RE: RE: Independent Women, Throw Your Hands Up?

Annie,

I just laughed out loud at that article you sent me by Katha Pollitt. It starts, "Am I happy? What a stupid question," and keeps getting better. It really ends up being a list of all the flaws in the survey, the commentary by the writers I had mentioned, and Marcus Buckingham's slightly sleazy capitalization on women's "unhappiness."

In any case, I appreciate your honesty about happiness in your own life. I would describe my desire as being not for happiness, but for fullness. And I believe, too, that this fullness arises less out of more perfect circumstances and more out of my ability to be aware and appreciate. But I also don't feel right supposing that, therefore, my 'happiness' (whatever that means!) is totally independent of my social and political status. So, the question, which you've already suggested but I'll point to again is: What is feminism for?

RE: Independent Women, Throw Your Hands Up?

Willie,

The questions "What Is Happiness" and "Are You Happy?" have plagued and provoked me for years. I'm frequently, deeply concerned that normative frameworks of what constitutes wellness - and accordingly "happiness" - are more harmful than helpful.

In my own personal pursuit of self-understanding and well-being, I've found the elusive, variable, and expectation-laden "happiness" a fruitless and frustrating goal. Instead, I strive for and value what I think of as an emotional smorgasbord - a deeply authentic, uninhibited range in affect that I try to stay as attuned to, present with, and accepting of as possible. Quite a lofty ambition, I know! But it feels more honest and self-affirming to me.

While this is a topic that can be (and typically is) considered in regards to humankind at large, I think it's imperative to address the starkly (and disturbingly) gendered dimension of the current cultural commentary that you've brought to light.

Most perplexing to me is the association of the statistical findings (which I'm inherently skeptical of) of women's "unhappiness" with alleged "progress" in the women's movement. First of all, one must identify the goals of the women's movement. Equality? Quality of life? Choice? There are so many variations. And while I don't want to be a bitter 3rd waver, I don't believe there's been as much "progress" as is often presumed. Or what's considered "progress" (entry into hierarchical and patriarchal environments, structures, and roles) rather constitutes "consequences" that contribute to women's unhappiness, insofar as they do not liberate or empower but obligate and impede. I'm speaking here to the limitations of staunch equality-based feminism. There are miles to go before what I consider the most significant ambitions of the "women's movement" are realized - and forgive me for saying this, but let's not subvert our energy and expectations by having "equal happiness" as one of those goals.

Ultimately, I come to the fundamental question: Need we fault feminism? Again? It doesn't even really make sense to me that the women's movement is being blamed, when in fact the "women's movement" has in many ways been in a sort of regression for decades.

I have struggled to come up with any actual answers, instead arriving at and accumulating further observations and questions. But thus the nature of a dialogue, n'est pas? To be continued...

Independent Women, Throw Your Hands Up?

Annie,

Last week, much media attention was paid to new statistics from the General Social Survey claiming that American women's happiness has declined overall since 1972. Every year, women and men have been asked to rate their happiness on a scale of 1 to 3, 1 being "not too happy" and 3 being "very happy." Women's average happiness rating declined from approximately 2.25 in 1972 to approximately 2.17 in 2006. The happiness of men seems to have gone up inversely to women's, crossing paths in the very early 1990's. On top of that, the study found that women's happiness declines as they age, dissatisfaction setting in deeper and deeper with each passing decade (via Marcus Buckingham).

Maureen Dowd called widespread attention to the new data this past Sunday in her column, "Blue is the New Black," which was the single-most emailed article in the last seven days at NYTimes.com. She highlighted the "paradox" of women's increasing opportunities in both public and private life causing women to become "stressed" by all the choice, not to mention the pressure that they put on themselves to perform in every aspect of life. Essentially, she suggested, the women's movement has benefited men more than women.

But should we buy this? Perhaps the women's movement has fallen short of certain goals, but I'm not so sure "happiness" falls into that category. First of all, how do we answer the question, "Are you happy?" Doesn't it mean something different to each person? I agree that women these days are under a lot of pressure from all sides, but I take issue with Marcus Buckingham's observation that, "Women have lives that are becoming increasingly empty, they're doing more and feeling less."

Does unhappiness equal emptiness? Many of the 'great men' and the few 'great women' who are heroicized today struggled with 'unhappiness,' or more accurately, they struggled to answer their own questions about the meaning of their existence. Perhaps for these people, 'unhappiness' came from the knowledge of responsibility for the outcome of public life, or perhaps people who are 'unhappy' are more prone to making beautiful art. On the other hand, I deeply want for my friends and loved ones to be happy, so unhappiness is not something that I welcome with open arms in my own life.

What does this data truly mean? Can we go as far to say that 'unhappiness' is a sign of progress in the women's movement? Or does something else need to change for women to finally have "equal happiness?"

Blog Launch!