Why feminism makes women unhappy
According to a study by US National Bureau of Economic Research women today are not any happier than they were 40 years ago. They’ve actually grown more and more unhappy in comparison to men during this time period, in spite of getting more rights, education and income.
There are a number of theories on this but no one knows exactly why. Some say it’s the fact that women are rised to be pleasing and nurturing and feel uncomfortable in competitive situations. Others claim it is related to the increasing divorce rate but, according to the article refering to the study, this doesn’t match the happiness levels of women who divorced.
Although there are no convincing evidence there is, says Andrew Oswald, professor of economics at Warwick University, a “lead theory that women’s lives have become more complicated in many dimensions, unlike men who have to balance a smaller number of balls.
Personally I think Oswald is partially right, but more to the point I think that gender equality lowers womens life quality, at least in the Western world. Women simply don’t marry men who earn less than they do. Here in Sweden, one of the most equal countries in the world, even the elite feminists manage to find men with higher income or education than themselves. And there aren’t a lot of men to choose from.
This is hardly surprising. There is a body of evidence that shows that men and women prefer to live in relationships where the man earns more than the woman. There is also evidence that suggests that the opposite leads to divorce. So as womens incomes rise the number of available men decline. This means that todays women can’t find men, or live in shorter unsatisfying relationships. Regardless of marital status they will be unhappier than back when they made less money.
But if so, why aren’t men equally unhappy? Because they don’t care as much about long term relationships as women. Sure, men can enjoy longer more meaningful relationships, but it’s nothing they actively search for. Men don’t read books on how to form long term relationships or how to fix a relationship that is deteriorating. They read books on how to pick women up. And the book women should read if they want a realistic approach is the one that featured in a Saturday Night Live sketch, entitled “No, He’s Not Out There”. It’s a cruel irony that feminism has succeeded in giving women what they thought they wanted, but ultimately left them worse off than before.
So is it time to turn the clock back? No, that’s hardly a realistic option. But maybe if we created a more equal society people in which money wasn’t such a big deal then more marriages would work. If we spread the wealth, as Obama puts it, we would also spread a little more happiness.
Filed under: Economy, Politics | 14 Comments
Tags: Andrew Oswald, feminism, happiness, National Bureau of Economic Research
Wow, I am totally appalled at this post. Women are unhappy because of feminism? Where is your correlation betweemn feminism and women’s happiness? I’d really like to see that study. The study (which I can’t read because you didn’t link to it properly) is about women’s happiness. How can you make an assumption about something that does not go hand in hand with another?
You are making assumptions about each gender (for ex: “why aren’t men equally unhappy? Because they don’t care as much about long term relationships as women.” or “Women simply don’t marry men who earn less than they do”). You are reiterating stereotypes left and right.
When you show me that correlation between feminism and women’s happiness, I’d be more than happy to reconsider your argument.
Hi Emily and thanks for your input.
There is no free full text version of the text but here’s an abstract: http://www.nber.org/papers/w14969
About the correlation between feminism and happiness: it’s well known that women earn more relatively to men than in previous decades. Also, I think few would argue that feminists have not, at least partially, contributed to this. At the same time, according to this study, womens happiness has declined. So there is clearly a correlation. This of course does not mean that feminism causes unhappiness; that’s just my theory.
What you call stereotypes is simply my experience. I don’t know any men who read self-help books about relationships or show an interest in any other way. And some of them believe in alien abductions, so it can’t be a question of conformism. Am I just ignorant; are there books for men on these topics that sell just as well? And I hardly know any couple where the man earns less, which seems odd considering that women’s incomes are only 14 percent less than men’s (here in Sweden).
If you’re theory is that feminism causes unhappiness, then that’s quite alright. But realize that your theory has no backing.
In regards to your personal experiences, you did not specify that and made generalizations about gender. I think you are ignorant in making assumptions about gender: not all women read about self-help books, and no all men believe in alien abductions.
I think it’s quite interesting that you are making assumptions about gender considering that Sweden is a country that actually treats women and men equally (compared to other countries, such as the U.S., where laws for equality of genders do not equal treatment)—but then again that is my own generalization.
You are right: if you take a poll of all the heterosexual couples in the world (because there are, in fact, homosexual couples as well), the majority of women would be making less money than their counterparts. But again, where is the correlation between earning less money and being happy? And then between being happy and feminism? Again, this is your theory that doesn’t really have any backing.
I’m not sure you understand the concept of correlation. It only means that the variables (such as income and happiness) go together or go in opposite directions. So if women’s incomes rise while their happiness declines there is a correlation. My theory has backing in that it explains this correlation; it fits the data. I don’t claim to prove that feminism, via higher incomes actually causes unhappiness, but none of the theories in the article does anything like that either. So I reckon my theory is as good as any.
It’s impossible to make any theories about groups without making generalizations. But what is the alternative? Should we abandon the idea of even making such theories?
Anytime a male person makes a point that “appears” to diminish the importance of feminism, there will always be fierce oppositions no matter how valid is the argument. I think this controversial issue is probably best be addressed by a woman.
I’m not sure that would help. Feminists usually dismiss women who oppose them as being naive or traitors to the cause. It’s their way or no way. Which inevitably plays into the hands of those who really want to turn the clock back.
taking this dbate to India i recently commented non why even educated families fear girl child! http://omsherryom.wordpress.com/2009/06/19/why-girl-child-is-feared-even-in-educated-families/
So its not about controlling women rights its about that women (throughout the world) have not been able to control their rights! So in race to match-up with men they are panicking and hence are unhappy in someway or the other…
Clearly India is different from the general Western perspective that I wrote from. It may be that womens rights if implemented rigidly to a traditional society will cause a lot of problems. Although I am a bit skeptical of your view that women instigate most crimes they fall victim to. But I think I know what you mean. I was once in a bad neighbourhood with another guy in the middle of the night and we met this girl who was coming on to the both of us. That is of course her right but it makes you wonder. If I had the right to jump in with the lions at the zoo I wouldn’t exercise that right.
Happiness has just used throughout history to justify oppression – from colonialism to slavery (empire as happiness mission, the pre-colonial other imagined as ‘the unhappy race’) to gender inequality (women should not read too many books as this creates desire, which will cause unhappiness) to homophobia (gays are inevitably unhappy therefore they should be converted). As Beauvoir said in her The Second Sex ‘it is always easy to describe as happy the situation in which one wishes to place others’. Those who fight to expand people’s horizons of choice are always accused of causing unhappiness. If they do, then they should! See my forthcoming book, The Promise of Happiness, if this is interesting to you!
If happiness is used to justify something that it doesn’t deliver it, then happiness itself is not the problem but dishonesty.
“Those who fight to expand people’s horizons of choice are always accused of causing unhappiness. If they do, then they should!”
I find this statement hard to understand. Most people want to be happy, but we should force them to expand their horizons instead? To me that sounds like Enlightenment meets DDR.
The way I see it you won’t get anywhere by forcing your ideas on others; you can only point out directions. Like saying more gender equality seems to led to less happiness and then let people choose for themselves. But be prepared that most people have no desire to be miserable like Beauvoir.
In your research profile (http://www.gold.ac.uk/media-communications/staff/ahmed/) you write: “In this book, I explore how the freedom to pursue ‘whatever’ makes us happy is directive: we are free to pursue this ‘whatever’ on condition that it causes happiness, which as a condition involves an implicit demand that we make certain choices.”
But 99 percent (in my experience) of the population want happiness so this “directiveness” is never a problem for them. And people who “fight to expand people’s horizons” are just as directive and in the opposite direction. It seems to me like you’re complaining about the fact that society or some other agent is messing with one percent of the people, but you yourself want to mess with the other 99 percent.
Happiness for a woman comes from being selfless not selfish.To nurture and not demand nurturing. From giving love and not having a warped definition of love.To smell the top of a babies head,not to smell the stench of hopping from bed to bed. Happiness for a woman is the realization of an instinct that can only be satisfied by filling that instinct.The feminist that obtained their alpha male postition find that position very empty and without real reward. Because the good future fathers and husbands that they conquered don’t want anything to do with that mentality. Because you see, men and instinct too, and as much as women want to sissy them down, the instinct cannot be stifled!!! See happiness is two people caring for each other in a way that is not compatible with feminism.
Shellie: I think you may be oversimplifying a little. It’s not all instinctual. Most people will do what their neighbor do so social pressure is also a factor. And there are individual differences. Some people stay close to the norm while others can do things their own way and resist the outside pressure. Some are very driven by their instincts and some have more disposable energy, as Jung puts it. But society cannot be built on these exceptions. And that’s why feminism is the wrong way. It’s an airy-fairy idea.
There are several factors that may have caused an increase of unhappiness in women today in America. I don’t even see how feminism plays a role, however. How can u reject equality!? I personally think the main reason for this unhappiness is the standards so many teens and young women have to live up to. America, is no doubt, a country that is obsessed with sex and women are most often (SO much more often than men) presented nude or at least half nude; you can find images of nude or partially nude women anywhere and everywhere in the media and in American society. Those women are often tall, and extremely thin and are beautiful and have amazing bodies (of course several times with the help of plastic surgery or photoshopping). I believe more feminists need to go out there and spread the word because even after all these years, there are still so many injustices done to women in society , and in fact, more problems have arisen, as I’ve listed above. And I don’t understand your argument; women in AMERICA have a lower happiness level- America is STILL largely a patriarchal society, whereas Swedan has more equality between the genders, but does not have a deecrease in happiness.. your argument doesn’t make sense in the least bit.
Sheereen: You say that Swedes happiness is not decreasing. I’m not sure that’s right but if you could give me your source on that I’d be grateful. It does not, however, contradict my argument. Compared to USA, Sweden is more equal both economically and with regard to gender. So it’s reasonable to assume that money is a bigger issue in the US than in Sweden. Although I suspect the situation is fairly similar in most Western nations. You’ll see the same films, magazines and ads with photoshopped women here as in the US.
If you disagree with my theory would you say that women are ok with marrying men who earn substantially less than they do? Or are they ok with being alone? It’s hard not to draw that conclusion.