Feminism, where art thou?
According to a recent study garnering much media attention, women's experience of happiness has declined in the last 35 years compared to men's This study is important because some use its conclusion to argue feminism has failed to make women happier even though they are more equal, have more rights, and more privileges than ever before. So, why are men happier than women and is feminism to blame?
To answer this question for myself, I decided to go to the source of the conundrum, the study itself. First of all, as might be expected, the authors of the study believe "we might expect to see a concurrent shift in happiness toward women and away from men" in the last 35 years."
So I wonder, why we might think women would be happier in the last 35 years. This assumption is based on the belief that the gains made by feminism would lead to happiness. However, antifeminists have been arguing for decades that feminism creates fundamental losses for women, in notions of gender identity, relationships with men, and self-fulfillment. In their eyes, women can't be happy within feminist social changes because they can't fulfill their feminine destiny.
From Phyllis Schlafly to Camille Paglia, feminism has been questioned for its misunderstanding of the true needs of women. In this perspective, women and men are essentially different, and if women behave as men, ignoring their cultural or biological nature, they are bound to be unhappy. To an antifeminist, this study would not be a surprise, and would, instead, represent the needed wake-up call to women forced into feminist practices that they needed.
Looking further into this study, the authors acknowledge that the social changes spearheaded by feminism has in effect helped men in unexpected ways and put more burdens on women. For example, they acknowledge that women, most often. function outside of the home as supposed equals, while doing more than their fair share of housework at home. From this perspective, feminism has just not gone far enough, and women are functioning now in a double-bind that prevents true happiness. In this state of a social shift from the division of labor provided by gender roles years past, women must behave like their male counterparts while also maintaining their socially feminine roles.
Radical feminists like Shulasmith Firestone warned of this unintended consequence in the early 1970s when she argued for a change in the biological condition of women. In her view, women can never be truly free if in maintaining the division of labor on the historical condition of child-rearing or other examples of sexual dualism. In other words, as long as women and men have certain biological differences, roles and expectations, social equality is never possible.
Yet, the authors of this study find no difference between the happiness experience of women who work outside of the home, have children, are child-less by choice, or function within the social roles determined by feminism or in reaction against feminism. What then, is going on?
One important point made in this study is that women do believe that their lives have improved, and believe that they have more opportunities to be happy. Yet, these same women are less happy when compared to men. This leads to another possible perspective, these women have more, may even have it "all" and what is perceived to be the basis of well-being and happiness just isn't. This conclusion suggests a world of neurotic women who just don't know what they want.
I am not sure how much we can conclude from this study, and I am sure followups will help explain this purported conundrum. But what is truly interesting to me is how this study will be used for various political and social purposes. It might make women consider for themselves, am I truly happy, in comparison to men, in comparison to women prior to feminism, as happy as I might be? I am sure that the responses will range from resentment to feminism, perhaps along the lines of antifeminism, or a belief that feminism hasn't gone far enough, perhaps even as far as a radical feminist argument. I can anticipate, like examined in this article, some questioning whether we, as women, can truly have it all.
Barbara Ehrenreich, argues, that this study shows that women's experience of happiness is disconnected from their social circumstances because, "If you believe Stevenson and Wolfers, women's happiness is supremely indifferent to the actual conditions of their lives, including poverty and racial discrimination. Whatever "happiness" is ..." She even hints that the use of this study is a publicity driven attempt to sell books because it was released two years ago. She points out, " If you want to sell something, first find the terrible affliction that it cures."
I don't think it is helpful to think about women's lack of happiness compared to men as an affliction that needs to be cured, but as a social barometer for understanding our own reactions to social changes and what it might mean for our own lives. It might just be an opportunity to pause and reflect about our assumptions about feminism, happiness, and gender expectations.