“Happiness” was the topic of discussion among seven friends this past Sunday. We were eating breakfast around a table in a cabin in the middle of North Carolina’s Nantahala National Forest. Four men, three women. Three couples: one married nary a month; another to be married soon; the third – talking about it. And an almost-divorced stag guy . . .
“I love my life,” the stag says. “I’m working really-really hard and that will probably continue for the next 10 years. But I love my work, too, so life is good.”
I bring up Maureen Dowd’s recent column in The New York Times about a new study showing that women are less happy today than they were 30+ years ago, prior to flooding the workplace and “breaking out of their domestic cocoon”. According to the General Social Survey, which has tracked Americans’ mood since 1972, and five other major studies around the world, women are getting gloomier and men are getting happier.
“Why is that?” asks the mid-20s fiance, his bride-to-be a well-read feminist. Both are playwrites, and their wedding will occur inside of a play they are writing and performing together in May at the Diana Wortham Theatre in Asheville, North Carolina. I wonder how one can anticipate such an untraditional ceremony and not feel giddy.
Several lines of thinking exist as to why the gender divide in happiness has occurred. Some experts argue our youth-obsessed nation, where men can age gracefully, women are pressured to look forever-28, and older men have far greater success at acquiring younger female partners than vice-versa. Others say that breaking the glass ceiling has brought an overwhelming array of choices for women and with those choices come the demands (often self-imposed) of an ever-extending stick by which to measure oneself (the Superwoman dilemma). And then there’s the long-held argument that women are stressed because, even with more parity in the workplace, they’re still carrying the bigger burden at home with the chores of cooking, cleaning and child-rearing (aka “the second shift”).
The feminist bride-to-be introduces points from Susan Faludi’s Stiffed: The Betrayal of the American Man and Dan Gilbert’s Stumbling On Happiness. No one else has heard of these books, and I sit admiring her and wishing I read more.
The husband of the new, dual-income marriage says he feels that balance in the pieces of life’s pie (i.e. work, family, friends, spiritual, physical, etc.) is what ensures his happiness. “When a piece is being neglected or too much emphasis is on another, then I feel that everything’s not right”.
His bride is, I suspect, more traditional than the one who is making a stage play out of her wedding. She says: “I think we choose to be happy.” I feel struck by the simplicity of this and am reminded that it’s been one of my mother’s biggest gifts to me, a lesson she’s presented in layers throughout my life. Had I forgotten it? Do I still believe it? I want to.
The male in the third couple (only “talking about” marriage) has been a silent spectator to the morning’s conversation about happiness. I am his girlfriend.
Later, in the bedroom, I ask him whether everything is okay. “I’m thinking about how we’ll be going our separate ways again in a few hours,” he says, referring to our respective homes which are 320 miles apart.
None of this “happiness” talk seems to have a simple solution. Almost-40, childless, and still unmarried, some might say I’ve simply avoided altogether the question of what makes one happy. And yet I’ve fought fiercely for it in my own way, by building a business that allows me (seeming) control of my time and by placing a high value on life experiences that some may label “not practical”.
In the afternoon, hiking with the group to Pickens Nose (I am only now recognizing why this name sounds funny), I decide that while the studies may indeed be confirming a happiness divide among genders, the relevance of “gender issues” is waning, particularly in younger people. I have no doubts that the men and women I am with all want the same things – fulfilling relationships, meaningful work, and an equal role in caring for family members and children. Thus, our issues are collective. Some call them “family issues”.
Unknown to me at the time, while my friends and I were debating happiness between swallows of eggs and bacon, an impressive lineup was discussing the changing makeup of the U.S. workforce with NBC’s David Gregory on “Meet the Press.” John Podesta said that the “battle between the sexes is over” and that now “negotiations between the sexes” were “happening across kitchen tables“.
Indeed.
If 2/3 of moms are breadwinners or co-breadwinners and men and women want the same involvement in “family issues”, the dynamic of the American workforce has clearly changed. How are businesses and other institutions accommodating this change? When will the majority of companies – not just the ones we applaud on this website – institute smart family policies and benefits that allow men and women to live full professional and personal lives?
Women’s issues, family issues, economic issues. Whatever the label, I’m ready to negotiate. Are you?
7 Responses (add yours)
so, if the sexes are now negotiating happiness instead of battling over it, are men turning out to be better negotiators than warriors?
Elizabeth -
Great post. Last night I attended a Wharton hosted workshop in Atlanta where veteran business school and author, Steward Friedman spoke about his Total Leadership program developed (with supporting studies) over the years to prove that integration of four areas of life (work | personal/spirtual/body | home/family | community/society) is key to developing our truest most authentic leadership self.
The lesson behind all these conversations moving back to your interesting question about happiness is this – look at your own internal dialogue, the life habit decisions you allow or ignore, the base camp of your heart – are you living in peace?
This is the first step before moving outward to exterior trappings of our life. I agree with your friend -happiness starts in us. Making the right decisions in our life – to change our life – has to come from the wisest and most-knowing place in our soul. That internal “happy peace” is needed to hear the voice of our own wisdom. The first clue to someone who is out of touch with this voice is observed in scattered and random reactions to each incident in life versus acting out of a purposed filled intention.
I’ve had a lot of my men friends tell me on more occasions than I can count that essentially – men are wired in simplier emotional wiring than women. Women pick up on nuances some men can miss. Therefore – perhaps men reach that simpliesty in their internal diaolgue (knowing what they need for basic purpose) faster than women who might take in more than necessary to unstick themselves from certain obligations/expectations…whereas men simply – let go and move on.
I could keep writing – : )
Thanks for the post.
Amy
John – your comment made me laugh. ah, yes, wouldn’t the world be a better place if we worked through all conflicts with negotiation. perhaps men have always been great negotiators but sometimes prefer war….
Amy – there was a great piece a few days ago in Harvard’s “Work Smarter” column that presents a strong case against busyness: http://tinyurl.com. Idleness, getting away from normal routines and to-do lists, sabbaticals, etc. give us the “space” for the “most-knowing place in our soul” that you mention to present itself and to evolve. I’m sorry I wasn’t at Friedman’s talk. And I wish YOU some “wide, open spaces” in the coming year.
Thanks for reading.
Hmmm,
Some might find it disturbing if genders are lumped so crudely together.
Plainly spoken: if men are becoming (i assume on average) happier and women are becoming less happy, then doesn’t that actually make the opposite point of the entire piece? And are there other main effects impacting overall the construct of “happiness” (as yet to be defined).
Is it sexist to simply say men are wired more simply? Yes. A more important question: Is it incorrect to make that assertion? Perhaps – but there needs to be more explanation on why that contention is ever made. How was the survey run, what were the questions, etc. From recent stats on unemployment where males are impacted at 80% of the layoffs – some may argue this finding is dated…at least deserves consideration.
From a psychometrician standpoint, what was the baseline happiness, how was it measured? How was it actually defined? Maureen Dowd is not known for her scintillating scientific view or training, as far as I’ve read. In fact, she is more known for commentary that sells well but certainly isn’t non-political.
There were some points in this piece feeding pre-conceptions, but I still feel hungry for the meat on how these contentions/findings are made (metaphor alert!).
in regards to “stiffed” interesting piece…has data to back it up in some instances but certainly frames it from a perspective.
Dirk, you ask such critical questions. I’m glad my Sunday experience stirred the debate, because I think it’s critical, too.
When I “lumped so crudely together” the needs/desires of men and women in work and family life, I was trying to say (albeit in a simplified way) that these issues (the way we work and live) are increasingly collective and no longer “women’s issues” alone.
I’d be curious to hear what you thought of “Stiffed”. Worth a read?
Thanks for commenting, Dirk. You’ve taken the topic deeper, for sure.
Continuing the Discussion
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by yourSABBATICAL.com, yourSABBATICAL.com and Valerie Dennis, Anna DeBattiste. Anna DeBattiste said: Women need new way to work: http://bit.ly/2UdCLu [...]
[...] a comment on my Tuesday blog about happiness, Amy Balog wrote about “the base camp of your heart” and the need to know the [...]