Final Paper!

Catherine Glass

Dr. Stiltner

April 17, 2012

Final Paper

Flirting Between a Rock and a Hard Place

            Why do people cheat? It’s a universal no-no, but still, it happens pretty frequently:  Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky, John Edwards and Rielle Hunter, Tiger Woods and…ten other women. Since infidelity has been increasingly publicized, the public has become desensitized.  It has become less scandalous and more accepted.   We need only think of Bill Clinton as the poster boy for the concept that there is a public life after an infidelity.  Yet, as “People” magazine publishes a new affair every week, at some level, we publicly proclaim the notion that extramarital relationships are taboo.

Evolutionary theorists suggest that men and women’s sexual attitudes are a product of their ancestral past. In a 1998 study, researchers found that male reproductive success was based on spreading genes to as many partners as possible. It was necessary to produce offspring – the more sex, the more strong and burly male descendants would be available to contribute to the tribe. On the opposite end of the spectrum, women wanted to ensure the health and safety for their children. Female reproductive success was based on finding a male partner that could provide resources for the family. Has this tradition travelled with us all these years later? A man with wives and girlfriends – a young woman with an eighty-five year old wealthy husband – is all of this due to evolutionary drive?

Many modern theorists don’t buy the evolutionary philosophy. “A person's past sexual history, an individual's mate value (attractiveness), the degree of opportunity (time spent away from a spouse with other potential sexual partners), and a person's willingness to take risks all play an important role in infidelity.”  This explanation drills down to the individual reasons why extramarital affairs occur and suggests a personal accountability factor that is missing from the evolutionary theory.  It is also logically appealing. The formula is: opportunity + appetite for risk + minimum invested in the marital relationship (shared finances, children) = at risk for marital affair.[BS1]  Opportunity pertains to one’s physical attractiveness, social skills, and financial independence. The risk-taking component has to do with spouses who have a more adventurous nature. The investment factor relates to how many shared priorities a married couple has together. After reading all of the research and literature, this formula seems to be the soundest explanation as to why someone would enter into an extramarital affair. The common denominator underlying all of these variables is the lack of reverence in a marriage. For me, respect between the spouses defines the level of risk and is the thin line between a healthy and hopeless relationship.

Often this disrespect stems from one or both spouses not having trust. This may be due to the marriage, or may be a personal insecurity. Regardless, when there is a lack of trust, resentment often surfaces (warranted or unwarranted) – this is when disrespect comes into play. Instead of communicating with one’s partner, it is more common and temporarily easier to turn against them. The Bible says, “There is no fear in love, but perfect love casts out fear. For fear has to do with punishment, and whoever fears has not been perfected in love.” (John 4:18). In Catholic tradition fear, insecurity, and mistrust cannot exist in a marriage. So, since Catholic tradition weighs so heavily on marital “perfectness,” we would think that a faithful person would be less likely to cheat. Unsurprisingly, there is much research both supporting and resisting this notion.

 A psychology study done in 2006 claimed that people who attend religious services on a frequent basis are both more likely to disapprove of extramarital affairs and less likely to engage in them (Woodruff). So, faith and faithfulness go together. Also, separate research found that religious students were unlikely to engage in an affair. Faith was the main component for these students lack of engagement (Benson & Donahue).  The God factor injects a moral component that is not necessarily linked to respect for, or feeling for, the spouse or significant other.  It is more concerned with the actor’s own concern for his/her everlasting well being. “Thou shalt not commit adultery,” the Commandments command. 

            Thomas Rees, an Op-Ed columnist for Free Inquiry, writes that regular church goers are less likely to cheat because they tend to be more family oriented. People who attend a religious service weekly do so, generally, in company with their family. Rees “suspects that there would be similar findings for those people who commit to secular activities.”  The reason for fidelity, he argues, is the commitment to the sanctity of the family as evidenced by support for family activities.  Indeed, people who feel they are “close to God but don’t go to a religious service” are 25% more likely to cheat. According to this theory, religious faith doesn’t reduce infidelity, family centered life does. (Thomas Rees Blog)

            Rees, however, minimizes the significant impact God and religion has on many people’s lives and the moral compass both can provide. When the family is involved together in a social activity, whether secular or spiritual, powerful bonds are created and reinforced.  An affair that could cause ruination of the family unit may simply offer a very unattractive risk/reward ration and itself act as a deterrent.  Otherwise stated, why would they cheat and ruin that?  Still, Church, or any religious service for that matter, is not just a social gathering. It serves up lessons in morality, goodness, and fulfillment – all examples of pro-family behavior. Family bowling night is simply not the same thing as Sunday mass. In his blog Epiphenom, even Rees admits that the research may be faulty. The study surveyed “self-reported infidelity, something that people are likely to under-report, and attendance, which is often over-reported. And it's a cross-sectional analysis, like most of these sorts of things, so cause-and-effect are open to question.” A cross sectional analysis study’s a large ranging sample (i.e. different race, socioeconomic status etc.) at one time. Participants have different backgrounds influencing how they answer the survey. As for the flaws of self- reported studies, people tend to tone down their experience with cheating, and exaggerate how often they attend service. The reality is that people who have strong family bonds (however formed), and people who have deeply felt religious beliefs against extramarital affairs, are less likely to have those affairs because of the family bonds and the religious beliefs, respectively.  The data was issued in 2008.  It would be interesting to compare now, many highly public affairs later, to see if attitudes have changed.

            It has become pretty clear that over the years, our country has become a more secular society. And, in this secular society, infidelity is still seen as morally prohibited. So, it seems to me that while Church is an excellent representation of pro-family behavior, it isn’t necessarily crucial. I grew up attending Church, and personally want to take my children to Church. Service teaches us how to live a just and fulfilling life. Although sometimes too rigid, the Catholic Church has strong tradition that most people would seem to agree with – especially when it comes to extramarital affairs. However, my children can still gain a moral compass without going to mass. A religious service won’t transform a married couple into faithful and happy partners – if they have problems in their relationship, faith won’t work miracles. Whether it’s secular or spiritual, pro-family behavior is definitely the staple for a happier marriage. As long as a family is bonding and connecting with each other, the likelihood of an affair will be far less.

            But, after the infidelity occurs and there’s no going back, what are society’s thoughts and attitudes? Once an affair happens, especially in the public eye, it is more easily forgiven than we would think. Although we see affairs as taboo, we still tend to get away with having them. That is due to an ethic of self-fulfillment. Traditional concepts of right and wrong have been replaced by norms of “harmful” or “harmless” (Yankelovich, 1981a, p. 46). If one’s affair is damaging career or reputation wise if not forgiven, even if they are “wrong” from the perspective of traditional morality, they no longer meet much opposition. If a man cheats on his wife but lives in a hierarchal community, he’s typically forgiven. It’s better to have a cheating husband than to compromise status, right? If a movie star has an affair, it’s typically covered up and the actor doesn’t loose a dime. If you’re powerful enough, your affair is seen as more “harmful” if not forgiven – it is more “harmless” to allow the infidelity.

Beginning most famously with Bill Clinton’s affair with Monica Lewinsky, there has been a sea change in the public perception of extramarital affairs.  Today, it is not a career killer. When caught, a heartfelt apology, a steady wife who stands by the adulterer’s side forgiving him, results in the adulterer’s career clicking on all cylinders in no time.  So, Governor Spitzer can have his career spectacularly flame out with a prostitute, and still wind up a successful TV personality and commentator – Bill Clinton can become a Nobel Prize nominee – and the golf world can breathlessly wait for Tiger’s anticipated comeback. While there are environments in which one is more likely to have an affair, and religion and morality definitely come into play, forgiveness of infidelity has undoubtedly skyrocketed. We live in a secular world where less people engage in family centered activity and sex tapes make you famous.

Work Cited

Atkins, D., & Kessel, D. (2008). Religiousness and Infidelity: Attendance, but not Faith and Prayer, Predict Marital Fidelity Journal of Marriage and Family, 70 (2), 407-418

PL Benson, MJ Donahue - Journal of Adolescent Research, 1989

Rees, Thomas. "Religion and Marital Infidelity. “Epiphenom. PaperBlog, 17 Apr 2012. Web. 17 Apr. 2012. <http://epiphenom.fieldofscience.com/search?

Woodruff, M. (2006). Marital infidelity and religion; unfaithful individuals and their religiosity. Retrieved from 

Yankelovich, D. (1981b). New rules: Searching for self-fulfillment in a world turned upside down. New York: Random House

---

A Few Drafts Later...

Flirting Between a Rock and a Hard Place

            Why do people cheat? It’s a universal no-no, but still, it happens pretty frequently:  Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky, John Edwards and Rielle Hunter, Tiger Woods and…ten other women. Since infidelity has been increasingly publicized, the public has become desensitized.  It has become less scandalous and more accepted.   We need only think of Bill Clinton as the poster boy for the concept that there is a public life after an infidelity.  Yet, as “People” magazine publishes a new affair every week, at some level, we publicly proclaim the notion that extramarital relationships are taboo.

Evolutionary theorists suggest that men and women’s sexual attitudes are a product of their ancestral past. In a 1998 study, researchers found that male reproductive success was based on spreading genes to as many partners as possible. It was necessary to produce offspring – the more sex, the more strong and burly male descendants would be available to contribute to the tribe. On the opposite end of the spectrum, women wanted to ensure the health and safety for their children. Female reproductive success was based on finding a male partner that could provide resources for the family. Has this tradition travelled with us all these years later? A man with wives and girlfriends – a young woman with an eighty-five year old wealthy husband – is all of this due to evolutionary drive?

Many modern theorists don’t buy the evolutionary philosophy. “A person's past sexual history, an individual's mate value (attractiveness), the degree of opportunity (time spent away from a spouse with other potential sexual partners), and a person's willingness to take risks all play an important role in infidelity.”  This explanation drills down to the individual reasons why extramarital affairs occur and suggests a personal accountability factor which is missing from the evolutionary theory.  It is also logically appealing. The formula is: opportunity + appetite for risk + minimum invested in the marital relationship (shared finances, children) = at risk for marital affair. For me, respect between the spouses defines the level of risk and is the thin line between a healthy and hopeless relationship.

A psychology study done in 2006 argued that people who attend religious services on a frequent basis are both more likely to disapprove of extramarital affairs and less likely to engage in them (Woodruff). So, faith and faithfulness go together. Also, separate research found that religious students were unlikely to engage in an affair. Faith was the main component for these students lack of engagement (Benson & Donahue).  The God factor injects a moral component which is not necessarily linked to respect for, or feeling for, the spouse or significant other.  It is more concerned with the actor’s own concern for his/her everlasting well- being. “Thou shalt not commit adultery,” the Commandments command. 

            Thomas Rees, an Op-Ed columnist for Free Inquiry, writes that regular church goers are less likely to cheat because they tend to be more family oriented. People who attend a religious service weekly do so, generally, in company with their family. Rees “suspects that there would be similar findings for those people who commit to secular activities.”  The reason for fidelity, he argues, is the commitment to the sanctity of the family as evidenced by support for family activities.  Indeed, people who feel they are “close to God but don’t go to a religious service” are 25% more likely to cheat. According to this theory, religious faith doesn’t reduce infidelity, family centered life does. (Thomas Rees Blog)

            Rees, however, minimizes the significant impact God and religion have on many people’s lives and the moral compass both can provide. When the family is involved together in a social activity, whether secular or spiritual, powerful bonds are created and reinforced.  An affair which could cause ruination of the family unit may simply offer a very unattractive risk/reward ration and itself act as a deterrent.  Otherwise stated, why would they cheat and ruin that?  Still, Church, or any religious service for that matter, is not just a social gathering. It serves up lessons in morality, goodness, and fulfillment – all examples of pro-family behavior. Family bowling night is simply not the same thing as Sunday mass. In his blog Epiphenom, even Rees admits that the research may be faulty. The study surveyed “self-reported infidelity, something that people are likely to under-report, and attendance, which is often over-reported. And it's a cross-sectional analysis, like most of these sorts of things, so cause-and-effect are open to question.” A cross sectional analysis studies a large ranging sample (i.e. different race, socioeconomic status etc.) at one time. Participants have different backgrounds influencing how they answer the survey. As for the flaws of self- reported studies, people tend to tone down their experience with cheating, and exaggerate how often they attend service. The reality is that people who have strong family bonds (however formed), and people who have deeply felt religious beliefs against extramarital affairs, are less likely to have those affairs because of the family bonds and the religious beliefs, respectively.  The data was issued in 2008.  It would be interesting to compare now, many highly public affairs later, to see if attitudes have changed.

          I believe, beginning most famously with Bill Clinton’s affair with Monica Lewinsky, there has been a sea change in the public perception of extramarital affairs.  Today, it is not a career killer.  A heartfelt apology, a steady wife who stands by the adulterer’s side forgiving him, and soon the adulterer’s career is back clicking on all cylinders.  So, a Governor Spitzer can have his career spectacularly flame out with a prostitute, and still wind up a successful TV personality and commentator. Bill Clinton can become a Nobel Prize nominee, and the golf world can breathlessly wait for Tiger’s anticipated comeback. It is a world in which sex tapes make you famous. Go figure.

My Paper So Far...

Catherine Glass

Dr. Stiltner

April 17, 2012

Final Paper

Flirting Between a Rock and a Hard Place

            Why do people cheat? It’s a universal no-no, but still, it happens pretty frequently. Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky, John Edwards and Rielle Hunter, Tiger Woods and…ten other women. Since infidelity has been increasingly publicized, it’s only natural to think society would be more accepting. However, even though People magazine publishes a new affair every week, the American culture stands by the notion that extramarital relationships are taboo.

Evolutionary theorists suggest that men and women’s sexual attitudes are a product of their ancestral past. In a 1998 study, researchers found that male reproductive success was based on spreading genes to as many partners as possible. It was necessary to produce offspring – the more sex, the more strong and burly male descendants would be available to contribute to the tribe. On the opposite end of the spectrum, women wanted to ensure health and safety for their children. Female reproductive success was based on finding a partner that could provide resources for the family. Has this tradition travelled with us all these years later? When we see men with wives and girlfriends and young women with eighty-five year old wealthy husbands, can we credit our evolutionary drive?

More modern theory doesn’t buy the evolutionary philosophy. “A person's past sexual history, an individual's mate value (attractiveness), the degree of opportunity (time spent away from a spouse with other potential sexual partners), and a person's willingness to take risks all play an important role in infidelity.” This seems more believable. If you take an ordinary and extraordinary looking person, and the latter is used to having a lot of sex with a lot of opportunity, they are more likely to cheat on their spouse. Also, if they don’t have a lot invested in their relationship, what do they have to loose by cheating? To me, respect is the thin line between a healthy and hopeless relationship.

A psychology study done in 2001 claims that people who attend religious services on a frequent basis are both more likely to disapprove of extramarital affairs and less likely to engage in them. So, while this secular society holds so much animosity towards religion- we must admit that they do have some merit in their tradition. In 1989 Benson and Donahue CITE found that religious students were very unlikely to engage in infidelity and their faith was the main component for these students lack of engagement.  The Quran says “Take not for protectors your fathers and your brothers if they love Infidelity above Faith: if any of you do so, they do wrong.” The Catholic Church says, “Thou shalt not commit adultery.” Still, there are religious skeptics that don’t attribute faithfulness to scripture – they say there are outlying reasons. The faith, to them, is just a coincidence.

            Thomas Rees, and Op-ed columnist for Free Inquiry believes that regular church goers are less likely to cheat because they tend to be more family oriented. People who attend a religious service weekly do so with their family. Rees “suspects that there would be similar findings for those people who commit to secular activities.” At first glance Rees opinion seems farfetched. The reason for fidelity isn’t due to attendance; they it is due to beliefs. However, people who feel they are “close to God but don’t go to a religious service” are 25% more likely to cheat. Faith doesn’t reduce infidelity, going to service does. (Thomas Rees Blog)

           

My Project

My project is progressing pretty well thus far. Like Dr. Stiltner said, there are a lot of different aspects in extramarital relationships. I loved his idea on looking at both the research and religion. As of now, I think that I am going to try to halve the paper that way. My previous post about a blogger who is a religion skeptic definitely gives me a good deal of interesting information to work with. Also, researching the web has given me a wealth of information.

You Just Have to Laugh!

David Naster, a comedian, says that humor is the way to deal with change and setback. His philosophy is that, with hectic and chaotic lifestyles, people often forget to laugh. Laughter is the best way to relieve stress and handle life's problems. He performs all over the country trying to spread his theory. Here is a promotional video!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SnmXG_xtsPI

Tracy K. Smith

Today I was listening to NPR and Tracy K. Smith just won the 2012 Pulitzer Prize for poetry. She read several poems and I, who does not typically read poetry, was transfixed after hearing her work. Smith is based out of Brooklyn and teaches creative writing at Princeton. She says that when writing a poem, she tries to find a topic that she doesn't know too much about and tell a story through another person's eyes. This "persona poetry" is becoming very popular, Smith says. NPR is even having a contest for it. The following is a poem from her winning book Life on Mars: (I love "Is God being or pure force? The wind/ Or what commands it?)


Is our universe “a house party,”, or a “primal scream,” as another would have it? “Is God being or pure force? The wind / Or what commands it?” Or might there be more than one God? “Maybe there is a pair of them, and they sit / Watching the cream disperse into their coffee // Like the A-bomb. This equals that, one says, / Arranging a swarm of coordinates // On a giant grid. They exchange smiles. / It’s so simple, they’ll be done by lunchtime.”

In Therapy Forever? Enough Already - NY TIMES

"In Therapy Forever? Enough Already" is a bold OpEd by psychotherapist Jonathan Alpert. Personally I completely agree with his philosophy that long term therapy is mundane, repetitive, and often unproductive. The other day I was talking to my boss, a family psychologist, about why people begin to hate therapy. Staying in counseling for too long is one of the main reasons. When people stay in counseling for an extended period of time they stop working on themselves and expect the therapist to "fix" them. Also as the article explains, there is a codependence. The therapist is dependent on the patient for money, the patient is dependent on the therapist for help. Unless there is a serious disorder like borderline personality, therapy really shouldn't extend longer than a year. Alpert says, "Therapy can — and should — focus on goals and outcomes, and people should be able to graduate from it." It is important to become a self actualized and competent individual. Unfortunately, many therapy professionals are aware that therapy sessions shouldn't be too long but don't apply it to their patients. 


Here is the link: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/22/opinion/sunday/in-therapy-forever-enough-already.html?pagewanted=1

At Kennedy Airport, an Artist Fights to Save Her Sculpture - NY TIMES

Today I read an article in the New York Times about an artist who is suing JFK for threatening to dismantle her sculpture in order to put more food stands in the terminal. The sculptor, Alice Aycock, claims that the contract states that her "sculpture cannot be removed unless required or necessary. Putting in more food stands is neither." What I found interesting here was the competition between enhancing the amount of money the airport makes or enhancing NYC's culture. To me, there is enough food in the airport. It is important to have a balance between art and business (like a food court). Here's the link if you guys are interested:

http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/04/23/at-kennedy-airport-an-artist-fights-to-save-her-sculpture/?ref=nyregion

Semester At Sea

I wanted to deviate the focus of my blog a little bit and talk about Semester at Sea. This is a study abroad program based from the University of Virginia that takes students across the world via boat - having a cruise ship as the campus. I am going this summer for the two month semester and think it is something worth sharing. SAS is so unique because it allows students to see the world in a completely different light. They don't have to pick one country, they can pick 14, or in my case 7. Everyone that has participated in SAS claims it is the best experience they've ever been on. Our travels are integrated into our classes and we have field reports where we see first hand the stuff we are learning about. I am so excited for the experience and wanted to share it with you guys! Here's the link if you're interested: www.semesteratsea.org

Religion and Extramarital Affairs

While browsing the Internet, I fell upon some interesting information pertaining to infidelity and religion. People who regularly attend a religious service are less likely to cheat on their spouse. This is pretty standard - most scripture condemns cheating. However, people who consider themselves in a close relationship with God but do not attend service are 25% more likely to cheat on their spouse. So, when talking about religion, is it the belief system what stops people from being unfaithful, or the act of going to service? Thomas Rees, a columnist for Free Inquiry believes that people who attend service are less likely to cheat because they have a unified commitment to attend service. He claims that different people with the same commitment to a secular activity would probably have the same statistics. When taking a closer look at my study as well as other research, I found that they too have "attending religious service" as a variable - not "relationship with God" or something similar to that.

Here is the link to Rees Blog:
http://epiphenom.fieldofscience.com/

Outline

Introduction:

• What an extramarital relationship is
• How it has become increasingly common
• How acceptable it is
• Briefly explain study
• Briefly explain further readings

Body:

• Detail about infidelity
• Evolutionary reasoning 
• Investment theory
• Double Standard
• (Each a small paragraph)

Body:

• Religion

Body:

• Social
• Political and Famous Affairs

Second Paper Ideas

Over Easter break I spoke with my mother, who is a divorce attorney, about extramarital relationships. She explained to me that, although it is completely morally wrong, it is the most common reason for divorces that she sees. "People get lonely, their spouse doesn't pay attention to them, and they cheat." When spouses have kids and a life together though, infidelity is often forgiven. When I was doing my study, I found that religion and education were two confounding variables. As I write the paper, I plan on delving into literature about these two variables, and how they connect to infidelity.

Final Paper

            For this paper, I am looking at infidelity with married couples. I have been doing research on this topic for the past year, and I am very excited to write about it. I am interested to see why people cheat, what type of affair they have (if any at all), and if it is justifiable and able to be forgiven. There is a lot of research in this, but the topic of infidelity has become very commercialized. Variables such as education level, religiosity, ethnic background, and political viewpoint effects people’s views and involvement in affairs.

            Years ago, moral ground rules were very black and white. Things like premarital sex, cohabitation, single parenthood, and homosexuality were wildly discouraged. Consequentially, a lot of homosexual men and women got married and had children, having same-sex affairs on the side.

            What is interesting with my paper is that I have a lot of knowledge based on the research I did, but now I get to explore the non-psychological articles. Thus far, the two articles I’ve looked at analyze the question why people cheat. Both articles maintain that cheating exists and is not disappearing. I find this interesting because in my study, infidelity was strictly discouraged, despite our more liberal society. I plan on looking at the statistics, opinions, and future of the idea of infidelity. Hopefully I don't rely too much on my research and really dig deep into all of the articles out there!

Analyzing Infidelity

In the magazine Psychology Today, there is an entire section titled: "Infidelity: Who Cheats, and Why?". To me, this point in itself proves that the mass occurrences of extramarital relationships are becoming an epidemic. I chose the article "Are You Tempted By Adultery Even Though You Think It's Wrong." In this Op.Ed. piece, Dr. Mark White investigates the moral philosophy of cheating as well as the thoughts of all parties involved. Looking at adultery through the eyes of famous philosopher Immanuel Kant, "although we are rational beings, we are also physical beings; essentially, we are beasts who are aware we are beasts, and have the power to control our desires and inclinations, a power which is called autonomy." We as beasts have temptations. We as rationalists have the power to resist. Conclusively, Dr. White says that infidelity is a matter of affect or passion. Affect is when a person resists the temptation using avoidance (staying away from temptress) or reinforcement (calls significant other more times per day). Passion is when a person realized that their judgment has been negatively influenced. By becoming aware of this, the person's thoughts will slowly lessen. 

Why People Cheat

Why People Cheat: Dr. Nigel Barber


Dr. Barber begins his article by saying that "cheating is a fact of life." Looking at the parasite resistance theory, infidelity is explained through animal research. Female animals tend to pick males who have the strength to fight off disease. Socially, in places where disease is prevalent, attractiveness is more important and promiscuity is more accepted. This suggests that "one motive for infidelity is to acquire better immunity for their children." To me, and I'm assuming many, this theory is distorted. Infidelity, in no way shape or form, prevents disease. If anything, having many sexual partners spreads STI's and STD's. 


Evolutionarily speaking, men want to procreate and create as much offspring as possible. Dr. Barber says that men are interested in, "the desire for sexual variety, and attraction to younger, more fertile, women" This is a case for male opportunity to reproduce and the boredom of having one long term partner.

Nicholas Kristof and Sheryl WuDunn: Social Entrepreneurs Surfacing the True Injustice Behind Oppression of Women

I am an American female college student. I have aspirations to a professional career and reasonable prospects for a secure future. My status as an equal citizen is legally protected and, as a person, I feel I am valued by my society. I do not count myself as being disadvantaged just because I was born a woman. This is not the case, however, for millions of women in countries and cultures that exploit and abuse women, condone rape and violence against them, and deny them basic civil rights.  Nicholas Kristof and Sheryl WuDunn tackle the oppression of women around the world in their seminal book, Half the Sky. This title comes from the Chinese proverb that women hold up “half the sky,” and so conveys the book’s thesis: we should remember women are half of our population and that empowering them releases tremendous untapped resources for economic and social progress. 

Kristof and WuDunn

 In 1990, soon after covering the Tiananmen Square protests, spouses Nicholas Kristof and Sheryl WuDunn learned that 39,000 baby girls are killed in China each year because they are denied the same amount of food and healthcare as their male counterparts. A number of years later, while writing a piece on child prostitution, Nicholas Kristof spoke to two Cambodian girls who were sold into brothels (one by her stepfather, the other kidnapped). Their mothers had come and gone, having no money to buy them back. They were sexually coerced and beaten daily.  Kristof was dismayed to see that, even as young as they were, there was no hope in their eyes. He was deeply moved and, with his wife, resolved to bring attention to the oppression of women around the world.  Sheryl WuDunn, a Pulitzer Prize winning journalist herself, was eager to begin writing. Her own Chinese Grandmother had her feet bound to make them small. This was a painful process done in China that involved breaking a woman’s foot and forcing the toes to curl under and bind to the sole. The more perfectly a women’s foot was bound, the more eminent a wife she would be. (Chinese Foot Binding) WuDunn was a success story in herself, and wanted other women to have the opportunity to succeed as she did.

While Nicholas Kristof did not have the same family history as his wife, his previous journalism experiences left him with an obligation to heighten awareness. Their book, published in 2009, a national best seller, describes instances of sex trafficking, gender based violence, maternal morbidity, honor killings and mass rape—all bound by the central theme of gender inequality. Just as slavery and totalitarianism were core human rights problems in the past, the oppression of women today is a moral wrong and demands the world’s attention. Attention is exactly what the authors got. Little did either writer know, they would do much more than sell books—they would become social entrepreneurs. What I mean by this is that Kristof and WuDunn became spokesmen for the oppression of women. Their resume included personal experiences, empirical data, and an agenda for change. They were a triple threat – on a mission to put these issues in the public’s face – making awareness impossible to ignore.

Melinda Gates states, “The stories that Kristof and WuDunn share are as powerful as they are heartbreaking.” (Melinda Gates on Half the Sky) The authors describe the scope of the problem as follows: “More girls were killed in the last 50 years, precisely because they were girls, than men killed in all the wars in the 20th century. More girls are killed in this routine gendercide in any one decade than people were slaughtered in all the genocides of the 20th century.” (Half the Sky, Intro)  This loaded statement isn’t a superficial attempt to get the reader’s attention, it is the bare facts – and the facts are enough to blow anyone’s mind. Speaking to individual circumstances, one of the stories in Half the Sky is about a Pakistani woman who refused to have an arranged marriage. When her brothers found out about this, “they bickered over whether they should kill her or just sell her to a brothel.” (Half the Sky, p.150) Just from these few quotes, we can see Kristof and WuDunn’s brilliance of combining data and anecdotes. Although the statistics of women’s oppression sells the message on it’s own, the authors appeal to pathos through story-telling, bringing us into the world of a suffering woman – after all, that is what inspired the journalists themselves to begin writing.

Moreover is the point that if we empower these women, not only will they be valued, they are likely to go on and create businesses. Hence the subtitle of the book, “Turning Oppression Into Opportunity.” When a woman is given the chance to be educated, and goes on to get a loan, research shows that that investment will produce higher returns than the same investment with her male counterpart. With scarce resources, females invest money more wisely than men.  Further, in a world where billions are being spent on security, experts say the best way to fight terrorism is to invest in girls. (Sheryl WuDunn on Colbert) This investment, the journalists claim, begins with education. Education not only improves intelligence, it teaches self-worth. Also, Kristof and WuDunn claim, “Microfinance has done more to bolster the status of women, and to protect them from abuse, than any laws could accomplish. Capitalism, it turns out, can achieve what charity and good intentions sometimes cannot. (Half the Sky, p. 187) If we can’t fiscally support these women, helping them fight for the opportunity to succeed may be enough.

 The combination of Kristof and WuDunn’s individual strengths makes the message of the book all the more powerful; it also models the creative collaboration that they say will improve the lives of women. Nicholas Kristof is an Op-Ed writer who focuses on societal injustices. One of Kristof’s intellectual influences is Victor Zorza, a journalist for The Guardian who is respected for his narrative-like writings on the Soviet Union. (Victor Zorza) Zorza has inspired Kristof with his anecdotal writing—which happens to be the writing style used in Half the Sky. Kristof at his best is a storyteller. His individual vignettes of oppressed woman, and stories of triumph over adversity bring an empathetic tone to Half the Sky.  He exposes the issues through individual narratives. After doing research, Nicholas Kristof said, “It turns out that empathy and moral judgments are an emotional process, not a rational one. They're based on storytelling, and people want to be a part of something positive, not something depressing and failed.” (Interview with Kristof and WuDunn on Book) Sheryl Wudunn writes about female entrepreneurs and was a journalist for the New York Times. Her contribution to the partnership was to bear the facts and figures, the statistics and a sense of relatability, being a third generation Chinese American female. WuDunn’s hefty economic background introduces hopeful data suggesting that we can turn both the lives of women and the global economy around.

Half the Sky

The book is not merely an expose of oppression in the developing world, but a call to action. Kristof and WuDunn use staggering statistics of oppression and boldly equate female injustice to slavery and totalitarianism. While they speak of creating female economic entrepreneurs, they themselves have become social entrepreneurs; sharing with us how we can invest in their enterprise. They call upon us to become involved, going so far as to provide links to donation sites, and creating their own website titled: http://www.halftheskymovement.org/.  Here is where you and I can directly contribute to the cause. With over fifteen charities listed, the general public is able to donate at the click of a button. And for those who are not in the position to give money, there are tabs to Facebook, Twitter, and Tumblr. Social media has become a major portal for information. By advocating for help on these social media websites, the cause can become widespread, just as it has happened with movements like Kony 2012.

However, asking Americans to help these invisible women overseas has, undoubtedly, brought controversy. While we live in a secular nation, much of the world relies heavily on religion. When there is a divide in fundamental beliefs, people are less inclined to join together. Kristof and WuDunn claim that if the two can come together and fight against oppression, we would be “emulating an era when liberal deists and conservative evangelicals joined forces to overthrow slavery.” (Changing Lives, NY Times Article) According to the couple, helping oppressed women must be a universal effort. It is not something that can be done by one person, one group, or one nation. However, when there are so many different views on the world, there will be different views on the process of change. Will we help the women by building places of faith? Will we help by investing in job creation? A rift in belief systems is a very possible problem and Kristof and WuDunn don’t have a plan of action.  

Another charge was that Kristof and WuDunn “prize pragmatism over an analysis of power, simple stories over complex narratives, and motivating an ‘every women’ reader over pointing out hypocrisies, inconsistencies, and challenges of Western based activism for global uplift.” (Equal Writes Book Review) While using narratives appeals to the reader, it is fair to say that it shows more of a simplistic example. Kristof and WuDunn should have given just as much attention to the statistics for success just as they did for oppression. It can be criticized that they relied too heavily on data regarding the negative aspects and relied too heavily on anecdotes for the positive aspects. Another point is that foreign activism can only go so far. This limitation seems to be over looked in Half the Sky. It is even argued that foreign activism can be counterproductive. If someone’s home country isn’t devoted to righting a moral wrong, the process will not get anywhere, and governments will become angry at foreign nations for trying to impose change.

Still, Kristof and WuDunn fight back to say that empowering and educating women is universally beneficial. By helping women, we are helping the global economy. The journalists will not be satisfied with Americans putting on a T-shirt reading “Women’s Equality” – claiming to join the movement. They expect donation and time, because with donation and time, a real difference is possible. Since, as a college student, I don’t have two pennies to rub together, I have taken advantage of my Facebook and Twitter page. These two people have really moved me to want to help – however, I’m not exactly in the position to contribute money. For the more established population, donate when you can, share Half the Sky with colleagues, and spread the word. Two people can’t make a change, but the world can. Helping Kristof and WuDunn get the word out is the first step to helping these women.

John Lennon’s song “Woman,” though written as a romantic testimony to one woman, captures something of the emotional heart of Half the Sky:

Woman, I can hardly express
My mixed emotions and my thoughtlessness
After all, I'm forever in your debt
And woman, I will try to express my inner feelings and thankfulness
For showing me the meaning of success

We should feel not only upset for how women fare around the world, but grateful for what they can contribute to the well being of the world, if only we globally treat them as fully equal members of the human race in every country. Our nation is aware of women’s potential. Our nation is aware of women’s rights. Our nation is aware of female injustice in developing countries. And, our nation needs to be nudged to do more – we can socially, politically, intellectually, and economically afford it. Nicholas Kristof and Sheryl WuDunn have devoted much of their time to righting this wrong. They have been able to bring momentous awareness to an urgent issue. Now it is up to us to (1) donate when possible, (2) advocate for more government aid, and (3) take advantage of social media outlets as a way to promote gender equality. Nicholas Kristof and Sheryl WuDunn have proven to be extraordinary individuals. In a society where it is so easy to sit back, they did more – now it’s our turn.

References Other Than Internet

Kristof, Nicholas, and Sheryl WuDunn. Half the Sky: Turning Oppression Into Opportunity for Women Worldwide. Knopf Doubleday Publishing Group, 2009. Print.