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.
That's Ross's take on "The Paradox of Declining Female Happiness," available here. The first time I read about this study was last week on Greg Mankiw's blog, where Mankiw wrote: "It sounds like either the women's movement was a mistake or subjective happiness is not the right objective." And while I'm not sure Ross would call the women's movement "a mistake," it's clear he does think there's evidence more liberation has meant less happiness. But really, why would that matter? I think it's clear that Mankiw's second option -- subjective happiness is not the right objective -- is the better one.
There's a fun game (well, maybe just a game) you can play with self-reported happiness and almost any other variable: Plot them over time and you'll find the most counterintuitive relationship, or no relationship at all. Here, for example, is self-reported happiness and violent crime in the United States (taken from this study):
Same problem: "Either hiring all those shiny new police officers was a mistake, or subjective happiness is not the right objective." I'll take the latter option any day. A world with less crime certainly comports with my intuitive sense of justice, even if that world won't make us any happier. And if you think the women's movement was just, I wouldn't worry too much about its consequences for happiness.
Sad-looking little girl from Flickr user nyki_m
Sad-looking little girl from Flickr user nyki_m
I generally agree. I would note that there's a difference with plotting subjective happiness of the entire population over time (which is remarkably stable, as you note), and with looking at the comparative subjective happiness of two groups.
An odd thing about these data is that in the 1970s, women said that they were happier than men and now, despite women doing better than men on many objective criteria and certainly better than in the 70s, women say that they are less happy than men.
I still find it a little odd, but like you I don't put too much stock into the subjective happiness research, and I'm certainly willing to let other conceptions of justice overwhelm them.
The results reported here should not surprise anyone who is familiar with the American professional workplace. Better education for females opened numerous professional doors, but it also presented women with the realities of workplace sexism. Nowhere is this more evident than in the legal profession. Women now make up more than 50% of law-school enrollments, but they hold less than 10% of the partnerships in the nation's law firms. The scenario for female attorneys has become so typical that it even has its own term: "up and out." That is, firms hire young female associates, work them like mules for several years, advance them up to senior associate, and then stop giving them work, effectively forcing them out when they fail to meet the require billable hours. As a result, nearly two-thirds of female attorneys leave the profession after about five years. Given the amount of effort today's women invest in becoming well educated and how hard they work to demonstrate that they are "just as good as the men," it is any wonder that they are unhappy?
You could also say, "Better education for females opened numerous professional doors, but it also presented women with the realities of workplace."
Nearly everyone in the workplace gets their dignity trampled by people they don't think much of. Especially in law firms. Women may leave at a higher rate because they're more sensible, or value dignity more than a handful of dimes, or because they feel less obligated to get every last nickel they can manage for their family, or for reasons as varied as the number of women there. Not every woman is a victim of gender crime.
"The scenario for female attorneys has become so typical that it even has its own term: "up and out." That is, firms hire young female associates, work them like mules for several years, advance them up to senior associate, and then stop giving them work, effectively forcing them out when they fail to meet the require billable hours. As a result, nearly two-thirds of female attorneys leave the profession after about five years."
"Up and out" desribes what happens to all young lawyers now, men and women. "Partner" is a fake title. You either have a book of business or you do not. If not, you are an employee at will, no matter what they call you. If you have your own book, they can call you janitor, but you still run your own life. Women who want to stay in billable professions like law should focus on building a book, not trying to get a title.
Oh, and no one is going to help you get that book of business, okay? You have to go cut it from the forest on your own.
This whole notion of a firm makes me laugh. It is just you, your clients and your phone. The "firm" is just a place where book-holders share overhead costs.
Over 50% of Medical School graduates are women, and well over 50% of physicians entering OB/Gyn residency programs are women. Studies consistently show that women physicians make less income than men physicians. Is that because of systematic wage discrimination against female physicians? That would be a difficult case to make, because well over 95% of all physician billing for services is paid by third-party insurance, and I'm highly confident that insurance companies don't systematically pay women physicians less than men physicians for the same service. The mystery is solved by looking at the practice and lifestyle choices made by women physicians. Women physicians are more likely to work part-time and job share than men physicians, which has a huge effect on income. Women physicians are more likely to work for a fixed salary in HMOs and large group practices rather than work in a solo or small-group practice for salary plus productivity. Women physicians are more likely to work in lower-paying specialties, like pediatrics and family practice. All these choices are driven by an attempt to balance work and family because all these choices allow them to work fewer hours and have a more normal life.
I have worked closely with many women OB/Gyn physicians, and it has been my personal observation that many are unsatisfied with with their career choice because it forces them to make choices between career and family. They actively seek out practices settings where they can work part time or job share.
Many women in law are not willing to eat the sh*t and work the retarded hours required to "succeed". Sure they can work as hard as the guys (I am assuming for these purposes unmarried women) but after a while most seem to either burn-out or just stop trying. In the first few years they work just as hard, if not harder, than the guys, but I think (my guess) that many approach it as a sprint rather than the marathon that it is? Maybe this means that they just have more common sense? It is ironic because the firms are under pressure (from pc clients) to create more female partners, so those that can and do stick it out usually have a slightly better shot at the brass ring than the guys, all else being equal. All that said, the female partners generally do work just as hard as their male equivalents, but then they are on the eat-what-you-kill diet. If this ramble has a point, I think it is that females CAN work and succeed just like the guys, but more simply choose not to.
Women have much more responsibility now than they did 30 years ago. They now not only have to raise the kids and take care of the home but they also have to deal with the pressures of a full time job.
Another reason might be that women are reporting their feelings more honestly now than they did 30 years ago.
They might also be more self aware of themselves and their feelings now and more confident to challenge the deal they are getting from their spouses. Certainly there are now so many TV shows (eg: Oprah) that may raise expectations of what a women should expect from her life.
They may now be expecting more out of life so they are easier to disappoint.
Having said all that, the happiness line in the graph above looks pretty flat to me (i.e. does not look like a big change in happiness for women).
The complexity of women's roles has increased, or to put it another way, women have to be better at doing more things in order to feel good about themselves, or they think they do.
I would wager that 30 years ago if a woman was employed outside the home she viewed her job as a necessity to support her family, but not as a field in which she had to compete, succeed, and advance in order to prove herself.
Today many women feel torn between succeeding and advancing at work and caring for a family and home, and success in one field usually makes it hard to succeed in the other field. I think many women feel intense ambivalence and even exhaustion at wearing two hats, and feeling that they have to be good in both roles.
Personally, I think that this has all to do with the conflicts between having the illusion of control over your life versus reality and security.
The life stage that is associated with happiness the most is childhood, but as a child, you (or I, at any rate) wanted so much more control over your life. Couldn't wait to get out of the house and live your own life.
Until you realized it was so much harder than you thought it would be. And that you've just traded your security and haven't as much control over your life as you thought you would have had.
Or of course, perhaps I'm just annoyed that I have to go to work in an hour and my daughters have two more days of school left.
Anyone who thinks he knows what makes a woman happy is automatically self-identifying as a moron.
More choices does not = happier. This is true of all humans not just women.
Barry Schwartz's illuminating book The Paradox of Choice: Why More Is Less he notes "choice no longer liberates. It might even be said to tyrannize." The more choices we have the more we have to regret - to second guess ourselves.
Women (who it seems are naturally more introspective than men) have more choices than men: Have kids? If yes, do you work full time? Part time? Stay home?
I think much of the angst felt by women today has to do with trying to make the "right" choice regarding the life/work balance. And what ever choice we make, we will not be happy. Not only have I been though this, but seen many of my friends go through the same.
Simple Answer, Tyranny of choice. Having more control over your destiny places a greater burden on you to aggressively affect your destiny. Also, the workplace really *IS* more stressful than nurturing children.
Misogynistic answer, Stoicism hasn't really caught on among women.
Speaking from my own experience and that of my friends, I think that a big part of the problem for women is a tendency to look at "work-life balance" and see the "life" part as all about family obligations. It comes up all the time when friends meet. We talk about work, and then we talk about family. And then we hit a wall.
Where are all the other interests we used to have? Sports, music, travel, art, books... all gone, unless we take active steps to keep them alive. Many men keep these things into adulthood as essential parts of what keeps them alive. Non-working wives are also expected to cultivate these areas for their own benefit and that of the family. But working women often become all urgency and grim practicality.
Women shouldn't let this happen. That's not to say we will have art class every night, or even every year. But we can't let it drop completely, or think we will save it until retirement.
And who wouldn't rather play a real sport, with friends, that do some tedious and self-involved exercise routine?
"Why Are Women Better Off, But Less Happy?"
Because they are women, and they don't want to be happy.
Women, because they have become less compromised every year, now have the full-on responsibilities that men carried in the past.. How good is it that 30 years ago we were struggling internally, and not so now..
My generation married young and we saw our marriages falling apart in the Seventies (witness the Ice Storm) And, we were not very honest with ourselves in many cases either... Now, hopefully, we are. We have seen it all and have adjusted- we have learned to put our multi-tasking skills to good use in business and rasing kids. Sure, maybe we aren't "singing and dancing in the streets" because we're too busy but we really are feeling very good about ourselves and our accomplishments. And that's something my generation never takes for granted because we remember "when".
The answer is pretty simple: women generally want to be taken care of by a man and raise children, while men are more driven to compete and be providers.
This is just how evolution wired men and women's brains over the millenia; in the time before daycare this was a paradigm that allowed humans to survive and reproduce more successfully, so we tend to be descended from people who preferred that arrangement. Since the 1960s there's been a movement to tell women they don't need a man, and they can take care of themselves. While in principle this may be a morally superior condition (a luxury afforded us by the abundance of modern life), our brains often aren't as happy with it.
@TallDave
While many feminists would believe that your comment is sexist, I sure am glad someone finally brought evolution into the picture. We're all glad that women have options now and they can work wherever they want and do things without men, but gender roles are still ingrained in us. A man's strength (physical and otherwise), success, and ability to provide have always been attractive traits to women for centuries. I don't believe that has changed much. Even though some women today are self-sufficient and extremely successful, it seems ignoring nature proves to be difficult or may even cause unhappiness.
I find it amusing that this is seen as a mystery. How many people do we know who really, truly enjoy their jobs? Most workers suffer from all sorts of petty injusticies and arbitrary restrictions of their freedoms on a daily basis. Work is by definition something that you would prefer not to be doing. If you want to do it, and if you do it on your own time and according to a schedule that suits you best, it is not a job. So why are we surprised that women entering the workforce become unhappy? It's not a gender thing at all.
A very interesting topic were it not served up from such a political agenda by Douthat. And your response seems defensive and over reaching in your use of statistics.
Measure the degree of impact of crime on the population with an interval or even ordinal scale and then consider the correlation with happiness in the general population. You will find I think that crime does matter. If you're suggesting that the study in question has results contaminated by measurement noise, then point well taken. It probably does. I find most gender research to be horribly flawed. Not so much out of ignorance, but out of politically motivated academic malfeasance.