Like you, I enjoy doing the laundry. It gives me a sense of accomplishment. In times of crisis, I distract myself from grief by doing a load of clothes. I suppose we all have our own methods of coping. That's mine.
Regarding the topic at hand--I have a bit of a different experience. My grandmother wasn't the sort of woman who gossiped with other members of her sex, discussed shopping, babies, or all those stereotypical feminine topics of conversation.
After being orphaned at age ten, she was raised by four brothers in the heart of the depression. She grew up in a man's world, and as such during family gatherings, she preferred to talk about politics and world affairs with the men.
However, I'm sure that's the exception rather than the rule.
I'm sure part of the laundry issue is that I'm only laundering for two, which is only two loads a week, so it's not unpleasant, but soothing. Laundry for five would be a much bigger chore.
On the other issue, I've definitely noticed a difference between how my brother and I spend time with our parents.
Ha! My inner child is dancing around and singing "I'm normal! I'm normal!"
The data in the New York Times article was very interesting.
But David Leonhardt's interpretation was fairly scattered, and occasionally fraught with stereotypes. Like the part where he writes that because women are spending less time cleaning, houses are probably dirtier, and therefore, women are less happy: "I imagine the new American dustiness affects women's happiness more than men's." As if it's in women's genes to crave cleanliness. He also writes about the desire of teenage girls to appear constantly attractive, as if this desire comes out of nowhere (rather than from consistent social pressure to be overly-sexual).
Finally at the end of the article, Leonhardt sort-of realizes the role that sexism might be playing in making women unhappy---i.e. society doesn't support working women, and many men in heterosexual marriages are not doing their fair share of household work.
Those are good observations.
I've noticed that there is a style of reportage in the NYT that is just as you describe, with some data forming the basis of the article, but most of written as personal reaction and untested hypotheses as if they are actual scientific theories.
Commenting by HaloScan
