Posted on 01/20/2010 10:45:14 AM PST by Kaslin
Last fall, I sat back in my office to read a new journal article in American Economic Journal: Economic Policy. The article, by two professors at the Wharton School of Business, is called “The Paradox of Declining Female Happiness.” Its abstract begins with a very striking sentence:
“The lives of women in the United States have improved over the past 35 years by many objective measures, yet we show that measures of subjective well-being indicate that women’s happiness has declined both absolutely and relative to men.”
The tendency of women’s subjective well-being to decline – both absolutely and relative to that of men – has occurred throughout much of the world. Indeed, men may have been greater beneficiaries of the women’s movement than women themselves. Sexual freedom in the wake of the birth control pill has increased pressure on women to have sex outside of marriage. Abortion has decreased a woman’s bargaining power in the face of unwanted pregnancy.
Declines in happiness resulting from the pressures of single-parenthood would seem to affect both nonwhite women and uneducated white women disproportionately. But no such differences exist. Educated white woman are becoming less happy in the same proportion.
Given that the recent study on declining female happiness uses the GSS, or General Social Survey, feminists teaching in the area of sociology should be especially interested in its results. Those results show that in the 1970s women were more likely than men to report being “very happy.” But this difference began to disappear in the 1980s. By 2006, women were reporting an average level of subjective well-being that is clearly lower than that of men.
What is interesting to note is that happiness among blacks has been steadily increasing during the time that women’s levels of happiness have been declining. Thus, when the authors of this study raise the question of whether “modern social constructs have made women worse off” they call – whether intentionally or not – for closer scrutiny of feminism, rather than progressivism in general.
During the course of my first reading of this fascinating article it was (perhaps) an odd coincidence that I was interrupted by a female student standing in the hall just outside of my office discussing the content of her sociology course with her course instructor. She was actually praising the professor for the profound impact the course was having on her thinking about gender roles. Among the relevant remarks were the following:
“I never really knew, until I took your course, that marriage was oppressive in the sense that it benefits men more than women.”
“I never really considered the fact that a wedding dress is an expression of latent heterosexism.”
“I never really considered the impact of large expensive weddings on the workers who, for example, make wedding dresses. I had never known about the wedding industrial complex as a form of capitalist exploitation.”
It should be noted that the course was taught by a professor who would not allow her daughter to buy a pink bike when she was a little girl. Instead, she made her buy a blue one as an expression of rebellion against gender stereotypes.
Marxism has played an increasingly vital role in the women’s movement in academia, and elsewhere, in recent years. A “critical” discussion of Marxism is, therefore, a good starting point for those who wish to ask whether “modern social constructs have made women worse off.”
Marxists make the fundamental error of assuming that the principal source of evil is the social institution. This is antithetical to the Judeo Christian assertion that the principal source of evil is the human heart. So the Marxist is inclined to attack social institutions without regard to their status within the Judeo Christian tradition.
Aside from this misguided premise - that social institutions are the principal sources of evil in this world – the Marxist feminist is prone to logical error as well. It arises from an inordinate emphasis on equality as an end in the realm of social policy. The fact that women somehow benefit less than men from marriage could be disputed factually. But it is irrelevant.
Both married men and married women are happier than their unmarried counterparts. And, for married women, there is an added bonus: They are clearly safer from violence than unmarried women.
In the final analysis it should surprise no one that blacks are happier in the aftermath of the black civil rights movement. That movement was led by Christians like MLK and it was based on Christian principles.
In contrast, the feminists have placed their faith in Karl Marx. Their movement has become increasing pro-Marxist and has tried to replace marriage and family with promiscuity and abortion. And some still wonder why women are less happy than in years gone by.
Christianity ended slavery and it ended segregation. It is even powerful enough to end feminist anger and reverse the decline in female happiness.
Objectively better off, but subjectively worse off? Hmm, maybe the “objective” measures we’ve invented aren’t quite as accurate as we’d hoped?
But nevermind. You WILL be happy, or else!
aka The grass isn’t always greener..
Yeah, 'cause every guy I know is just begging his girlfriend to get married.
Marriage is a pro-women institution. Just look at polygamist societies and how women fare there.
What has changed over the decades is that women are comparing their own improving lifestyles to those outlandish ones portrayed in the media, and feeling deprived because of it. They sense that everyone else is living the high life while they’re being left behind.
It’s preposterous, but it wouldn’t be the first time that reality has escaped people.
CZJ seems happy not so much Maureen Dowd!
How do you define benefits? By what standard?
“I never really considered the fact that a wedding dress is an expression of latent heterosexism.”
You do realize of course that 'heterosexism' is a word made up by Marxist professors and that it has no real application outside of a College campus. If you were to use that word in a business environment you'd be laughed out of the place.
“I never really considered the impact of large expensive weddings on the workers who, for example, make wedding dresses. I had never known about the wedding industrial complex as a form of capitalist exploitation.”
Do you think it would be better for the dressmakers to starve because they have no job?
I'll bet you dollars to donuts that the 'professor' involved in this conversation is a butt ugly butched up bulldyke man hating lesbian.
It’s a man’s world. We just live in it. Women get the short end of the stick in everything. Women stop having children at 40 or 50. A man can dump the old wife, get a new younger wife, and have more children. I could go on & on.
Interesting article. I wonder, can one be happier but angrier? The reason I ask that is the Mike Adams states that blacks are happier than in the 70’s but my experience has been that they are definitely a lot angrier than it seems they were back then. Of course women seem both less happy and more angry so that at least makes sense to me.
Personal experience tells me that women could care less about marriage until that old biological clock starts ringing. Of course by then who wants them? They’ve been passed around so much that the baggage they carry into a marriage buries it.
“Yeah, ‘cause every guy I know is just begging his girlfriend to get married.”
Not to mention, to spend 3-6 months salary on a shiny rock, and many months and tens of thousands of dollars on planning and implementing a wedding and reception so that she can live out her “Princess” fantasies. See, I always thought the point of getting married was to be married and (hopefully) happy, not as an excuse to have a huge, expensive, stress-inducing wedding.
IMHO TOO MANY WOMEN ARE LOOKING IN ALL THE WRONG PLACES FOR HAPPINESS. THE DECLINE OF HAPPINESS AMONG WOMEN IS THAT THEY HAVE STRAYED FROM THEIR INTENDED PURPOSE IN LIFE; THAT OF NOURISHING THEIR CHILDREN AND AND PROVIDING SUPPORT FOR THEIR MEN. RATHER THEY HAVE LONGED TO REPLACE MEN IN THE WORKPLACE, AND ARE TAUGHT TO LOOK DOWN UPON MOTHERING, COOKING, KEEPING A CLEAN HOUSE FOR THEIR PROVIDERS. THIS IS LARGELY ENGINEERED BY THE PUBLIC SCHOOLS. RATHER THAN PROVIDING WORKSHOP FOR YOUNG MEN, AND HOME ECONOMICS FOR YOUNG WOMEN, THEY HAVE BLURRED THE DIFFERENCES, INTRODUCED SEX ED, MODIFIED BY IMMORAL TELEVISION AT A TAIME IN THEIR LIVES WHEN SPORTS OR SOCIAL ACTIVITY WERE MEANT TO EXHAUST THAT ENERGY. AS LONG AS THIS CONTINUES, AND GOD IS KEPT OUT OF THE CLASSROOM, WOMEN WILL BE UNHAPPY. ALL THE ANSWERS ARE IN THE BIBLE. GOD LOVES EACH ONE OF US. JESUS PATIENTLY AWAITS AN INVITATION INTO OUR HEARTS. HE OFFERS HIS AMAZING PEACE AND PROTECTION TO ALL WHO WILL LOVE HIM. HE IS THE ONLY TRUE SOURCE OF TRUE HAPPINESS.
IMHO TOO MANY WOMEN ARE LOOKING IN ALL THE WRONG PLACES FOR HAPPINESS. THE DECLINE OF HAPPINESS AMONG WOMEN IS THAT THEY HAVE STRAYED FROM THEIR INTENDED PURPOSE IN LIFE; THAT OF NOURISHING THEIR CHILDREN AND AND PROVIDING SUPPORT FOR THEIR MEN. RATHER THEY HAVE LONGED TO REPLACE MEN IN THE WORKPLACE, AND ARE TAUGHT TO LOOK DOWN UPON MOTHERING, COOKING, KEEPING A CLEAN HOUSE FOR THEIR PROVIDERS. THIS IS LARGELY ENGINEERED BY THE PUBLIC SCHOOLS. RATHER THAN PROVIDING WORKSHOP FOR YOUNG MEN, AND HOME ECONOMICS FOR YOUNG WOMEN, THEY HAVE BLURRED THE DIFFERENCES, INTRODUCED SEX ED, MODIFIED BY IMMORAL TELEVISION AT A TAIME IN THEIR LIVES WHEN SPORTS OR SOCIAL ACTIVITY WERE MEANT TO EXHAUST THAT ENERGY. AS LONG AS THIS CONTINUES, AND GOD IS KEPT OUT OF THE CLASSROOM, WOMEN WILL BE UNHAPPY. ALL THE ANSWERS ARE IN THE BIBLE. GOD LOVES EACH ONE OF US. JESUS PATIENTLY AWAITS AN INVITATION INTO OUR HEARTS. HE OFFERS HIS AMAZING PEACE AND PROTECTION TO ALL WHO WILL LOVE HIM. HE IS THE ONLY TRUE SOURCE OF TRUE HAPPINESS.
I totally agree with you. In my feminist days of trying to be a man, I was terribly unhappy because a woman can only be a second rate man at best. I finally gave all that crap up and realized that the things that made me happy were my children, husband, home and just being a girl. Pretending to be a man was just too hard. I am so content and happy now. My husband is so thankful too!
I have a golf buddy, mid-50's with his last kid in college. He's a GREAT kid, college athletic star, but he's playing for free, because he's making such good grades the college has him on a nearly full-ride academic scholarship. His athletic talents aren't costing the school a nickel.
I suggested he have another child a couple of years ago - he's done such a fabulous job of parenting, I thought he should "take another victory lap", so to speak.
I thought we were going to get into a fist fight. I haven't raised the idea since!!
GOD BLESS YOU. WHAT A WONDERFUL WITNESS YOU ARE! I AM SO HAPPY FOR YOU.
Wow, you mean workers actually have to make these dresses? You mean they don't, like, grow them on a farm or something? That's just awful, all that exploitation of those poor workers! Why it's like one big industrial wedding complex, like another Halliburton, and I bet George Bush and Dick Cheney are making lots of money off of it...
(Sorry, just doing my best impression of a "dumb blonde" here.)
In the past, men who did such things were shamed. But the liberals decided back in the sixties that the idea of shame caused much unhappiness. If we could get rid of it, we'd all be happier. Hasn't worked out that way.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.