Are We Happy?

Am I happy? What a stupid question. Do you mean happy as in content? Joyful? Hopeful? Relieved? Counting my blessings? Intent on absorbing work? Depending on your definition–and when you ask me, and who you are–I could give a dozen different answers. If you really want to know how I feel about my life, you would have to get to know me and ask me a whole lot of particular questions, which could not necessarily be boiled down to a single answer, and could certainly not be used to compare my happiness with someone else’s–because how can anyone know if what I mean by happiness is what that other person means? Keats was happy when he wrote "Ode to a Nightingale," Eichmann was happy when he met his daily quota of murdered Jews, and I am happy to be living this year in Kolkata. Only a pollster (or an economist) would conflate these things. In fact, only a pollster would think that people tell pollsters the truth.

But why let quibbles stand in the way of a chance to attack feminism? According to The Paradox of Declining Female Happiness, an analysis of General Social Survey data by Betsey Stevenson and Justin Wolfers, women are less happy than they used to be, are less happy than men and become increasingly unhappy as they get older. These results, he claims, are independent of whether women are rich or poor, married or single, work or stay home.  They believe that “Relative declines in female happiness have eroded a gender gap in happiness in which women in the 1970s reported higher subjective well-being than did men.” Therefore it can be said that though women now have the liberty to choose whichever life they’d like, many are struggling in their pursuit of a happy life.  Maureen Dowd concurs that the problem is that women have too many choices – a paradox, indeed. Dowd and many others are late to the party, actually: Ross Douthat devoted his New York Times column to the subject back in May. His culprit? Increased acceptance of single motherhood. Bring back “social stigma” – for women’s own good.

Using a single statistic as a peg for your pet theory is a game we all can play. But before you leap in with your own, consider this: the actual differences, some present as enormous, are tiny. Mark Liberman sets it out on Language Log, in 1972-74, 31.9 percent of men said they were very happy, 53 percent said they were pretty happy and 15.1 percent said they were not too happy; among women, the corresponding figures were 37 percent, 49.4 percent and 13.6 percent. For 2004, 2006 and 2008, 29.8 percent of men said they were very happy, 56.1 percent were pretty happy and 14 percent were not too happy; for women it was 31.2, 54.9 and 13.9. In other words, women today self-report a bit less manic joy than three decades ago, as do men, and a bit more modified rapture. But women still say they are happier than do men, contrary to journalistic rumor; and, most important, both in the 1970s and the 2000s, more than eight in ten women and men said they were very or fairly happy. The percentage of “not too happy” men has declined by 1.1 percent, and the percentage of such women has increased by a great big 0.3 percent. Three additional women in a thousand: that’s what the fuss over “women’s unhappiness” is all about.

There are plenty of possible reasons why more people in recent years would report slightly less happiness than thirty years ago. Perhaps people are more lonely – all those hours in front of screens. Perhaps it’s the stressed-out economy, or over-the-top consumerism, or increased inequality, or less leisure time. Or maybe the definition of happiness has changed since 1972 – or are simply becoming a bit more honest. After all, somebody is taking all those legal and illegal mood-elevating drugs, and going to all those therapists, and buying all those books about how to cheer up. From the information given, there is no way to tell. Nor is it possible to say, simply by looking at the self-reports of men and women over time, what role feminism plays, if any. After all, women moving into higher education and the workforce is not the only thing that has happened in the past thirty years. If you want to play ridiculous numbers games, it could be that feminist gains have made women 10 percent happier, but something else – the fraying of the safety net, the turbo-charged misogyny of pop culture, reading too many self-help books –has canceled it out. You just can’t say. You can, however, safely dismiss those who pooh-pooh the argument that women’s “second shift” at home is to blame because men are doing more. OK, but last time I looked, more was not half. As Dr. Johnson said in another context, If you’re going to calculate, calculate.

But how happy were women, really, in that golden pre-feminist era? Culture critic Caryl Rivers pointed out in 1973, studies showing that married women had the highest levels of psychiatric problems, including depression and anxiety, prompted sociologist Jessie Bernard to declare marriage a “health hazard for women.” If that’s no longer true, why not give feminism some credit?

As for those still sky-high levels of good cheer, I’m skeptical. People answering yes to a pollster’s question about happiness is like saying, “Fine, thanks” when someone asks, “How are you?” If it actually represents a truthful and considered answer, either people have entirely given up following the news or the Prozac is working.

Is this feminism?

The media went hysterical over Sarah Palin, governor of Alaska and Republican nominee for vice president. She may have appeared to the public as an independent, capable professional woman, but to a particular elite she couldn’t possibly be a real feminist or even a serious candidate. And that raises questions about what is – and what is not – feminism.

Feminism grew out of the 1960s to address sexual inequality. Women then earned decorative degrees and went to work once.  A single job and then she went back home to raise three children with her husband. Well, come to think of it, that happens even today! But that is not the argument. This happened then.

The early feminists had a common and compelling argument, which went something like this: Women should receive equal pay for equal work, and not be considered mere appendages of their husbands. Childrearing – if properly practiced as a joint enterprise – did not preclude women from pursuing careers. A woman’s worth was not to be necessarily judged by having either too many or too few children, given the privacy of such decisions and the co-responsibility of male partners.

In such an ideal gender-blind workplace, women were not to be defined by their husband’s or father’s success or failure. The beauty of women’s liberation was that it was not hierarchical but included the unmarried woman who drove a combine on her own farm, the corporate attorney and the homemaker who chose to home-school her children.

Women in the workplace did not look for special favors. And they surely did not wish to deny innately feminine differences. Instead, they asked only that men should not establish arbitrary rules of the game that favored their male gender.

Soon radical changes in American attitudes about birth control, abortion, dating, marriage and health care became, for some, part and parcel of women’s liberation. But in its essence feminism still was about equality of opportunity, and so included women of all political and religious beliefs.

That old definition of feminism is now dead. It has been replaced by a new creed that is far more restrictive — as the controversy over Sarah Palin attests. Out of the recent media frenzy, four general truths emerged about the new feminism:

First, there is a particular class and professional bent to the practitioners of feminism. Sarah Palin has as many kids as House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, she has as much of a prior political record as the once-heralded Rep. Geraldine Ferraro, who was named to the Democratic ticket by Walter Mondale in 1984 – and arguably has as much as, or more executive experience than, Barack Obama. Somehow all that got lost in the endless sneering stories about her blue-collar conservatism, small Alaskan town, five children, snowmobiling husband and Idaho college degree.

Second, feminism now often equates to a condescending liberalism. Emancipated women who, like Palin, do not believe in abortion or are devout Christians are at best considered unsophisticated dupes. At worse, they are caricatured as conservative interlopers, piggybacking on the hard work of leftwing women whose progressive ideas alone have allowed the Palins of the world the choices that otherwise they would not now enjoy.

Apparently these feminists believe that without the ideas of Gloria Steinem on abortion, a moose-hunting PTA mom would not have made governor. The Democrat’s vice presidential candidate, Joe Biden, said Palin’s election, given her politics, would be “a backward step for women.”

Third, hypocrisy abounds. Many female critics of Palin, in Washington and New York politics and media, found their careers enhanced through the political influence of their powerful fathers, their advantageous marriages to male power players and the inherited advantages of capital. The irony is that a Palin – like a Barbara Jordan, Golda Meir or Margaret Thatcher – made her own way without the help of money or influence.

Fourth, most Americans still believe in the old feminism but not this new doctrinaire liberal brand. Consequently, a struggling John McCain suddenly has shot ahead of Obama in the polls. Apparently millions of Americans like Palin’s underdog feminist saga and her can-do pluckiness. Many are offended by haughty liberal media elites sneering at someone that, politics aside, they should be praising – for her substantial achievements, her inspirational personal story and her Obama-like charisma.

The question is ‘what is feminism today? is it this?’

Barbie – A symbol of womanhood?

‘How better to ensure a constant supply of decorative women than to train little girls…than by giving them a sample, in the form of a Barbie-type doll…as a constant reminder of the look and attitude they are expected to achieve.’

The Barbie doll is the ultimate symbol of our oppression, the bane of our existence! It has long been my conviction that those who would keep women in their places invented a toy, a doff, which embodied the look of their “ideal woman,” the perfect “arm charm.” She was tall, extremely thin, with body proportions that occur extremely rarely in actual women’s bodies, with thighs that never rub together, “big” hair, feet deformed from constantly wearing high heeled shoes, and outfits and accessories that glorify and promote self-absorption, primping, exhibitionism and materialistic behavior.

When I see these dolls, I think of those stereotypical bubble-headed blondes that many apparently successful, mostly middle-aged men seem to prefer: a decoration to accessorize their custom-made suits and fancy cars. There seems to be little expectation that their companions could possibly engage in any meaningful thought or conversation; they would look up to those men and give and stroke their egos simply by their very presence.

An Islamic version of Barbie, Razanne, has become very popular in the Muslim world. This new Muslim lifestyle doll is marketed over the internet as a role model for Muslim girls living in the West. While the doll is presented as an alternative to hedonistic Barbie, it bears a striking resemblance to her and participates in the same consumer culture. In contrast to Barbie, Razanne’s sexuality is downplayed and she has a headscarf (hijab) and full-length coat (jilbab) for outdoor use, which are designed to encourage modesty and emphasize her Muslim identity whilst at the same time allowing space for following the latest fashions for indoor wear. The doll participates in the creation of a normative visual stereotype of women and creates a similar presentation of Barbie.

What better way to ensure a constant supply of these decorative, non-feminist, non-activist women than to train little girls to emulate this look and attitude from a very early age? And how better to train these young arm charms than by giving them a sample, in the form of a Barbie-type doll and all her attendant accessories, to serve as a constant reminder of the look and attitude they are expected to achieve.

Rape Legalized

In the city of Mazar-i-Sharif, I found 17-year-old Saida who was on the run from her husband. Her father had died when she was little and her brothers had claimed her as their property. They sold her off, at the age of 9, to a 60-year-old man. "If he saw a shoe or a stick, anything – he would beat me with it," Saida said, "I had four miscarriages because of the beating and the stress". Then her husband took his child bride on the road to places where they were not known and sold her to other men, forcing her to have sex with them. Finally, Saida confided in a woman at a shrine in Mazar-i-Sharif, the police were alerted and Saida was taken to a women’s shelter.                                               

BBC News, 16 August 2009

Many young women have taken to streets of Afghanistan to protest against the new law passed by the Krzai government which restricts a woman’s right to leave her home and demands she submit to her husband’s sexual desires. Afghanistan is a lawless place – the government is not able to implement its own laws to keep women safe or to protect them from a resurgent Taliban.  However, some women are standing up to the extremists. but they are labeled as infidels or un-Islamic as they go against Islam, their nation, and their honor. the continuous effort of these men are to control the minds and thoughts of women and to subjugate them.

The politicisation of women’s rights is not unique to Afghanistan. However, it is especially acute, with women’s rights and women’s virtue forming the tipping point for escalated violent conflict – within personal relationships and across international borders – for decades. Ismail Khan led the first violent uprising against the Soviet Union in March 1979 in response to a Soviet-led decree granting all girls universal and free education. The 2001 US invasion of Afghanistan has been internationally justified under the rhetoric of freeing Afghan women from Taliban rule.

In this highly charged environment, women calling for change and equality – calling for their enshrined human rights – are increasingly targets of violence and intimidation. Death of the nation’s most prominent women’s activist Before Mrs. Achakzai and the assassination of the country’s most senior female police officer, Lieutenant-Colonel Malalai Kakar, and Safia Amajan, the head of Kandahar’s women’s affairs department shows the degree of lawlessness in the country. These deaths bear witness to a growing public acceptance of violence against women and do not bode well as an indicator of the status of women’s human rights in Afghanistan.

Violence replaces debate and dialogue, and silences a powerful majority of the country through fear. People who believe that human rights are not a Western imposition, but central to their understanding of Islam, and to their beliefs and cultures are suffocated to death.

The remaining few people who continue to bravely speak out in defense of human rights are crucial to the future of Afghanistan. Brave women and men willing to stand up must be supported and protected. Violence with impunity must not be allowed to continue, and the Afghan government and the international community must join in holding the nation accountable to this standard.