. These women are all feeling unsatisfied trying to live only as housewives with no ambition or life of their own outside of their husbands and children. Friedan goes into the psychology behind why this would cause issues and how, and how a lot of the studies showing the issues and root causes have been ignored or swept aside.
What I found most interesting was the discussion of the media’s role in the problem. Women’s magazines, for example, won’t talk about real life issues because they say women can’t handle those issues. But by never informing women of the issues, how are they expected to know if they can handle them or not? This also makes me think of the women’s magazines now. I remember reading all those teen mags – they certainly never had anything of much interest in terms of news or current events. And I believe the ones aimed at older women are no different. Just another example of the relevance of these arguments that Friedan is making!
One quote I really liked on page 95 reads:
In an earlier time, the image of woman was also split in two – the good, pure woman on the pedestal, and the whore of the desires of the flesh. The split in the new image opens a different fissure – the feminine woman, whose goodness includes the desires of the flesh, and the career woman, whose evil includes every desire of the separate self.
One part of the book that really struck me was the discussion of the first wave feminists. She talks about the stereotype of them as man-hating and extreme, angry, spinsters, etc. Thinking about it, all feminists are now cast in that light! Friedan says on page 139:
It is a strangely unquestioned perversion of history that the passion and fire of the feminist movement came from man-hating, embittered, sex-starved spinsters, from castrating, unsexed non-women who burned with such envy for the male organ that they wanted to take it away from all men, or destroy them, demanding rights only because they lacked the power to love as women. Mary Wollstonecraft, Angelina Grimke, Ernestine Rose, Margaret Fuller, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Julia Ward Howe, Margaret Sanger all loved, were loved, and married; many seem to have been as passionate in their relations with lover and husband, in an age when passion in women was as forbidden as intelligence, as they were in their battle for woman’s chance to grow to full human stature.
Feminists today are often all painted with the man-hating, bra-burning, lesbian brushes, along with numerous others. Just for wanting rights as full humans. No matter what their personal lives are like, and you can be sure that as a strong and vocal feminist people will dig to find out what your personal life is like. None of those things should matter, and people should start realizing the fallacies of those comments. It makes me angry every time I hear it, and especially angry that it has persisted for so long!
The book wasn’t without issues and some sections really highlighted the day in time in which it was written. Passages such as the ones equating overprotective mothering to homosexual children, as well as to autistic children, could both be updated. They certainly reflect the thinking of the time, but that doesn’t make it any better to read now I don’t think!
At the end Friedan tries to give some ideas as to what women can do to try to break out. She says on page 468:
It would be wrong for me to offer any woman easy how-to answers to this problem. There are no easy answers, in America today; it is difficult, painful, and takes perhaps a long time for each woman to find her own answer. First, she must unequivocally say “no” to the housewife image. This does not mean, of course, that she must divorce her husband, abandon her children, give up her home. She does not have to choose between marriage and career; that was the mistaken choice of the feminine mystique. In actual fact, it is not as difficult as the feminine mystique implies, to combine marriage and motherhood and even the kind of lifelong personal purpose that once was called “career.” It merely takes a new life plan – in terms of one’s whole life as a woman.
That mystique is still being taught today to a certain extent. We are still told that we can’t do both, at least not well. Our children will have issues if we try. We don’t have the time. We must always sacrifice our career to do it. I don’t want a husband or children, but I also don’t think that women need to give up either just for a career. It should be quite easy especially if both parents are still around to fit two careers in with the housework and raising of the children.
I wish I had more quotes and excerpts to share with you, I really do. The truth is that I got hooked into the book and couldn’t even stop to note down passages. Really that just means that you will have to read the book yourself and let me know what you think!
I think I am liking this book. The positive vibes for me comes from where it says one doesn’t have to choose between motherhood and carrier. I have heard a lot of issues on this. In fact Alice Walker’s daughter had come out on the issue of neglecting motherhood, as her mother did. At least this is an improvement on the earlier philosophy of feminism.
Yes that is part of what I really liked Nana, the options!
I find it interesting that you liked the book so much and found it so relevant. I read it the summer after I earned my BA, and I remember being horribly bored by it and finding it completely irrelevant to my life. I was kind of annoyed at the whole thing, like the older feminists couldn’t possibly understand my modern life. Odd to have two such distinct reactions.
So crazy how no one else seemed to like it wolfshowl! I guess for me it wasn’t that things are the same, but that we struggle with so many similar things. I love that we all got something different from this one.
I ended up not finishing this one because most of the book was…unrevealing(?). Nothing felt new to me and so I was a bit bored. Ah well, different minds.
Yeah, have to ditto Trisha on this one. Friedan definitely deserves her place in feminist history, but her brand of feminism (and of course her “lavender menace” deal in the 70s) are not really my thing.
Blah blah I don’t know how I got so different ideas from this book Trisha and Cass!!! The lavender menace bit really annoyed me, but the bits about expectations, beauty, writing, all of those struck me as things we are still working on – we are just working on them a little farther on. I kept thinking jeez, imagine that we haven’t come nearly as far as we should have!
I’ve read this one. I remember finding it interesting, but not being fired up about the issues one way or another. I guess because for me, having it all is not really feasible- my husband doesn’t want to do housework or much childcare at all, so if I had a career I feel my home and kids would really be neglected. And I don’t really mind keeping house; I don’t find it a drudgery that must be escaped liked Friedan seemed to feel.
Maybe having the choice makes it less drudging Jeanne. If you choose it from among your options then it isn’t the same as having no choice and feeling like to do anything else would be terrible, know what I mean?
I have to agree with some of the other comments and say I didn’t find it all that relevant. I am however finding it more and more relevant as I am reading Stephanie Coontz’s new book ” A Strange Stirring – The Feminine Mystique and American Women at the Dawn of the 1960′s.”
This book really helps to uncover where Friedan got it right – including how modern research supports her prediction that men would be happier and marriages better because of feminism – and what she got wrong. The hostility against mothers in the postwar era, when “momism” was considered almost as great a social threat as communism, and the stunning anti-female discrimination and prejudices of the 1960s. And how the feminine mystique has evolved into the new “hottie” and “parenting” mystiques, and why the “career mystique” and the masculine mystique are the big threats to family life today.
If you are looking for a book to really accent ‘The Feminine Mystique’ check this one out. Happy reading!!
That book sounds fantastic Alex B! And yes, it’s the fact that we STILL have these mystiques! It’s not the same as it was, but we still aren’t equal or free to do what we want. We are still expected as women to do all these other things. Sigh.
Though I am a woman who stays at home and raises the kids and takes care of a husband, I used to be a career woman. I didn’t give it up because I had to, but because I wanted to. By saying that I am not trying to judge or condemn others for the fact that other women are perfectly happy being career women or that there are others who are happier being at home. In essence, I guess what I am trying to say is that each woman should be allowed to live the life that they want, and that they find fulfilling to them. Neither option should be forbidden or frowned upon in my opinion. Though I like my life, I know there are many women out there who wouldn’t, and I think that’s perfectly ok. I am glad you brought all of this up in your review because it gave me a little bit to think about and consider. Thanks, Amy!
Yes, I think it is the choice that makes it different zibilee. Friedan doesn’t say you can’t do that, she says that women need more. They need to be able to do whatever they want – if that is kids and a house, fine, if that is kids and a career, fine, if it is a career, that is fine too!
Amazing how this book is still such a hot button topic.
I haven’t read The Feminist Mystique, but read Frieden’s follow-up feminist work: The Second Stage. I found that fascinating, particularly about how much of the backlash against The Feminist Mystique came from women rather than from men; and how she predicted men would need to take more larger care-giver role in the family. Another thing that particularly stood out was how aware Frieden seemed to be of the criticisms that had been raised against and responses to her first book (many of which are reflected in the comments above). I never felt that she was against motherhood, or against a woman choosing the role of caregiver/housewife/mother. I think her point, that often gets missed because just raising the issue puts people on the defensive, is that women have a right to make that choice and should not be pressured into one role or the other because of society’s dictates.
Great review Amy – and a wonderful topic! I completely understand your urge to find someone to have a long discussion with over this book!
I’ve heard her Second Stage isn’t nearly as good, but you make it sound interesting. It does seem to put people on the defensive tolmsted, which is odd because all she is saying is that women deserve the choice to do whatever they want!
Great review, Amy. I haven’t read this book since college and now you’ve got me wondering how I would react to it if I read it today. The quotes you mention make me think I would still find it relevant, especially the one about feminists being labeled as bitter, man-haters–that is so true, unfortunately. I’m going to have to go see if I still have this on my shelves somewhere.
Isn’t it unfortunate how some of those things are still around? So sad Kristen. How did you enjoy the book in college?
What a great post Amy! I’ve already got this on my wishlist but I’m so slow with my non-fiction reads… I don’t think I’ve read enough books to understand the evolution of feminsm, but like anything I feel that it has to naturally evolve, just as the way we think about everything else changes. So of course there are outdated issues. The shocking thing is that after 50 years there are so many things that are still the same!
Thank you chasing bawa! I’m so interested to hear what you think of this. People seem to disagree with me that it is still relevant, so I want more opinions
Great review – this is a book on my to-read list. A couple of points though:
Feminism today is a far cry from second wave feminism (which I believe this book strongly represents). The third wave now looks at all the possible things that could affect women (too broad, in my personal opinion) with a strong emphasis on children and family matters, interestingly enough.
There are magazines that are targeted toward women that emphasize world events and issues that pertain directly to women, but circulation numbers are significantly lower than Cosmopolitan. Sadly, I believe this is more a reflection on what sells than anything else, which also means that there are more women interested in the 5 best things to do in bed than articles that detail the plight of women in Iran. I’m not sure how this can effectively be changed.
Oh yes, a far far cry Tammie. Some of it seemed still relevant, some of it was more that I could see how what we are fighting for now is directly a follow-up on things she said. We have some OK magazines now, but a majority are still garbage and also partially because that is how we are raised perhaps. So I can see how we are still working on the same things just a little farther on than back then.
Fascinating post and comments – I kind of really want to read this soon so I can talk about it with you
I agree with you that all these issues are still relevant today and that the “mystique” still persists to some extent. But Alex’s comment was also intriguing – now I also want to look for the book she mentioned. I don’t doubt that Friedan was right, but second wave feminism in general does seem to have been followed by a backlash about any traditionally feminine occupations, including but not only being a stay-at-home mom. This has been addressed recently to some extent with a lot of talk about choice, which while perfectly valid doesn’t always take into account the context in which choices are made (which is possibly a whole other topic), but anyway… my point is that the backlash was certainly unfortunate, and in some ways it extends to this day and alienates a lot of women. So in more mainstream circles, working mothers are still very much looked down on, while in some (NOT all, of course) supposedly feminist ones it’s women who stay at home.
Ooohhh yes good point Ana – there may be more choice now but the context of the choice still limits. It certainly still extends to today as well. I would love to hear your opinion on the book!
This is awesome. Totally intrigued.
I hope you read it and share your thoughts Lydia
When you said this, “I can’t agree more on the adjectives for this book. What shocked me most though was how relevant it all still felt. I really had to keep reminding myself that the book was written so long ago as it felt so current,” You convinced me that I really need to pick up that old copy of this book and read it. I was actually wondering if it would feel so outdated that it would bore me to tears. I’m glad to know that it won’t. So stupid — but I will admit that I first became interested in reading this in college after reading Gloria Steinem’s Outrageous Acts and Everday Rebellions and then was utterly convinced when the movie 10 Things I Hate About You came out… I loved Kat’s character so much and this was one of her favorites. (Ridiculous, I know).
A lot of people find it super outdated and boring, but I really didn’t at all Wallace. I would love to hear your thoughts. I want to read that book by Steinem now, and not ridiculous at all!! I always have odd reasons for reading books.
I love the fact that your parents gave you Betty Sheridan’s book as a Christmas present
Your parents are wonderful!
I enjoyed reading your wonderful review and the comments to your review. My own take is that there is nothing wrong in being a career woman or a stay-at-home mom or any of the interesting situations in between. (I would say the same about men – it is okay to be a career man or a stay-at-home dad or in any of the interesting situations in between). But I feel that the problem across history has been that the stay-at-home mom’s work hasn’t been respected and valued, though it is as important, and in some ways more important, than the work of the dad (or the traditional breadwinner of the family). Economists don’t even include it as part of the GDP, because a stay-at-home mom’s work doesn’t bring money and is difficult to measure in terms of the monetary value it brings to the family or to the society. I was talking to one of my friends the other day, and both of us were saying that it is important that parents teach their children how to study well, how to choose a career, how to develop hobbies and interests, as well as how to cook and how to keep house, irrespective of whether their child is a boy or a girl. That way chances of one part of a person’s life and work getting devalued will be quite remote.
I have stuck my neck out and commented – I hope I am not eaten alive by other commenters
Why would you be, Vishy? I think your comment is spot on. (My turn to apologise for taking over someone else’s comments section
)
Thanks Ana
My parents really are pretty awesome aren’t they Vishy
I feel quite lucky to have them.
I have no idea why you would be eaten alive – I love your comment! Very valid and very true. Both boys and girls need to learn it all these days, and as more men start doing more around the house I bet we will see that work valued more and more!!
This is one of those books I’ve had on my shelves for a really long time, but your review has renewed my interest a great deal. Thanks for a fabulous, thoughtful review!
I hope you read it Andi – I’d love to hear your thoughts!
I think this is one of those books that everyone talks about and no one has actually read. So good for you, Amy! I feel like I probably wouldn’t like this one as much as you. Not so much because I find it irrelevant- but perhaps because it might seem dated? But as a historical text that reflects the times, I think it is very relevant. I often wonder, though, why the book is called The Feminine Mystique. For some reason, that does not make me think so much of feminism as somehow learning more about how women use their wiles to get what they want. That could just be my own bizarre interpretation, though
It is dated Aarti, but it still felt relevant in large part because we wouldn’t be fighting for what we are now without it, if that makes sense. I would love to hear what you think of the book. And yes, the mystique did throw me at first as well!