Are Women Getting Sadder?

Or Are We All Just Getting a Lot More Gullible?
By Barbara Ehrenreich

Feminism made women miserable. This, anyway, seems to be the most popular takeaway from "The Paradox of Declining Female Happiness," a recent study by Betsey Stevenson and Justin Wolfers which purports to show that women have become steadily unhappier since 1972. Maureen Dowd and Arianna Huffington greeted the news with somber perplexity, but the more common response has been a triumphant: I told you so.

On Slate's DoubleX website, a columnist concluded from the study that "the feminist movement of the 1960s and 1970s gave us a steady stream of women's complaints disguised as manifestos… and a brand of female sexual power so promiscuous that it celebrates everything from prostitution to nipple piercing as a feminist act -- in other words, whine, womyn, and thongs." Or as Phyllis Schlafly put it, more soberly: "[T]he feminist movement taught women to see themselves as victims of an oppressive patriarchy in which their true worth will never be recognized and any success is beyond their reach... [S]elf-imposed victimhood is not a recipe for happiness."

But it's a little too soon to blame Gloria Steinem for our dependence on SSRIs. For all the high-level head-scratching induced by the Stevenson and Wolfers study, hardly anyone has pointed out (1) that there are some issues with happiness studies in general, (2) that there are some reasons to doubt this study in particular, or (3) that, even if you take this study at face value, it has nothing at all to say about the impact of feminism on anyone's mood.

For starters, happiness is an inherently slippery thing to measure or define. Philosophers have debated what it is for centuries, and even if we were to define it simply as a greater frequency of positive feelings than negative ones, when we ask people if they are happy, we are asking them to arrive at some sort of average over many moods and moments. Maybe I was upset earlier in the day after I opened the bills, but then was cheered up by a call from a friend, so what am I really?

In one well-known psychological experiment, subjects were asked to answer a questionnaire on life satisfaction, but only after they had performed the apparently irrelevant task of photocopying a sheet of paper for the experimenter. For a randomly chosen half of the subjects, a dime had been left for them to find on the copy machine. As two economists summarize the results: "Reported satisfaction with life was raised substantially by the discovery of the coin on the copy machine -- clearly not an income effect."

As for the particular happiness study under discussion, the red flags start popping up as soon as you look at the data. Not to be anti-intellectual about it, but the raw data on how men and women respond to the survey reveal no discernible trend to the naked eyeball. Only by performing an occult statistical manipulation called "ordered probit estimates," do the authors manage to tease out any trend at all, and it is a tiny one: "Women were one percentage point less likely than men to say they were not too happy at the beginning of the sample [1972]; by 2006 women were one percentage more likely to report being in this category." Differences of that magnitude would be stunning if you were measuring, for example, the speed of light under different physical circumstances, but when the subject is as elusive as happiness -- well, we are not talking about paradigm-shifting results.

Furthermore, the idea that women have been sliding toward despair is contradicted by the one objective measure of unhappiness the authors offer: suicide rates. Happiness is, of course, a subjective state, but suicide is a cold, hard fact, and the suicide rate has been the gold standard of misery since sociologist Emile Durkheim wrote the book on it in 1897. As Stevenson and Wolfers report -- somewhat sheepishly, we must imagine -- "contrary to the subjective well-being trends we document, female suicide rates have been falling, even as male suicide rates have remained roughly constant through most of our sample [1972-2006]." Women may get the blues; men are more likely to get a bullet through the temple.

Another distracting little data point that no one, including the authors, seems to have much to say about is that, while "women" have been getting marginally sadder, black women have been getting happier and happier. To quote the authors: "…happiness has trended quite strongly upward for both female and male African Americans… Indeed, the point estimates suggest that well-being may have risen more strongly for black women than for black men." The study should more accurately be titled "The Paradox of Declining White Female Happiness," only that might have suggested that the problem could be cured with melanin and Restylane.

But let's assume the study is sound and that (white) women have become less happy relative to men since 1972. Does that mean that feminism ruined their lives?

Not according to Stevenson and Wolfers, who find that "the relative decline in women's well-being... holds for both working and stay-at-home mothers, for those married and divorced, for the old and the young, and across the education distribution" -- as well as for both mothers and the childless. If feminism were the problem, you might expect divorced women to be less happy than married ones and employed women to be less happy than stay-at-homes. As for having children, the presumed premier source of female fulfillment: They actually make women less happy.

And if the women's movement was such a big downer, you'd expect the saddest women to be those who had some direct exposure to the noxious effects of second wave feminism. As the authors report, however, "there is no evidence that women who experienced the protests and enthusiasm in the 1970s have seen their happiness gap widen by more than for those women were just being born during that period."

What this study shows, if anything, is that neither marriage nor children make women happy. (The results are not in yet on nipple piercing.) Nor, for that matter, does there seem to be any problem with "too many choices," "work-life balance," or the "second shift." If you believe Stevenson and Wolfers, women's happiness is supremely indifferent to the actual conditions of their lives, including poverty and racial discrimination. Whatever "happiness" is...

So why all the sudden fuss about the Wharton study, which first leaked out two years ago anyway? Mostly because it's become a launching pad for a new book by the prolific management consultant Marcus Buckingham, best known for First, Break All the Rules and Now, Find Your Strengths. His new book, Find Your Strongest Life: What the Happiest and Most Successful Women Do Differently, is a cookie-cutter classic of the positive-thinking self-help genre: First, the heart-wrenching quotes from unhappy women identified only by their email names (Countess1, Luveyduvy, etc.), then the stories of "successful" women, followed by the obligatory self-administered test to discover "the role you were bound to play" (Creator, Caretaker, Influencer, etc.), all bookended with an ad for the many related products you can buy, including a "video introduction" from Buckingham, a "participant's guide" containing "exercises" to get you to happiness, and a handsome set of "Eight Strong Life Plans" to pick from. The Huffington Post has given Buckingham a column in which to continue his marketing campaign.

It's an old story: If you want to sell something, first find the terrible affliction that it cures. In the 1980s, as silicone implants were taking off, the doctors discovered "micromastia" -- the "disease" of small-breastedness. More recently, as big pharma searches furiously for a female Viagra, an amazingly high 43% of women have been found to suffer from "Female Sexual Dysfunction," or FSD. Now, it's unhappiness, and the range of potential "cures" is dazzling: Seagrams, Godiva, and Harlequin, take note.

Copyright 2009 Barbara Ehrenreich

Breast Cancer Action (www.bcaction.org)
Breast Cancer Action carries the voices of people affected by breast cancer to inspire and compel the changes necessary to end the breast cancer epidemic.

ThinkBeforeYouPink.org
Think Before You Pink™, a project of Breast Cancer Action, launched in 2002 in response to the growing concern about the number of pink ribbon products on the market. The campaign calls for more transparency and accountability by companies that take part in breast cancer fundraising, and encourages consumers to ask critical questions about pink ribbon promotions.

Comments

[Antonia]

Women today may feel less social pressure to report being happy compared to women in the early 1970s.

[Hattie]

Barbara: Just downloaded your new book on Kindle and am looking forward to reading it.

[Ann]

Barbara - I cannot tell you how delighted I am to know you exist and are doing what you do! I believe I wrote you once earlier (a year?)- and may well do so again. Caught your interview re your new book on Democracy Now website. It's past time to feel positive about righteous indignation! I have a strong social critic bent, and manage to land myself in social communities much of the time (family included) comprised of people determined to deny that interplay of individual psychology and group dynamics, if unexamined, supports status quo, a perspective which leads to "suffering is not suffering, injustice not injustice and neither can be changed by social policy". "It's probably the sufferer's fault (by attitude or choice), it's not my concern, not my job." Universal Health Care is my present focus; locally I stand alone! (Putting a "positive" spin on it, :) I sometimes think it is "my job" to be among these people and keep harping!) But I sometimes weary of such a role - knowing you are doing what you do is a terrific boost! THANK YOU SO VERY MUCH!

[suzanne]

Yes, thank you (again).
for a nail hit on its head.

I do believe the "motherroot" (or it might be a "fatherroot"?) of all terrible afflictions is the very definition of woman. being a woman - under virtually all known definitions of the term -
justplain seems to afflict -and not just a littlebit, but terribly.

[Zach Wheat]

I really enjoyed this and have now spent an evening reading your old posts.

Thanks!

[twitter.com/Griff_Graff]

Barbara: Having had prostate cancer and gone through a similar experience as you — I can't totally agree with you. I haven't read your book (and I will) but I did see your Daily Show interview and I have to say that the truth is somewhere between what you say and "The Secret." If you haven't read Winifred Gallagher's tome: "Rapt" — then you will get EXACTLY what I mean. Peace.

[twitter.com/bcjordan]

Hi Dr. Ehrenreich,

Thanks for a great "caveat emptor" for readers of popular literature (blogs count too, sometimes!) which references scientific studies.

The core problems, I think, are: (1) individual claims in popular literature are often not properly referenced (even at the ends of articles), (2) readers have no effective way of "calling bull" on unreferenced yet clearly stated claims (like they can on Wikipedia, for example), other than throwing a bottle into vast oceans of article comments, and (3) readers often don't use Google Scholar (or otherwise dig deep) enough to justify "knowing" some of the truths they find in reality :)

My dendrites to yours,
B

[Tyler H Brown]

Barbara,
I am sorry that positive thinking isn't working for you, but I just watched you on the Daly Show and I was really disturbed by what I saw. Yes, modern medicine can correct many ailments, and yeah, it seems unfair to think "I brought this upon myself", but I really think you are missing the bigger picture. If people are helped by positive thinking, then that is great. If people are helped by chemo, that is also great. Why would you try to discredit something that helps people, even if it is "only in their mind." How many women die from breast cancer after intensive chemo every year? Why not discredit chemo too? Cancer sucks, and I am so sorry that you or anyone else has to go through that ordeal, but if positive thinking, coupled with modern medicine helps someone, why would you so adamantly oppose it? The law of attraction describes something that I have experienced my whole life, as have many people I am close to. Its not a dead on description of reality, but neither are the laws of physics. Life is a work in progress, and in the absolute worst case scenario, if some one dies feeling positive about what ever is there lot in life, how is that bad?

[twitter.com/bcjordan]

Tyler,

You had me in your court until you seriously stacked the law of attraction up against the current laws of physics.

That said, if you were to post again with rationally thought out and research-backed reasons, I will recant this post, share your post with others, and chalk your last one up to a knee-jerk emotional response.

There's no excuse to defend the positive psychology position with (anything even close to) ad-hominem attacks or what-ifs or personal example-based arguments--you have at your fingertips research you can use to back up your claims.

There is a growing body of studies performed between 2005 and 2009 that show (1) correlations between positive affect and oh-so-nice things, (2) twin studies showing a decent chunk (40%) of positive affect as dependent on daily activity and malleable thought patterns and (3) simple activities that have been shown to boost long-term positive affect (would be highly correlated with what we subjectively call happiness). None of these studies suggest you need to suspend disbelief or discount physics. They only presuppose you have a scientific/epistemological regard for psychological and social psychological tools and methods.

And I'm almost late for the most interesting class I've ever taken but afterwards I may pull up some papers to get you started, if you're interested, Tyler! :)

Don't stop disbelievin',
B

[Sheelzebub]

Tyler, she isn't attacking "positive thinking," she's attacking the unrelenting pressure to be upbeat or else, and the self-blame (and victim-blaming) that goes hand-in-hand with this.

If someone dies feeling positive about their life, that's great. If they die faking being positive and feeling guilty and flawed because they just weren't as positive as they "should" have been, it's a tragedy and a shame.

Silencing people's fears, concerns and anger is quite destructive, and most of this positive thinking self-help stuff does just that--whether the proponents intend it or not.

[LeeAnne Setterington]

Thank you for your latest book, Bright-Sided. I stayed up through the night to finish it. You are a life raft in the sea of hope and denial. Hate to say it but the book had a very positive effect. I have been spending most my energy trying to find the "positive" instead of simply getting out of a bad situation. Thank you once again.

[Mike Ashby]

Barbara: I listened to your interview on the CBC this morning.."The Current" about the fallacy of the "positive thinking" wave that hit some decades ago. It was a kind of epiphany for me. I have for years, as far as I can remember and I'm 55, wondered if I was the only one thinking along the exact same lines you do. You bring to life the reality of all that...BULL! I could go on and on about my personal experiences but can't. You made me very happy today ! Thanks!

[Bonnie]

Dear Barbara,

I am in the process of writing my thesis birthed from, you guessed it, the impact "positive thinking" had on my experience with Breast Cancer. Your book and today's interview on CBC are timely. Thank you!

Now, how does one go about purchasing an autographed copy of your book?

[twitter.com/bcjordan]

Mike, Bonnie, (maybe Dr. Ehrenreich as well):

I hear and echo your frustrations with those who are preaching irrational positive thinking to the point of annoyance. I humbly ask that you also consider that (1) happiness is a real phenomenon with a physical basis in the brain, (2) it positively affects many peoples' lives and [for me, personally] motivation to do any non-depressive rational thinking, and that (3) some of those happy people are rational and are *really* trying to be careful not to offend anyone with their happiness or semi-selfish attempts to facilitate others to become happy and stave off depression, too.

That said, and related, I'd love to have a simple boiled-down list of five things that we can use to encourage positive-psychology-enthusiasts not to make the mistakes as those pseudoscientific practitioners profiled (I think, though still waiting on my copies) in Bright-Sided.

This list would go a long way in uniting the new science-backed positive affect enthusiasts and those who I suspect will be Dr. Ehrenreich's most enthusiastic audience -- those who have been disenfranchised by the happiness hijackers (self-help book authors that make up claims and don't use references, religion, cults).

Happy in reality,
B

[Mike Ashby]

The biggest fraud of 'em all has to be Tony Robbins.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tony_Robbins

The first time I saw that clown on TV in the '80's and what he was doing just made me sick. He was elevated to "rock star" status of all things with the extravagant stage shows etc. I realized it was probably mostly companies paying him the big bucks and making employees attend those things. Barbara speaks of that and how companies enslave employees to get brainwashed by that whole mantra. It all really got going with that horse-tooth charlatan in the '80's. And I believe he still operates in a lesser way at present.

Then there is the subtle but effective ones such as Dr. Wayne Dyer and all of his philosphical ways to attain "happiness". I don't want to knock the guy because he often times is compelling due to his ingenius way of not getting in your face and actually appealing to your reason. BUT, he don't fool me either. LOL.

[Angelina]

Great interview on CBC the Current today.

[Andrea]

What is difficult about the cult of positive thinking is the dissociation from reality that goes along with it. Specifically, you are supposed to exist in a world where nothing exerts power over you, but where you can create anything you imagine just by wanting it enough. To say that being treated badly by an employer, or having a life threatening disease, or drowning in credit card debt would none of it have any effect on you is asking a bit too much. Positive thinking, however, asks just that of you.

Being cheerful because you find that this is the best way of facing your reality is one thing. Insisting that you can invent and create whatever reality you want is another insane thing.

[Nayagan]

Barbara,

your misrepresentations have been answered by the authors of the study, citing real data. Are you game enough to answer?

http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/10/14/nickeled-and-dimed-by-barbara-ehrenreich/

[Barbara]

Nayagan -- I would like to respond to Wolfers' response -- but where should I post it? Would rather not be buried in the comments on their Freakonomics piece.

Barbara

[gmm]

http://www.faqs.org/patents/app/20080299100

Dear Barbara- that coenzyme q caller from NPR is a crazy person. This link is about the patent...PATENT....not a study. It is disgusting that people peddle this stuff. It is also only a rodent study, not a people study.

[Nayagan]

Barbara,

The current protocol is to write a post on your own blog, leave a comment on their post to notify them (if they do not track track-backs) and drop them an email/call.

They seem genuinely hurt by your column and, like any quants, would probably need a stats-filled response in order to continue the conversation.

These are not Austrians, mind you, so they do use numbers extensively to support their argumentation and would be offended if even a logician of Coase's stature were not to respond in kind.

It may sound presumptuous but I am willing to host your reply on my own blog and attempt to solicit their attention.

[Terri Waterman]

Hi Barbara, I just saw you on Jon Stewart and my mouth was hanging open listening to you. Thank you for the realism punch, I find myself tortured by constantly thinking I have to be positive - now it's my husband that's saying "I told you so!" LOL - looking forward to reading your new book. - Terri

[Hugh]

The best take on the positive thinking movement is a poster titled "Zombie" and pictures what used to be a nicely dressed man, now with blood and gore running from his mouth. The caption beneath reads "Don't worry. Only people with brains will die. You are okay."

[K H]

Brilliant!

[Laura]

You are one of the very few people writing about women's issues who does not rely on trite, essentialist, mainstream drivel. Thank you for having something fresh and interesting to say about why feminism is not to blame for the fact that women do not always demand equality in their relationships.