by Gracie Remington
I am not ordinarily a fan of Maureen Dowd, the New York Times’ opinion columnist most known for her flippant overviews of political developments, and her column this Sunday did little to change my mind, although it certainly made me think more than her previous pieces have succeeded in doing. Discussing the current disparity in happiness between men and women, Dowd does not fail to employ her trademark impertinence (opening her column with a back-and-forth between herself and a male friend, who explains away the happiness imbalance by saying that it’s ” ‘Because you care’ ” and because ” ‘you have feelings’ “), but brings up some interesting points along the way.
Results from the General Social Survey, which has studied Americans’ moods since 1972, and five other major studies from elsewhere in the world indicate that women’s happiness is lessening as men’s happiness is increasing. In her column, Dowd outlined various explanations for the happiness inequality, dismissing some in favor of others. The fact that women have more responsibilities in the home, or during the “second shift,” seems to be a poor indicator of increased female unhappiness, as men have moved into the domestic realm and the division of labor is becoming increasingly even between the sexes in regards to domestic work, minimizing the stress and unhappiness that would be disproportionately felt by women as a result of being overburdened by household obligations. Children are brought up as potential mood deflators, and Dowd quotes Betsey Stevenson, the co-author of a paper titled “The Paradox of Declining Female Happiness,” who says, “Across the happiness data, the one thing in life that will make you less happy is having children. It’s true whether you’re wealthy or poor, if you have kids late or kids early. Yet I know very few people who would tell me they wish they hadn’t had kids or who would tell me they feel their kids were the destroyer of their happiness.” The global culture’s obsession with youth is brought up as well, along with various other lifestyle choices that seem to both liberate women while potentially making them sadder.
Dowd closes her column by saying, “Stevenson looks on the bright side of the dark trend, suggesting that happiness is beside the point. We’re happy to have our newfound abundance of choices, she said, even if those choices end up making us unhappier. A paradox, indeed.” How is it that this abundance of choices leaves women less satisfied and more unhappy than their male counterparts, who clearly share many of the same opportunities? How can we as women balance these “choices” in a healthy way that leaves us satisfied and happy? The column in and of itself is noteworthy in that it brings to light an intriguing subject; it does not even begin to answer these types of questions. But perhaps it is something worth thinking about, and talking about: given the choices that we now have, how can we use our newfound opportunities in a way that ultimately makes us happy? Why is that question so difficult to answer?
Any thoughts?
{ 14 comments }
As overt, explicit sexism – and racism, homophobia, etc. – declines, these attitudes manifest in covert, implicit ways. And these covert ways are harder to point a finger at and harder to change. These are the attitudes that women need to be taken care of, there is no sexism today, women just are not as capable as men in some arenas. But all these attitudes are expressed subtly. Men talk to women differently than they do to women. When another factor can explain a sexist remark or decision, that factor is pointed to in order to avoid being labeled as sexist. The implicit associations test (IAT) has clearly demonstrated that most still consider women to be less career oriented and lacking mathematical and science skills, even though when participants are asked about these attitudes, they deny believing this. It’s a cultural thing, and that is a VERY difficult thing to untangle.
Could it be that women experience this subtle, hard to define form of prejudice on a much bigger scale than men and therefore are less happy? And these covert forms of sexism could be increasing as overt forms are waning due to societal pressure to not be sexist. So women know something’s up, can’t point their finger at it, and therefore have no explanation for why they get aggravated or feel discriminated against. That would make anyone unhappy.
Simple answer: the question that GSS uses to measure happiness is a bit shallow and trite, measuring nothing more than an aggregate of individuals’ spontaneous answer to the question: “Generally, how would you say things are these days in your life–would you say that you are very happy, pretty happy, or not too happy?”
The question does not ask men OR women to deeply ponder the satisfaction their life’s choices have provided them. It seems more like the research equivalent of, “What’s up?” then anything we or Dowd should take as a commentary on the status of gender and social relations. Besides, who do you know that feels particularly inspired while filling out a survey?
I think that Kala has a great point, that sexism has hardly gone away but has instead transformed almost totally into a form that is harder to see, harder to call out, and harder to eradicate. I would emphasize the point made by one of the experts in the Dowd article: women throughout most of the world are taught, culturally, that their self-worth is tied to their youth. And youth is inevitably fleeting–no matter any degree of cosmetic enhancement. (This is not to say that men aren’t at all subject to the same paradox. They are, but surely not with the same intensity.)
I also wonder to what extent American men and women (whom the Down piece seems to be about) have internalized sitcom tropes, which are as old as Western civilization itself. You know, in which the typical husband is an irresponsible, laid-back overgrown child and the typical wife is what I like to think of as the “fun-stopper.” (I’m thinking of Everybody Loves Raymond, the Simpsons, and Family Guy, in particular, but there are countless examples. I realize that the cartoons are probably meant to be satires, but satires usually reinforce “types” anyway.) I’m not sure what kind of self-regard and happiness “fun-stoppers” experience. But I’m pessimistic.
I would say Echidne of the Snakes has the best take on this I’ve seen: I Haz Teh Sadz
Thanks for that peanutbutter! It isn’t about Maureen Dowd, but I think you could easily replace her name with Arianna Huffington. I love the opening paragraph:
Because of that crappy post at Huffington Post and the whole idea that women are now terribly unhappy because feminism failed them. Don’t make the mistake of thinking that this isn’t what our Arianna is selling us. She’s very unhappy herself, because she is running a website rather than washing floors back at home. But getting more clicks at the expense of feminists is well worth the tears she sheds.
Didn’t the happiness survey downtick also only occur if you ignored everyone but white respondents? Like, there’d been a fucking massive uptick amongst black women in particular?
““Yet I know very few people who would tell me they wish they hadn’t had kids or who would tell me they feel their kids were the destroyer of their happiness.””
You know, maybe it’s just me, but I look at a statement like the above and think “Yeah, and?” Actually verablizing “If I had it to do over again, my children would not be here” is still an immensely daring thing. There is a very strong social stop to looking at your own children, in whom you’ve invested a great deal and who you presumably love and whose survival and success you have a strong biological imperative to ensure, and think “I would erase this if I could.” It’s difficult enough for women to admit it if they don’t feel some sort of all-consuming love and contentment vis-a-vis their spawn from the second conception occurs.
I’m with Preying Mantis….just because women/parents don’t articulate that they wish they hadn’t had kids doesn’t mean the feelings don’t exist. And hasn’t research been done that has indicated that the happiest couples DON’T have children? American culture really needs to examine this seriously. I know why we avoid it–there’s that insecure, irrational niggling mindset of, “Well, what if EVERYONE felt that way, the planet would be UNDERPOPULATED!!”. Oh Christ…fucking horrors. Americans need to get a grip already. Kids DO NOT equal Utopia. Duh.
It’s actually very doubtful that significant change in happiness has happened at all.
My happiest friends are those without children. A few of my family members have been bold enough to tell me that they love their children, but if they had to do it over again, they wouldn’t have had children.
I’m child free and have never regretted that decision.
Hey, I’d even consider myself happy!
Diana: yes, she wasn’t addressing Dowd’s post, but both articles were talking about the same set of data. I love how she skewers it, too ;-)
I think that it is a case of be careful for what you wish for. As a woman, I wanted equal professional opportunities…in the largest part, I now have them. I wanted to have a sensitive, emotionally open husband…and, to a large part, I have one. I wanted to feel that access to political power was possible, and it certainly is.
Guess what: Professional life is hard, sometimes it absolutely sucks. I wish my husband would stop “sharing”. And, now that I feel that women have access to political power, I realize and appreciate how complicated and glacial the political process is.
Happiness has been defined as the difference between your expectations and your reality. I thought a career, a more openly emotional spouse, a feeling of being a participant in real power would be fulfilling and exciting. It isn’t. Well, sometimes it is…but lots of time it isn’t.
I think this is something men grow up knowing: Work is hard, relationships are hard, power is hard. I just have to put on my big girl underpants and get over it.
This is also self-reported. Why does anyone assume it’s even remotely truthful??? Women are consistently found to sell their abilities and physical appearance short in self-rating surveys, relative to how they are assessed on some sort of standardized scale or by others. Why wouldn’t it be likely that they do the same with their happiness? I know that personally, I have downplayed my own happiness when asked, because I didn’t want to seem like I was bragging to someone I knew was going through a rough patch, comparatively, or like a bit of a brat with a charmed life. Things are always going well, but not *too* well (of course, I say going well even when things suck).
The converse has been found to be true for men. Men always say they’re better at things than they are – why wouldn’t they consciously or unconsciously over-estimate their happiness? It’s macho to be happy – it means you’re successful, in control, where you want to be. Totally not macho to say you’re sad or depressed or worried about your future.
“I think this is something men grow up knowing: Work is hard, relationships are hard, power is hard.”
…I honestly cannot conceive of how growing up female is even the slightest bit different in that regard.
I believe the topic of Ms. Dowd’s latest ramblings were covered twenty something years ago by Shirley Maclaine and Deborah Winger in “Terms of Endearment,” which was, of course, written by a man.
That Maureen writes about the subject as though she’s just personally discovered plutonium is simply annoying, nothing more, nothing less.
M
Comments on this entry are closed.