There has been some recent discussion in the press and the blogosphere of a study by sociologists Bradford Wilcox and Steven Nock purporting to show that married women with traditionalist values are more likely to be happy than married women with feminist values. My first thought upon hearing of this study was: "Oh for Pete's sake: of course women with traditionalist views are more likely to be happy. They aren't fighting an uphill battle against ingrained behavioral and cultural patterns. They aren't trying to grab the brass ring of success on masculine terms while simultaneously being held to a standard of good parenting and homemaking that still generally applies only to women. They aren't working full time in a demanding job only to come home to find that they are primarily responsible for all the housework and childcare." Women with feminist values are obviously going to be a tadsy bit frustrated.
My second thought in response to this study is why the heck am I constantly seeing articles that pose this question of whether feminism makes women happy? It's the wrong question! We never see articles that talk about whether democracy will make the Iraqis happy or whether equal rights for African-Americans have made them happy or whether our civil liberties make us Americans happy. I don't think those who fought the American Revolution said to themselves, "Wouldn't we be happier if we simply accepted taxation without representation rather than fighting this rather unpleasant war?"
To frame the effectiveness of feminism in terms of whether it makes women happy is just one more way of patronizing women. It smacks of, "Oh, but the slaves are so well-fed and content on the plantation" or "you'll be so much if it happier simply accepting the status quo rather than challenging it." For example, I might very well be happier than I am now if I were a well cared for corgi, or a five-year old child, or someone who has had a lobotomy. But that doesn't mean that becoming a corgi or reverting to childhood or having a lobotomy are acceptable outcomes. I wouldn't wanna be happy if it meant giving up freedom and equality and respect.
Feminism is about freedom and equality of opportunity for women as a class. Happiness, in turn, is up to the individual and there are no guarantees. To require feminism to serve up happiness on a platter for women is to ask of it something that is not asked of any other political or cultural movement or philosophy. And I think it's disingenuous.
excellent point.
I think we should commission a study to find out whether college educated people are happier than non-college educated people. Or perhaps whether men who are married to Democrats are happier than men who are married to Republicans. Or whether we are happier when our in-laws live more than 200 miles away.
Posted by: will | March 13, 2006 at 02:45 PM
Tee hee. Long time, no see Will! Sorry I was a bit anti-social last week.
Posted by: The Happy Feminist | March 13, 2006 at 02:58 PM
Hi Happy. I had a busy week last week too. So it was good that you were not there to distract me from preventing justice.
Posted by: will | March 13, 2006 at 03:03 PM
I think I do remember seeing an article that said that people with more education are less likely to be happy, by some measure or another. A quick google didn't turn it up, though, so I'm not sure where I saw it or if I just dreamed it up. I've sometimes wondered if I'd be happier if I didn't know so dang much about things, but giving up interests for the sake of peace of mind just isn't an option. The next best thing would have to be doing something with that knowledge, I guess.
And on the actual topic of the post, was there any control for financial status? Seems to me if a family can afford for one parent to stay at home, that'd mean they're under less stress to make ends meet than a family where both parents must work to stay afloat.
Posted by: Tamakazura | March 13, 2006 at 03:08 PM
great point Happy. I've seen similar comments about the "duh" reaction to this study elsewhere, but your illumination of why this is a stupid/patronizing question to ask in the first place really brings it home.
I think its also something to battle on a daily basis - the desire to stick one's head in the sand because the daily stuff gets so exhausting that there is no energy left to challenge sexist norms can be overwhelming. Even though I'm angry more of the time (aah, just like college) now that I've discovered all these fabulous feminist blogs that remind me of all the crap in the world (or should I say a different range of crap than what you read in the MSM), I'd rather be angry than unknowing. The hilarious snark of these blogs makes it all worthwhile.
Posted by: j0 | March 13, 2006 at 04:13 PM
So the traditional people like me aren't smart enough to know if we are happy? If someone asks me if I'm happy I think I should know whether I am a SAHM or not. It is a pretty easy question. I am happier now than when I worked my very high stress job as a nurse. I can't imagine trying to do both now.
Yes, my sister is one of those people out there who choose to stay home with her kids even though finances are really tight. They are able to budget accordingly. She does this because she believes that this is the best way to raise children.
I understand that some feminists just want the choice to stay at home or work and be treated fairly. I am all for that but just because a woman makes the choice it doesn't mean it is the RIGHT choice. I think if a woman sacrifices her children for career she is making the WRONG choice.
BTW, how many people out there are mothers who commented on this post? Just curious. When you have children of your own your opinions and beliefs change alot. I know mine did.
Posted by: Zan | March 13, 2006 at 05:10 PM
Hi Zan -- I am so glad you're still here reading! I hope your health and that of your soon-to-be-born baby is good.
I don't see anyone saying that traditional people aren't smart enough to know if they're happy.
I am just happiness ain't everything. I am sure most traditionalists would agree!
Posted by: The Happy Feminist | March 13, 2006 at 06:56 PM
I have tried to beat into my son's brain that his happiness is 10 percent what happens to him and 90 percent how he reacts to those events. He is in control of his happiness. (I think I stole that from Charles Sidnore or something like that.)
Posted by: will | March 13, 2006 at 07:44 PM
Funny thing, the people around me whom I suspect of being miserable--certainly the ones who seem oblivious to the suffering of others--are often the very ones obsessed with happiness. Happiness becomes for them a kind of benchmark for zero-sum success.
I'm with Kazantzakis, another unruly Greek. His epitaph: "I have no hope. I have no fear. I am free."
Forgive him a twinge of renunciatory machismo. He is hinting that happiness is just another pursuit, and it is better to be free of such vanities altogether. (Does one sound barbaric yawps from "happiness" ?)
Paradoxically, for me, this little quotation shifts the whole context of what 'prosperity means', aligning it with the deeper sense of simply "having" peace of mind.
Posted by: Hypatia's Father | March 13, 2006 at 09:16 PM
If someone asked me in a survey if I was happy, my first question would be, "Happy about what?" I can be happy with my spouse, but unhappy with the job market, or unhappy with the public school system, or unhappy with the way our government is going, and a whole host of things. But personal happiness and happiness for the rest of my community, or society as a whole - or the future of the UNIVERSE (okay, I hyperbolize, obviously), is not the same thing.
Me being happy is not enough.
Posted by: h sofia | March 14, 2006 at 12:47 AM