COMMENTS: 49
Are Women Today Really More Unhappy?
Sign up to stay up to date on the latest Reproductive Justice headlines via email.
Women: you are all terribly sad now. This, anyway, is the message of "The paradox of declining female happiness," a new study by Betsey Stevenson and Justin Wolvers of the University of Pennsylvania. The study, which takes into account various happiness surveys - these exist! And people are paid to conduct them! - from the 1970s to the present, comes to some fairly troubling conclusions: although women have better educations, better pay, more sexual and reproductive freedom, and a greater capacity for self-determination than ever before, we're less happy than ever.
"Women have become less happy, both absolutely and relative to men. Women have traditionally reported higher levels of happiness than men, but are now reporting happiness levels that are similar or even lower than those of men," quoth the study. It's a fairly sensational point. (Feminism has betrayed women! Don't you miss the days when all you had to worry about was birthing babies, cleaning kitchens, and satisfying your man? Well, you should!) However, as you read the study - which I have done, at great risk to my own personal happiness - it becomes clear that it isn't the whole story.
The questions raised by the research are many. For example: is it really wise to trust a study that cites the "Virginia Slims American Women's Opinion Polls?" Is it useful to come to conclusions about "women" as a whole from a study that cites strong upwards trends in happiness for both black men and black women (black women, it is noted, were less happy than black men in 1972; the opposite is true now), then abruptly switches back to lamenting those poor, depressed white ladies? Why focus on (white) women's declining happiness, when the fact is that both (white) women and (white) men have had an overall happiness decline? How does the narrative about declining female happiness fit in with the fact that fewer women now commit suicide? And, last but most certainly not least, why does a study of such a fuzzy and subjective thing as "happiness" or "satisfaction" mean anything at all? Can't overall quality of life be measured by looking at harder, more objective data: things like crime rates, rates of unemployment or underemployment, or access to basic needs such as adequate health care and education? People can always find something to complain about, after all. That doesn't mean that their lives haven't objectively improved.
Yet the "happiness" question is interesting, precisely because it is so subjective. As Susan Faludi noted in her seminal work, Backlash, one of the primary tactics of anti-feminists is the argument that the freedoms provided by feminist progress will ultimately ruin women's lives. Women have access to birth control and abortion? Trot out the old biological clock, and tell women they'll die childless if they don't conceive in their mid-twenties! Women are delaying marriage, and going for serial monogamy or casual sex instead? Tell them that it's more likely for them to be struck by lightning than to find a husband after the age of 30, and that hooking up lessens their "market value" for the menfolks! (Of course, there is a certain kind of woman that doesn't necessarily want to get married, and is frankly repelled by the idea of dating a man that would assign her "value" corresponding to her sexual inexperience or lack thereof: the anti-feminist answer to this, of course, is always some variant on, "oh, you will care - when it's too late.") Women have greater access to the professions of their choice? Say, does anyone have some stereotypes of bitter, unfulfilled, unfeminine career women to throw around?
Yet, when you look at the study, without the sensationalist "women: now sad" trappings, it doesn't seem to convey that women are descending into the black pits of despair. What it says is that women and men now experience similar levels of happiness: there's been an overall happiness decline (well, unless you take the increased happiness of black people into account - which, again, the study doesn't; nor does it seem to address other people of colour), with women's being slightly more precipitous than that of men. In other words, as women and men have become more equal, their subjective experiences of life have become ... more equal. Shocking!
Well, not if you're a feminist. The point of the movement has always been that women and men are more alike than they are different, and that it doesn't make sense to assign limited roles or grant access to social power and status based on something as arbitrary as gender, rather than talent or intelligence or work ethic.
It makes sense, doesn't it? If you have a job, you can lose your job. If you have sexual freedom, and the ability to try out multiple relationships before settling down (if you ever want to settle down), you're also going to break up with more people. If you have the ability to choose what you want to do with your life, it's also possible to fail at what you've chosen. That's true for everyone.
But oh, how infatuated the world at large seems to be with female failure! The old restrictions have lessened, but haven't gone away, and women are constantly being bombarded with contradictory expectations: be as good at your job as any man, but never lose that special feminine touch. Be pretty and sexy, but not so pretty and sexy that people can't take you seriously - and, for the love of God, not so sexy that you actually wind up having lots of sex. Get an education, work hard, be ambitious - but don't be so focused on your career that you can't find time for your man or your inevitable babies. Speaking of those babies, you should be having them, don't you think? Remember how sad you'll be if you don't have the babies! And, about the success thing: you should have some, but not too much of it. You don't want to scare the men off by getting more attention than they do.
If women are less happy than men, maybe it's just because they have more to work at than men, and therefore more chances to screw up. Which brings me to the main thing I learned from this study: we're not done yet. By the time that we are, it won't make sense to measure happiness - or any other basic human experience - by gender. We'll all just be people.
Stay up to date with the latest Reproductive Justice headlines via email
Comments are closed-
Posted by: joeocho88 on May 23, 2009 2:41 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Women who get married and have kids are usually dumped for the latest new sweetie and she is stuck trying to cadge child support out of some dude who ends up kicking her to the curb and kids too more likely than not and then she has to get a job to support them and if she is not well connected, she is in trouble.
Women are told they can have it all.
Motherhood is NOT fulfilling when you can't trust the father of the kid to stay around adn help you raise it.
NONE of the social service agencies will help a woman who wisely decides she can't afford a kid, But she won't get any help if she doesn't have a kid.
And by the time a woman is 50, if she is not rich and a celebrity she is considered WASHED UP, NO GOOD, USED UP and DISPOSABLE. Look at the reaction Susan Boyles got on the Britian Has Talent audition to see how older women are regarded. It is even WORSE DISCRIMINATION in the workplace.
With no children, if you have no family to fall back on to help you and you worked the kind of jobs so many women have without a pension and not able to save anything -- the older woman is pretty much stuck in a limbo of HELL/ Too old for the job market and too young of Social Security retirement.
AND NOBODY IN THE GOVERNMENT SEEMS TO CARE BECAUSE THERE ARE NO PROGRAMS THAT WILL HELP PEOPLE IN THIS AGE DEMOGRAPHIC!
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: WHERE ARE ALL OF THOSE EQUAL RIGHTS WOMEN ARE SUPPOSED TO HAVE?
Posted by: cordas
Comments are closed-
» RE: The only people that benefit from the Feminist movement are misanthropes like me.
Posted by: uncertain
» "Child-Man" article
Posted by: peacemom528
» We’ll see what you have to say if your son knocks some chick up.
Posted by: Honky the Nihilist VI
» I would rather be a cow than a jackass....
Posted by: Gravitas
» Korean women have high rates of completed suicides...
Posted by: olderworker
» says how?
Posted by: Honky the Nihilist VI
» WTF, man?
Posted by: login@bugmenot.com
» If this were 1969...
Posted by: BlueTigress
» Really liked you post, Honky
Posted by: Dboy
» RE: The self fulfilling prophecy.
Posted by: eklawson
» RE: The self fulfilling prophecy.
Posted by: Dboy
Comments are closed-
Posted by: kepstein7777 on May 23, 2009 4:27 AM
Current rating: 2 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Coming from the left or the right, the idea that women have it harder than men, or are less happy than men, is--as the article admits--subjective. It would be fun to say that women just complain more, are more emotional, or are never satisfied no matter what. But as far as I can tell, women seem just as happy as men, and any perception of unhappiness relative to men is mostly politically-motivated noise and media hype generated to sell books and magazines. And to the article's credit, it seems to acknowledge this.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: ellie on May 23, 2009 5:14 AM
Current rating: 1 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
the biggest sticking point seen so far in the university 18-23 year old group of women I know is to child or not to child in the first place... the issue of marriage is becoming less important...
the prospects of being able to earn a living is becoming a larger concern with leaning towards the odds of not being able to have kids at all... either through biology (older first time mothers) or finances...
men in this age group seem to have stronger feelings about delaying or forfeiting marriage and many may not have kids at all except by accident... the sentiment is that if you can't afford to have kids and raise them according to your own family standards for a baseline, better not having kids at all...
feminism has nothing to do with these decisions, economics are taking center stage in new family formation concerns... these students are quite aware they may not be able to provide the same standard of living they had growing up or even close to their parents, so many are deciding to opt out of creating their own new family and children...
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: terradea42 on May 23, 2009 5:34 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
A majority of Americans seem to think that women aren't worthy of Constitutional protection.
That realization alone makes me less happy.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Ever actually read the constitution?
Posted by: Q30
» JIMMY CARTER WANTED IT TO GO DOWN IN HISTORY THAT HE HAD TRIED. BUT
Posted by: Raymond Emerson
Comments are closed-
Comments are closed-
Posted by: davy on May 23, 2009 6:50 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Observer
Posted by: VZEQICVA
Comments are closed-
Posted by: micko on May 23, 2009 8:25 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: micko
Posted by: Dboy
Comments are closed-
Posted by: sherry on May 23, 2009 8:38 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: too bad
Posted by: VZEQICVA
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Gravitas on May 23, 2009 8:54 AM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Materialism. We are taught to judge our worth by our wealth. We measure our success relative to others. But it is this 'keep up with the Jones," shop "therapy," stuff overload that is making us miserable. It takes up our time and kills us with debt and financial insecurity.
Image Obsession. Surveys still suggests that many women think their number one worry is their weight. They still buy into what the media tells them they should look like. That is either impossible or a full time job for many. Who can be happy after spending 2 hours on a commute, 8 hours in the workplace,(especially if you don't like your job) 2 or 3 more hours on housework, then having to exercise for the rest of their free time to look like some media clone??? Women feel guilty for every bite they put in their mouths. NEVER eating for pleasure is as puritanical as believing sex has no purpose other than procreation. And of course no matter what they do, they will age......
Myself personally, I create my own definition of happiness. I find the less stuff I have, the happier I am. The less I watch t.v, the more I can define myself instead of letting advertisers do that for me. I love my body and my curves and strive for a healthy balance, not a number on a scale. I HATED being married, by love my "friends with benefits" relationship with a firefighter. I pay a price in terms of social acceptance, but I am still happier than going along with the crowd.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: VZEQICVA on May 23, 2009 9:18 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: oregoncharles on May 23, 2009 10:15 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
One way to be happy is to set very low standards. When the culture did that for women, and they bought it, they may well have been happier - or more willing to say that they were. It's a slippery concept, as the author points out.
Furthermore, there's "all you had to worry about." That isn't just a low standard; it's a high level of certainty in your life. Freedom and equality come with a lot of choices and a lot more chances to screw up. Ambitious people are rarely "happy" - even if they're successful.
But there's more, and here I think the women's movement was at fault: it set the goal of adopting men's role, without first asking men whether that was a good idea (I'm not theorizing: I was there). If we'd been asked, we could have told them they were welcome to it; we didn't want it anymore. It was a sucker's move, and the subject of considerable debate at the time. In practice, women were fairly selective about it: not all that many wanted the dangerous or icky jobs men were doing. But that wasn't the movement's doing.
We also, as a society, failed to think out the implications of equality. Who IS going to take care of the kids, the house, etc.? We needed something like a shorter workweek, so that these tasks could be shared. Rethinking some of them, like housework, would have helped, too. We're still working on those adjustments.
I remember when these reports that women weren't all that "happy" first started appearing - about the time their movement into the workforce was pretty complete. I thought, and think, it was stickershock: "It's really like this?"
Which leads us to the next big challenge: rethinking the workplace. That's a big challenge, and one the sexes now have an equal stake in. A financial and economic collapse might be a good time to work on it.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: The Trick
Posted by: fork
» Very Well Said!
Posted by: Red State Gal
Comments are closed-
Posted by: rastaman on May 23, 2009 10:19 AM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
not the kind of "princess happiness" these spoiled brats have been spoon fed all their lives....but the kind of "coming home" happiness that we all search for.
of course, being the ID (amoral) of the two sexes, most couldn't even begin to formulate this. even if they could, they are so enveloped in their own fear and cowardice that it would not be attainable. most have been living in a lie for so long that the truth becomes the enemy.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Women in General are Preprogrammed Automatons....
Posted by: Bright Penny
» RE: Women in General are Preprogrammed Automatons....???
Posted by: VZEQICVA
» Preprogrammed Automatons....& "Princess Happiness"?
Posted by: mcubed
Comments are closed-
Posted by: countingdaisies on May 23, 2009 12:08 PM
Current rating: 2 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Pirate1 on May 23, 2009 1:04 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: ladyoracle on May 23, 2009 7:38 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Right now the site for struggle over what this term means and onto whom it can be bestowed is being artificially made into a gender issue, as the writer points out noting that perhaps instead there's a race/class issue.
Perhaps instead we should look at the contradictory messages we get from media/entertainment, family, traditional values, commercials, etc. There are so many ways to get "happiness" that one person (male or female) can't possibly live up to all of them. To determine whether anyone is happy, one must first define what kind of happiness one refers to, and then it will probably look more like satisfaction or contentment, not some sustained state of euphoria (those people scare me). Most of the people who've commented on this article and claimed to be happy have found happiness out of the mainstream, so in a survey they might not look like they have anything to be happy about.
The writer mentions several times that her source ignores that blacks are more happy than before, but she doesn't investigate why that might be true either. How about a survey that not only asks if you are happy, but also asks what you think happiness is and how you have come to that set of ideas about the term. I think then we will learn something about men, women, ethnic identities, and our obsession over happiness.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: RHad on May 24, 2009 11:09 AM
Current rating: 2 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There is one standard for men.
There is one standard for women.
Yes, physiology, psychology and biology dictate that these are indeed different standards, particularly when it comes to sexual relationships. A double standard might apply should you have two standards for a group of men, or for a group of women. A double standard simply cannot exist among two different subsets.
Having different standards for men and women, then, does not constitute a "double standard." It constitutes reality. Just because you hear this term used incorrectly does not mean you too may use it incorrectly. Unless, of course, you're trying to push some sort of sham sexual agenda.
So once again for the class, when it comes to comparing men and women, the term "double standard" does not apply or even make sense. Apples and oranges. Please refrain.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: avabird on May 24, 2009 12:11 PM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: rjs on May 24, 2009 5:57 PM
Current rating: 1 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
They might act happy, they might smile, but it lasts such a short time before they find the need to be what they are.... women.
I have however met a few that seem to have a certain happiness about themselves, but very few. Those very few are indeed the minority. And very special people.
....
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Raymond Emerson on May 24, 2009 6:35 PM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Thirtieth place. That is where the United States stands in the world.We
Posted by: VZEQICVA
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Jaffe on May 25, 2009 10:38 PM
Current rating: 1 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
--We can join the military and torture Muslims like men.
--We can be shit-eating corporate bosses like men.
--We can pee standing up like men.
--We can bullshit about sports like men.
--We can drink and cuss and fuck casually like men.
--We can subscribe to all the social online networks like men.
Sisters, count your blessings. Us women have never, ever had it so good.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Happy Woman
Posted by: Jaffe
» RE: this is true
Posted by: cherylsass123
» RE: this is true part two
Posted by: cherylsass123
Comments are closed-
Posted by: jmmartin on May 26, 2009 7:01 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: cherylsass123 on May 28, 2009 12:31 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
but having veered off the path taken by so many transwoman, which is the " traditional", high femme queen woman; and instead going the angry lesbian-feminist route; I can better understand all this.
so who is most to blame for women supposedly feeling more unhappy? well I'll say both women themselves and, most importantly; those conservative, never old enough to die off and leave the feminists alone, women!
yes, beverly la haye of the " concerned women for america", sarah palin, and others like them.
and also, the many advertising filled women's magazines and paparazzi shit rags seen on every fucking store shelf, in bookstores, salons, drs. offices; and nearly everyplace else! that , and the dating advice " experts" , almost always WOMEN WRITERS, whom write for match.com and many women's magazines.
one look through say, " Real Simple" or
" Woman's Day" and one will come to realize that woman are being told, often buy other women themselves; that they are too fat, don't wear the right makeup, must be more giving to their boyfriends, husbands, future husbands; and yes, must heed the call of that ever ticking biological clock.
being that I've had an ad on match.com under 'women seeking women" [ lesbian and bisexual ] for about 4 months, I have read some of the dating advice these female
" dating gurus" offer; along with the occasional male writer from MAXIM.[ all heterosexual advice, of course!]
This one woman writer literally told women they should "wear their highest heels, classiest, most " feminine" dress, carry that Gucci Purse; and of course expect the man to both pay for their dinner and hold their chair, take their jacket for them. and oh yes, let him take you to a five star restaurant, of course; and never act like you are smarter and have a mind of your own!
reading this shit, I said " gag me! what the fuck? what are we supposed to be looking for? Mr. Financial Wizard Schmuck whom works at AIG or on Wall Street? " the point is this, single, heterosexual women are being told, by other hetero. women themselves; that they must lower their standards and always act the
" lady" in order to win the prize!
that being " Mr. Right" who will not only commit to you forever??? , but will be the leader, the willing husband and father; and yes- the PRIMARY WAGE EARNER! and yes, funny how many so called " feminists" , like my very own married and two-months' pregnant neice in oregon; are buying into this " what it takes to be truly happy" fucking bullshit.
having read a dating advice column for lesbians called the 'four sisters groove', I had noticed how much more focused upon what it REALLY TAKES to make a relationship work; the girls writing it were. now if only the
" fluff and cinderella fairytales" dating advice columnists whom write for match.com/other dating sites, well as nearly every major woman's magazine besides Bitch and Ms. ; would learn something from the four sisters groove; maybe feminist theory will truly evolve!
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: joeocho88 on May 23, 2009 2:41 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Women who get married and have kids are usually dumped for the latest new sweetie and she is stuck trying to cadge child support out of some dude who ends up kicking her to the curb and kids too more likely than not and then she has to get a job to support them and if she is not well connected, she is in trouble.
Women are told they can have it all.
Motherhood is NOT fulfilling when you can't trust the father of the kid to stay around adn help you raise it.
NONE of the social service agencies will help a woman who wisely decides she can't afford a kid, But she won't get any help if she doesn't have a kid.
And by the time a woman is 50, if she is not rich and a celebrity she is considered WASHED UP, NO GOOD, USED UP and DISPOSABLE. Look at the reaction Susan Boyles got on the Britian Has Talent audition to see how older women are regarded. It is even WORSE DISCRIMINATION in the workplace.
With no children, if you have no family to fall back on to help you and you worked the kind of jobs so many women have without a pension and not able to save anything -- the older woman is pretty much stuck in a limbo of HELL/ Too old for the job market and too young of Social Security retirement.
AND NOBODY IN THE GOVERNMENT SEEMS TO CARE BECAUSE THERE ARE NO PROGRAMS THAT WILL HELP PEOPLE IN THIS AGE DEMOGRAPHIC!
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: WHERE ARE ALL OF THOSE EQUAL RIGHTS WOMEN ARE SUPPOSED TO HAVE?
Posted by: cordas
Comments are closed-
» RE: The only people that benefit from the Feminist movement are misanthropes like me.
Posted by: uncertain
» "Child-Man" article
Posted by: peacemom528
» We’ll see what you have to say if your son knocks some chick up.
Posted by: Honky the Nihilist VI
» I would rather be a cow than a jackass....
Posted by: Gravitas
» Korean women have high rates of completed suicides...
Posted by: olderworker
» says how?
Posted by: Honky the Nihilist VI
» WTF, man?
Posted by: login@bugmenot.com
» If this were 1969...
Posted by: BlueTigress
» Really liked you post, Honky
Posted by: Dboy
» RE: The self fulfilling prophecy.
Posted by: eklawson
» RE: The self fulfilling prophecy.
Posted by: Dboy
Comments are closed-
Posted by: kepstein7777 on May 23, 2009 4:27 AM
Current rating: 2 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Coming from the left or the right, the idea that women have it harder than men, or are less happy than men, is--as the article admits--subjective. It would be fun to say that women just complain more, are more emotional, or are never satisfied no matter what. But as far as I can tell, women seem just as happy as men, and any perception of unhappiness relative to men is mostly politically-motivated noise and media hype generated to sell books and magazines. And to the article's credit, it seems to acknowledge this.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: ellie on May 23, 2009 5:14 AM
Current rating: 1 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
the biggest sticking point seen so far in the university 18-23 year old group of women I know is to child or not to child in the first place... the issue of marriage is becoming less important...
the prospects of being able to earn a living is becoming a larger concern with leaning towards the odds of not being able to have kids at all... either through biology (older first time mothers) or finances...
men in this age group seem to have stronger feelings about delaying or forfeiting marriage and many may not have kids at all except by accident... the sentiment is that if you can't afford to have kids and raise them according to your own family standards for a baseline, better not having kids at all...
feminism has nothing to do with these decisions, economics are taking center stage in new family formation concerns... these students are quite aware they may not be able to provide the same standard of living they had growing up or even close to their parents, so many are deciding to opt out of creating their own new family and children...
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: terradea42 on May 23, 2009 5:34 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
A majority of Americans seem to think that women aren't worthy of Constitutional protection.
That realization alone makes me less happy.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Ever actually read the constitution?
Posted by: Q30
» JIMMY CARTER WANTED IT TO GO DOWN IN HISTORY THAT HE HAD TRIED. BUT
Posted by: Raymond Emerson
Comments are closed-
Comments are closed-
Posted by: davy on May 23, 2009 6:50 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Observer
Posted by: VZEQICVA
Comments are closed-
Posted by: micko on May 23, 2009 8:25 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: micko
Posted by: Dboy
Comments are closed-
Posted by: sherry on May 23, 2009 8:38 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: too bad
Posted by: VZEQICVA
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Gravitas on May 23, 2009 8:54 AM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Materialism. We are taught to judge our worth by our wealth. We measure our success relative to others. But it is this 'keep up with the Jones," shop "therapy," stuff overload that is making us miserable. It takes up our time and kills us with debt and financial insecurity.
Image Obsession. Surveys still suggests that many women think their number one worry is their weight. They still buy into what the media tells them they should look like. That is either impossible or a full time job for many. Who can be happy after spending 2 hours on a commute, 8 hours in the workplace,(especially if you don't like your job) 2 or 3 more hours on housework, then having to exercise for the rest of their free time to look like some media clone??? Women feel guilty for every bite they put in their mouths. NEVER eating for pleasure is as puritanical as believing sex has no purpose other than procreation. And of course no matter what they do, they will age......
Myself personally, I create my own definition of happiness. I find the less stuff I have, the happier I am. The less I watch t.v, the more I can define myself instead of letting advertisers do that for me. I love my body and my curves and strive for a healthy balance, not a number on a scale. I HATED being married, by love my "friends with benefits" relationship with a firefighter. I pay a price in terms of social acceptance, but I am still happier than going along with the crowd.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: VZEQICVA on May 23, 2009 9:18 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: oregoncharles on May 23, 2009 10:15 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
One way to be happy is to set very low standards. When the culture did that for women, and they bought it, they may well have been happier - or more willing to say that they were. It's a slippery concept, as the author points out.
Furthermore, there's "all you had to worry about." That isn't just a low standard; it's a high level of certainty in your life. Freedom and equality come with a lot of choices and a lot more chances to screw up. Ambitious people are rarely "happy" - even if they're successful.
But there's more, and here I think the women's movement was at fault: it set the goal of adopting men's role, without first asking men whether that was a good idea (I'm not theorizing: I was there). If we'd been asked, we could have told them they were welcome to it; we didn't want it anymore. It was a sucker's move, and the subject of considerable debate at the time. In practice, women were fairly selective about it: not all that many wanted the dangerous or icky jobs men were doing. But that wasn't the movement's doing.
We also, as a society, failed to think out the implications of equality. Who IS going to take care of the kids, the house, etc.? We needed something like a shorter workweek, so that these tasks could be shared. Rethinking some of them, like housework, would have helped, too. We're still working on those adjustments.
I remember when these reports that women weren't all that "happy" first started appearing - about the time their movement into the workforce was pretty complete. I thought, and think, it was stickershock: "It's really like this?"
Which leads us to the next big challenge: rethinking the workplace. That's a big challenge, and one the sexes now have an equal stake in. A financial and economic collapse might be a good time to work on it.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: The Trick
Posted by: fork
» Very Well Said!
Posted by: Red State Gal
Comments are closed-
Posted by: rastaman on May 23, 2009 10:19 AM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
not the kind of "princess happiness" these spoiled brats have been spoon fed all their lives....but the kind of "coming home" happiness that we all search for.
of course, being the ID (amoral) of the two sexes, most couldn't even begin to formulate this. even if they could, they are so enveloped in their own fear and cowardice that it would not be attainable. most have been living in a lie for so long that the truth becomes the enemy.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Women in General are Preprogrammed Automatons....
Posted by: Bright Penny
» RE: Women in General are Preprogrammed Automatons....???
Posted by: VZEQICVA
» Preprogrammed Automatons....& "Princess Happiness"?
Posted by: mcubed
Comments are closed-
Posted by: countingdaisies on May 23, 2009 12:08 PM
Current rating: 2 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Pirate1 on May 23, 2009 1:04 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: ladyoracle on May 23, 2009 7:38 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Right now the site for struggle over what this term means and onto whom it can be bestowed is being artificially made into a gender issue, as the writer points out noting that perhaps instead there's a race/class issue.
Perhaps instead we should look at the contradictory messages we get from media/entertainment, family, traditional values, commercials, etc. There are so many ways to get "happiness" that one person (male or female) can't possibly live up to all of them. To determine whether anyone is happy, one must first define what kind of happiness one refers to, and then it will probably look more like satisfaction or contentment, not some sustained state of euphoria (those people scare me). Most of the people who've commented on this article and claimed to be happy have found happiness out of the mainstream, so in a survey they might not look like they have anything to be happy about.
The writer mentions several times that her source ignores that blacks are more happy than before, but she doesn't investigate why that might be true either. How about a survey that not only asks if you are happy, but also asks what you think happiness is and how you have come to that set of ideas about the term. I think then we will learn something about men, women, ethnic identities, and our obsession over happiness.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: RHad on May 24, 2009 11:09 AM
Current rating: 2 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There is one standard for men.
There is one standard for women.
Yes, physiology, psychology and biology dictate that these are indeed different standards, particularly when it comes to sexual relationships. A double standard might apply should you have two standards for a group of men, or for a group of women. A double standard simply cannot exist among two different subsets.
Having different standards for men and women, then, does not constitute a "double standard." It constitutes reality. Just because you hear this term used incorrectly does not mean you too may use it incorrectly. Unless, of course, you're trying to push some sort of sham sexual agenda.
So once again for the class, when it comes to comparing men and women, the term "double standard" does not apply or even make sense. Apples and oranges. Please refrain.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: avabird on May 24, 2009 12:11 PM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: rjs on May 24, 2009 5:57 PM
Current rating: 1 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
They might act happy, they might smile, but it lasts such a short time before they find the need to be what they are.... women.
I have however met a few that seem to have a certain happiness about themselves, but very few. Those very few are indeed the minority. And very special people.
....
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Raymond Emerson on May 24, 2009 6:35 PM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Thirtieth place. That is where the United States stands in the world.We
Posted by: VZEQICVA
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Jaffe on May 25, 2009 10:38 PM
Current rating: 1 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
--We can join the military and torture Muslims like men.
--We can be shit-eating corporate bosses like men.
--We can pee standing up like men.
--We can bullshit about sports like men.
--We can drink and cuss and fuck casually like men.
--We can subscribe to all the social online networks like men.
Sisters, count your blessings. Us women have never, ever had it so good.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Happy Woman
Posted by: Jaffe
» RE: this is true
Posted by: cherylsass123
» RE: this is true part two
Posted by: cherylsass123
Comments are closed-
Posted by: jmmartin on May 26, 2009 7:01 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: cherylsass123 on May 28, 2009 12:31 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
but having veered off the path taken by so many transwoman, which is the " traditional", high femme queen woman; and instead going the angry lesbian-feminist route; I can better understand all this.
so who is most to blame for women supposedly feeling more unhappy? well I'll say both women themselves and, most importantly; those conservative, never old enough to die off and leave the feminists alone, women!
yes, beverly la haye of the " concerned women for america", sarah palin, and others like them.
and also, the many advertising filled women's magazines and paparazzi shit rags seen on every fucking store shelf, in bookstores, salons, drs. offices; and nearly everyplace else! that , and the dating advice " experts" , almost always WOMEN WRITERS, whom write for match.com and many women's magazines.
one look through say, " Real Simple" or
" Woman's Day" and one will come to realize that woman are being told, often buy other women themselves; that they are too fat, don't wear the right makeup, must be more giving to their boyfriends, husbands, future husbands; and yes, must heed the call of that ever ticking biological clock.
being that I've had an ad on match.com under 'women seeking women" [ lesbian and bisexual ] for about 4 months, I have read some of the dating advice these female
" dating gurus" offer; along with the occasional male writer from MAXIM.[ all heterosexual advice, of course!]
This one woman writer literally told women they should "wear their highest heels, classiest, most " feminine" dress, carry that Gucci Purse; and of course expect the man to both pay for their dinner and hold their chair, take their jacket for them. and oh yes, let him take you to a five star restaurant, of course; and never act like you are smarter and have a mind of your own!
reading this shit, I said " gag me! what the fuck? what are we supposed to be looking for? Mr. Financial Wizard Schmuck whom works at AIG or on Wall Street? " the point is this, single, heterosexual women are being told, by other hetero. women themselves; that they must lower their standards and always act the
" lady" in order to win the prize!
that being " Mr. Right" who will not only commit to you forever??? , but will be the leader, the willing husband and father; and yes- the PRIMARY WAGE EARNER! and yes, funny how many so called " feminists" , like my very own married and two-months' pregnant neice in oregon; are buying into this " what it takes to be truly happy" fucking bullshit.
having read a dating advice column for lesbians called the 'four sisters groove', I had noticed how much more focused upon what it REALLY TAKES to make a relationship work; the girls writing it were. now if only the
" fluff and cinderella fairytales" dating advice columnists whom write for match.com/other dating sites, well as nearly every major woman's magazine besides Bitch and Ms. ; would learn something from the four sisters groove; maybe feminist theory will truly evolve!
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Updated: Catholic Bishops Embrace Anti-Abortion Terrorizers Missy Smith and Randall Terry
10 Defining Feminist Moments of 2009
Going Undercover in the Crazy, Tragic World of Christian Gay-Conversion Therapy




