Wed. March 13
The Paradox of Declining Female Happiness
The title of this article is also the title of a 2009 study by economists Betsey Stevenson and Justin Wolfers. The study looked at data from the United States and Europe, focusing on the period from the 1970s to the mid-2000s: a time of medical advances, the second wave of feminism, the rise of no-fault divorce and the personal computer. And also a period in which women got less happy—both absolutely, and relative to men.
The authors consider several possible explanations for this decline, including the “second shift” effect (in which women come home from their jobs and still have to do the lioness’s share of the domestic work) and the rise in divorce and single parenting. But in the end they suggest that the “paradox” remains unexplained.
Some critics say it’s no big deal. The data isn’t as clear as the catchy title might suggest: Cross-cultural comparisons are inherently difficult, especially on a subject as culture-bound as definitions of personal happiness. Even looking just at data for the United States, different datasets offer sharply different pictures. All of them show both an absolute and relative decline in women’s happiness, but the size of that decline—and the trendline for men—varies quite a bit depending on which survey you look at. In one survey both men and women got much less happy; in others, men got slightly unhappier or slightly happier while women got slightly less happy.
Barbara Ehrenreich makes a related criticism: The shifts in self-reported happiness aren’t necessarily that huge. I think this criticism is misplaced. If the study were called, “The Paradox of Stagnant Female Happiness,” it would still contradict conventional wisdom. Things failed to get better, at least on the happiness front. Birth control, battered women’s shelters, antidepressants, women bishops, smart phones . . . all this just to end up where we started? What is this, a fairy tale? “I wish I’d never made any wishes!”
A better criticism is that self-reported happiness doesn’t necessarily measure well-being or even positive feelings. If your culture places a high value on women’s docility (or on acceptance of one’s lot), women may be more likely to smile for the pollsters regardless of their true feelings.
And the data may reflect a “revolution of rising expectations.” If women in 1972 were thinking, “Things could be worse,” they may have reported themselves as happy; women in an improved condition in 2006 might think, “Things could be even better.” Having seen their situation improve, they’re all the more aware of what remains to be addressed.
Material progress brings its own challenges. Once you can work, employers and potential husbands may expect you to, and while work brings fulfillment for some women it brings stress for pretty much all of us.
But the best criticism of Stevenson and Wolfers’s study sharpens the implied critique of contemporary life rather than weakening it. This criticism is that there’s a difference between happiness and meaning. We’ve all seen the studies which find that parents report less happiness than non-parents, and yet very few of us actually consider this a “case against parenting.” We consider it a case against happiness research.
The good life includes suffering as well as contentment. And most of the important choices in our lives are choices for more stress, for pushing ourselves, refusing to be satisfied with whatever comes easiest.
So maybe women are sacrificing happiness for something more important. What is that “something”? The most obvious answer is choice. Women have more choice and control now. We have come much closer to autonomy rather than dependence—and increased autonomy is an obvious good in some cases, as when a woman’s dependence tied her to an abusive husband. But the point of choice can’t just be more choice. Freedom from and freedom to find their purpose in freedom for. The most important thing for which we can be freed is love: deep, sacrificial connection to another person.
In 1987 Allan Bloom asked Americans, “Are we lovers anymore?” Today we’re increasingly answering with, at best, “It’s complicated.” We marry much less and live alone much more. We report fewer close personal connections, fewer ties to communal institutions, and less religious faith.
Stevenson and Wolfers don’t call for some kind of impossible return to the past, and neither do I. But so much of our discourse about feminism and women is animated by paranoid fear of exactly this impossible return to the Bad Old Days. This fear keeps us from being honest about the emotional and spiritual costs of autonomy. It keeps us from asking more interesting questions, like, Where can people place their trust once they’ve been liberated from the bad old authorities? What is worth the price of unhappiness and what isn’t? When is it good to be dependent? By pointing out that whatever has happened with women doesn’t seem to have made us happier, “Paradox” clears the way for questions about things a lot more interesting than mere happiness.
This post is part of a series by Eve Tushnet about the postnuclear family. Our new family landscape may look chaotic, but the books in this series can help us understand what’s going on with sex, love, and marriage in America. Read her previous posts in the series: The Hard-Won Bliss That Is Marriage, The End of Premarital Sex, A World of Good Intentions, and The Postnuclear Family: Last Comes Marriage.
Related Articles
-
-
-
Revolutionary Road: The Pitfalls of Marrying Young
The thing is, people change. At least they’re supposed to.…
Read More >
Popular Articles
-
The Contagious Dynamism of Tim Tebow
In the land of the spiritually-blind, the man with one…
Read more > -
Act Like a Man, Think Like a Woman
H.L. Mencken nailed it perfectly, and almost a hundred years…
Read more > -
Great article. I think that this is a difficult topic for two reasons: 1. We really do not have a true comprehension of the difference between fleeting happiness and a truly joyful life. We aspire for things that we think will make us “happy” and expect it to bring us lifelong joy. This is not just a “woman’s” problem – it is a humanity problem. And 2. Specifically to women (and I know this may draw some controversy), we think that we should be able to be everything, do everything, and have everything. This seems to have become the ultimate goal. I am going to be the best mother, the best at my career, have all the comforts and conveniences and so on. And then we fall bitterly short according to our own standards, or we practically do attain it all and it doesn’t bring us near the joy we thought it would (perhaps maybe some fleeting happiness at best). Studies can be shady sometimes and always require a starting worldview to interpret the results, but I do not think we really needed a study to find this to be the case. Thank you for a great post!
Pingback: “The Paradox of Declining Female Happiness”: For when you’re done reading about the new pope
As the father of two very young children, I have been discussing the “happiness” issue a lot with my wife of late. Not because we’re miserable, but because it’s definitely noticeable — with young kids in your life, you never have a break. It’s a challenge to almost constantly orient yourself toward another person or people, which, while noble, is also exhausting. And therein lies the double-edged sword. Exhausting feels bad. Noble (and the natural joy of parenthood and being with children) feels great. It’s not really either/or. When I see these happiness studies, I wonder when people answered the question. Ask me on a day when I’ve had two consecutive nights of zero sleep because of restless, seemingly uncomfortable children, and my happiness level won’t be too high. Ask me after a night of near normal sleep and when my kids have been doing cute things all day, and life looks a lot better. The idea that it’s static is perhaps the illusion.
I feel it’s hard for “feminist” articles to have a fresh perspective, but you’ve managed it in this one. Well done! Also interesting statistic on happiness in parents vs. non-parents. Thanks for sharing!
At risk of contriving some response I might offer a rebuttal to the article’s coda. Remove every variation of the word woman and replace it with a “human.” Or, better and worse, male with psychiatric issues. The great irony of the rights to achieve freedom for the woman have come, some would argue, at the price to the male psyche. That is to say, the traditional roles man has valued himself as being ‘master’ of have come under attack on many fronts – like a beleaguered fort. Now, as a young male my position on this is undeniably biased – but rest assured I say this with the utmost altruism and respect for women everywhere. Was the ‘status quo’ acceptable then? No. Is it acceptable now, for us? I would argue no.
Why no? Well for starters, perhaps defining the male psyche; though perhaps psyche isn’t the right word. We’re looking more at the Id thing. And guess what? The Id isn’t defined by an anatomy that defines it as male or female. ( At least by Freud) As such, i’m following your topic rubber-banding between a greater understanding of the female condition as opposed to the more important topic of the human condition. The latter is a lot more important than the loss of self identity that follows the cultural crash of female subjectivity. Really, I think deep down inside women still feel repressed and as you suggest, no amount of “giving” will satisfy you. This is where I find a comic strip by the Oatmeal about the female angler fish versus the male angler fish.
As a person with severe psychiatric issues I can say with a great deal of assurety: If women think they have it so bad, try living in my shoes as a male that is Bipolar and Narcoleptic. You are denied work on a continuous basis, left to make odd ends meet, and are often judged with the same regard as a Jihadist – yet without the same admiration of sacrificial courage that such a person has committed to. ” Oh you have a mental illness??” You walk around every day understanding the ideal of what a human is supposed to be and yet despite taking your medication and exercising ( in my case training for a marathon in November.) You are judged unequivocally by both BOTH males and females as an outcast.
I have not met a single woman who is not a liar that has professed to care about me and understands my issues, only to turn around when the sea runs off because she can’t “control my waves.” It’s not about controlling them, honey. It’s about working with the current instead of against it. Now, that being said – a male can never understand a female. Really it’s the age old ” Mars and Venus” – but given the fact I was raised without a father by my mother and my two sisters should have given me insight enough into how the female perceives the world. Mostly no, some yes. I chose instead of attempting to seek understanding in the other gender to following the common thread of our unity.
No, not some gratuitous unity, more like Ariadne’s thread. The ends to which – I – have been led are more suggestive – as you hint at – of our economic and judicial obsession: that is to say, the clamor of the self for wealth, acclaim, and rightness. Guess what? Law no more determines “Right” than the Majority of the people determine “Truth.” Really, this is much larger than She Wants/He Wants/She Said/He Said. It is the honest candor of the spirit of action that moves people to see outside their Schrödinger’s cat (box.)
Happiness is as much an overpreached theme as is the notion of a Utopia a real one. The oncept of a utopia -like Happiness – is a purely personal dream. Force it upon another and it becomes like the Faustian tyrant that promises peace but bares away all freedoms for its price. It is perspective. Something desired of itself as an end borders on a dangerous philosophy and state of being. If you walk around wanting happiness you will walk around disappointed your entire life.
If men walk around feeling repressed by women’s expression of freedom, we will feel repressed. If women walk around feeling repressed by men ( or themselves ) they will feel repressed. This is our catbox.
Respectfully,
Bracken S.
Really enjoyed this. It sums up what I sometimes think/argue
x
I was pleasantly surprised by the commitment to the idea that happiness and choice are not the greatest goods.
Thank you for the article.
Pingback: Instapundit » Blog Archive » YOU GET MORE OF WHAT YOU REWARD, AND LESS OF WHAT YOU PUNISH. HOW HAS “MANLINESS” BEEN TREATED OVER…
Women have assumed the roles of men and now realize they would rather be women.
With their roles usurped, men would rather be boys.
Feminism has sundered the union of humanity. The only path forward is death.
We had a society structure that was based on marriage and families, the man working outside the home and the woman running the home. Suddenly we decided that there could be new ‘rules’ – ‘free love’, new relationships, women working, etc etc. But as a society we didn’t develop a decent set of norms to live by. Hollywood always has affairs, nudity, sex, out there always. Heck in Hollywood America, everyone by the age of 50 has had more than 50 partners. But then our media crucifies Tiger for getting some tail. We tear down the churches, but bemoan all the problems with unwed mothers. It is enough to drive us all crazy.
I could see a society that has decent and fair standards that respects those who are religious without forcing their values on others, those that choose to not have a faith can live happily as long as they treat those around them fairly and with respect. Relationships could be Poly, with say up to 5 in a unit as they define. The government would treat those in a broader sense than marriage. Those that want a marriage in their faith can have that. But isn’t it strange how easy it is to get married but how painful and expensive to leave it.
What has me sad is that our society seems to be moving toward more uncertainty, more rules, conflicting requirements, and dismal prospects on getting ahead. That needs to change
Interesting article but I think that where our society fails is if we do not have a purpose that is higher than oneself. If it’s all about whether or not an individual is happy at any given moment, then of course you’re going to miss the boat. We are interdependent beings, trying to live independent lives and wondering why in the hell it doesn’t seem to work.
The part about parenting is the best part. When you become a parent, it’s about giving, not about receiving. It’s not about whether or not we’re walking around in bliss, kids are work. Families are work. Marriage is work. Life, frankly, is mostly work. It’s not some exercise in a perpetual search for self actualization where others are always secondary or we’re always on some sort of emotional vacation.
Simply put, I think that we’re all less happy because we made so much of life about ourselves and now are grumpy that no one is clapping that we’re merely functional. It’s narcissistic and childish.
As to women in particular, I’ve long thought that the whole ‘we can have it all’ thing was just so much gibberish. We can have darn near anything, but not all, and definitely, not all at the same time. Open one door, close another. Do it all at one time, don’t be surprised that it all will suffer. I learned that one quickly while trying to be a professional and giving birth. The reality of all it pretty much cured me of my naivete.
So I don’t sit around wondering why things are the way that they are. I’m far more interested in why so few people ‘get it’. It’s not about the patriarchal establishment holding women down, blahblahblah. I think that in the efforts to free women up to make their own choices, we’ve thrown the baby out with the bathwater and now wonder why the tub is empty.
I think that it all comes down to both genders just growing the hell up. And bonus points if they stop whining about it. Having us all act like children is just not working.
What paradox? Of course women aren’t happier now that they’re denying their biological imperative and trying to fit into social structures (such as competitive capitalism) that were created by and for men. It should surprise no one that making women sterilize themselves and act like men isn’t making them happier. Pile on that the dismal discovery that most jobs are boring grinds that exist for earning a living, not for “self-actualization,” and it’s downright depressing.
Happiness is a fuzzy concept and can mean many different things to many people. Part of the challenge of a science of happiness is to identify different concepts of happiness, and where applicable, split them into their components. Related concepts are well-being, quality of life and flourishing. Some commentators focus on the difference between the hedonistic tradition of seeking pleasant and avoiding unpleasant experiences, and the eudaimonic tradition of living life in a full and deeply satisfying way.*-
Kind regards
http://www.picturesofherpes.co/
I got linked here from a group I respect. Excuse my lack of adulation for this article, which seems like feminist agonizing that things aren’t perfect. They aren’t for men, either, and never have been. Life is hard, and it ain’t fair, and no amount of legislation, regulation, and court decisions can change that.
As for the poor, burdened woman coming home from work and having to do the “lioness’ share” of chores is an interesting paradox: accountability is joint, credit is not. Every chore a woman does, ennobles her and every “excess” chore proves her husband a selfish brute. No matter how many “traditionally female” chores men do, it’s still not enough, it seems. On top of which, men are still expected to mow the lawn, fix everything from the car to the leaky toilet, and do the heavy lifting (installing air conditioners, DIY remodeling, firewood, etc.), which exist in a vacuum, unworthy of feminist notice, let alone praise.
Women are now huge majorities in higher education and have largely taken over professions (pharmacy, data processing for business, personnel/human resources) that recently had significant male numbers, and are making rapid inroads into others (medicine, engineering, science), displacing men, in addition to the professions they’ve long ago taken over (library, administrative/clerical, teaching/education).
Feminists have everything running in their favor, and employers are dead-scared of offending them for fear of a lawsuit. Most men are cowed and confused, wanting to please, but never able to do enough.
You win, feminists. If this isn’t complete victory, I don’t know what is. What more do you want?
And then they wonder why men don’t give a rat’s patootie about their issues.