Tuesday, May 26, 2009

Women’s Lib Hasn’t Created Happiness

From, of all places, the New York Times:
American women are wealthier, healthier and better educated than they were 30 years ago. They’re more likely to work outside the home, and more likely to earn salaries comparable to men’s when they do. They can leave abusive marriages and sue sexist employers. They enjoy unprecedented control over their own fertility. On some fronts — graduation rates, life expectancy and even job security — men look increasingly like the second sex.

But all the achievements of the feminist era may have delivered women to greater unhappiness. In the 1960s, when Betty Friedan diagnosed her fellow wives and daughters as the victims of “the problem with no name,” American women reported themselves happier, on average, than did men. Today, that gender gap has reversed. Male happiness has inched up, and female happiness has dropped. In postfeminist America, men are happier than women.

This is “The Paradox of Declining Female Happiness,” the subject of a provocative paper from the economists Betsey Stevenson and Justin Wolfers. The paper is fascinating not only because of what it shows, but because the authors deliberately avoid floating an easy explanation for their data.

The decline of the two-parent family, for instance, is almost certainly depressing life satisfaction for the women stuck raising kids alone. But this can’t be the only explanation, since the trend toward greater female discontent cuts across lines of class and race. A working-class Hispanic woman is far more likely to be a single mother than her white and wealthy counterpart, yet the male-female happiness gap holds in East Hampton and East L.A. alike.

Again, maybe the happiness numbers are being tipped downward by a mounting female workload — the famous “second shift,” in which women continue to do the lion’s share of household chores even as they’re handed more and more workplace responsibility. It’s certainly possible — but as Wolfers and Stevenson point out, recent surveys actually show similar workload patterns for men and women over all.

Or perhaps the problem is political — maybe women prefer egalitarian, low-risk societies, and the cowboy capitalism of the Reagan era had an anxiety-inducing effect on the American female. But even in the warm, nurturing, egalitarian European Union, female happiness has fallen relative to men’s across the last three decades.
The author, Ross Douthat, goes on to point out that both feminists and traditionalists can spin this data fit their ideology, then suggests that more “family friendly” policies would help things. Then he says some controversial things, all the while pretending that they are not controversial.
[Liberals and conservatives] should also be able to agree that the steady advance of single motherhood threatens the interests and happiness of women. Here the public-policy options are limited; some kind of social stigma is a necessity. But a new-model stigma shouldn’t (and couldn’t) look like the old sexism. There’s no necessary reason why feminists and cultural conservatives can’t join forces — in the same way that they made common cause during the pornography wars of the 1980s — behind a social revolution that ostracizes serial baby-daddies and trophy-wife collectors as thoroughly as the “fallen women” of a more patriarchal age.
Douthat is wrong about this, but he can’t risk telling the truth in the New York Times. What he calls “a more patriarchal age” was simply a more moral age, at least where sexual morality was concerned.

As recently as the 1960s, Republican Nelson Rockefeller was badly disadvantaged as a presidential candidate because he was divorced. Nobody seemed to mind Ronald Reagan’s divorce in 1980, and in 1992 nobody seemed to mind that Bill Clinton was a serial adulterer -- although that was partly because the mainstream media insisted it could not be discussed.

Douthat concludes:
No reason, of course, save the fact that contemporary America doesn’t seem willing to accept sexual stigma, period. We simply don’t have the stomach for permanently ostracizing the sexually irresponsible — be they a pregnant starlet, a thrice-divorced tycoon, or even a prostitute-hiring politician.

In this sense, ours is a kinder, gentler, more forgiving country than it was 40 years ago. But for half the public, it’s an unhappier country as well.
The problem is: at some point, society has to be willing to say “your actions are immoral, they hurt people, we are going to think badly of you because of them.”

Labels: , ,


Blogger William said...

Actually Doc, we're not supposed to. The Left has declared, and taught the little darlings, that being 'judgmental' is mean and can hurt one's self esteem if you point out that what they're doing is not only stupid and wrong, but that it will eventually hurt them. Goog god, man! You might damage them for life!!

6:46 AM  
Blogger John Pack Lambert said...

Reagan got divorced earlier than Rockefeller. I think the contemporaryness of Rockefeller's divorce hurt him. It is thought that Clinton's adultery caused him to come in 3rd in Utah. I am still shocked that Trump's adultery has not even been widely called out. I also think the attempts to marginalize all men who have been divorced are unwise. Trump's first wife divorced him for adultery. I think this should count more against him than other situations would.

8:55 AM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home