• 
• |
• 
• |
• |
• 25

Women are unhappier than they have been in 35 years. So suggests a study released earlier this week by the National Bureau of Economics. Two economists at U Penn conducted an exhaustive study of happiness and found that women's "subjective well-being" has declined, "both absolutely and relatively to men," as they put it. In fact, though women have historically had higher self-reported levels of happiness than men, today women are "reporting happiness levels" that are "even lower than those of men." (Men's happiness has dropped, too, but not as much as women's.) Now, happiness is notoriously difficult to study—as I noted a few years back when I wrote about progressive women and unhappiness for Slate—but the findings are nonetheless noteworthy. Though women have made gains in every area over the past 35 years—from education to their place in the work force—these gains do not appear, by the study's measures, to translate into actual contentment. Nor do women's gains in the marketplace translate into zero-sum declines in happiness for men, as some have speculated.

Why might women be less happy? I'm curious to hear your thoughts. I would have to go back to an answer I offered when I wrote the Slate piece: that the drop in happiness is pegged to an anxiety caused by the plethora of choices available (Barry Schwarz's paradox of choice) and women's feeling that they have to perform well across more categories. This is not exactly the same as struggling to balance so-called work and life (i.e., children): The study's authors are quick to point out that the decline in happiness is consistent across many categories, irrespective of marital or employment status or whether you have young children. (A notable exception is African-American women, who report rises in well-being.) The authors observe, too, that one common explanation (the advent of the so-called second-shift for women) doesn't seem to be borne out: Time use surveys suggest that men and women experienced "relatively equal declines" in work hours since 1965.

But they do note, as I would, that it's likely that women are measuring their happiness over time using a broader set of criteria. As they crisply put it, it may be, paradoxically, that the women's movement has decreased women's happiness at this moment in time, because "the increased opportunity to succeed in many dimensions may have led to an increased likelihood in believing that one's life is not measuring up." The paradox of choice model might explain, too, why men's happiness has also declined—just not as extremely as women's.

And it suggests that we need to start rethinking the way we conceptualize success in this country. One of the most telling details comes from a study conducted over time of 12th graders. It now finds a dramatic difference in the happiness levels of boys and girls. Girls are less happy than ever. They also are "increasingly attaching greater importance to 13 of the 14 domains" studied—meaning they feel that they need to "succeed" more in those domains. The only one that hasn't risen in importance? "Finding purpose and meaning in my life."

I've always hated the phrase "having it all" for its tyrannical insistence on impossible perfection. Does this mean it's finally time to put that phrase to rest in the cemetery of bad language?

Photograph of woman by David De Lossy/Getty Images

Tags: happiness study, national bureau of economics, paradox of choice

Readers of the New York Times' Economix blog may have noticed Casey B. Mulligan's post Wednesday on new research that finds women less satisfied with their lives now than they have been for the last 35 years. The results of the study are noteworthy because they show a decline in women's happiness during a period of ever-increasing opportunity. Lest you think that this means women shouldn't have entered the workplace, the study shows that men's happiness has also declined, and that most women still regard more opportunity—rather than less—as an upside. And women who work don't seem to be unhappier than women who stay at home. Granting that the study is capturing a real shift, what, then, might account for it? Meghan commented in the XX Factor:

it may be, paradoxically, that the women's movement has decreased women's happiness at this moment in time because "the increased opportunity to succeed in many dimensions may have led to an increased likelihood in believing that one's life is not measuring up." The paradox of choice model might explain, too, why men's happiness has also declined—just not as extremely as women's.

Click here to read the rest of her post. And tell us what you think.

Tags: happiness study, women in the workforce, women in the workplace, women's liberation, workplace equity

For a conservative, Ross Douthat almost does a fair and balanced portrayal of the happiness study we discussed last week. He does not take the easy route and say that feminism is to blame for the "paradox of choice" that is making women increasingly unhappy. But then, after mentioning single motherhood, he slips in this doozy of a fragment: "some kind of social stigma is a necessity."

Not the Scarlet Letter kind, of course, but a "new model stigma," writes Douthat, who is a friend and former colleague. The very wonky sentence construction makes social stigma seem like the equivalent of cap and trade or a new tax policy. But the problem with social stigma is that it has to happen organically. During the '90s a social stigma got attached to crack, not because of anti-drug policies but because the crackhead was a dismal sight in the neighborhood and no one wanted to grow up to look like one. Prejudice has acquired a social stigma over time. So has spanking. But not because the New York Times op-ed page declared it so.

Douthat includes in his list of the "sexually irresponsible" who should be shunned: the "pregnant starlet," the "thrice divorced tycoon," and the "prostitute hiring politician." But in this effort to seem extra fair and neutral he is avoiding the real problem. On people like Britney Spears, Donald Trump, and Eliot Spitzer, we have heaped lots of stigma, because it's easy to do. The real problem, which is much harder to write about, is class and race.

Poor women of all races, but especially African-American and Latina, are far more likely to be single mothers. And here's the rub—they are also happier, according to the study. Why? Because choice is a luxury. If the problem is paradox of choice, then it is more intense in middle- and upper-class women, who are facing more and more choices. Poorer women have fewer choices and a more settled identity. So you can try to stigmatize them, but it will only make them just as unhappy as the rest of us.

Tags: happiness study, ross douthat, social stigma

There’s been a lot of buzz around a recent study that shows that women today are less happy than they were 35 years ago—regardless of marital or employment status or whether they have little kids. Although in the past women reported being happier than men, now men may be happier than women.

When I asked my friends to speculate on this finding, their answers reveal a lot about their view of the female condition. On one end: “It’s because women have so many more opportunities. Choice is exciting, but it can make you anxious. It’s worth that price.” On the other end: “We expect ourselves to be super-women who can pursue a high-stress career while not cutting corners at home—and still go to the gym every day. No wonder women are unhappy.”

I fall into the “choice is worth it” camp. What do you think?

Tags: career, happiness study, happiness; question of the week