I sometimes happen upon articles claiming that women today aren’t as happy as they were 20, 30 or 40 years ago, while men tend to be happier. The more misogynistic among them claim that feminism has failed women by making them believe that they could have it all. They even claim that feminism has ironically been more beneficial to men.
One thing I never see in these articles is a definition of happy. Come to think of it, I’m not sure whether a truly objective definition could ever exist for this word. So to simplify things, I’ll adopt a Buddhist maxim: “One can never be happy in all things, but it is possible to be content.” Contentedness implies, generally, a degree of satisfaction. If your basic minimum needs are met, you can be content. Any more than that and you may become happy. Clear enough?
But even contentedness is a matter of perception. And maybe that’s what we’re really exploring here: How does happiness in 2010 compare to happiness in 1970 or 1980?
The feminist movement was still relatively in its infancy during the 1960s and early 1970s. The number of families where women were expected to work outside the home were relatively few. It was thought by many that men earned money for the family while the woman earned pocket money. A man needed a career while a woman could be satisfied with a job. Truly ambitious women would sacrifice family and join a religious order or have to constantly justify her decision to not marry and found a family. Those were the bars set in those days.
By 2010, the bars had been raised. Two-income households are now the norm, and women are indeed having careers, or at least working outside the home, in greater numbers, and usually out of necessity. Some manage to have a family throughout their career, while others have one followed by the other, sometimes sandwiching the younger children between two periods of career work, or forego children altogether at a time where childlessness is considered good for the environment and a legitimate lifestyle choice.
Men always worked for pay because they had to. There was never any matter of whether a career could be satisfying or not. Some did have satisfying careers, but it was always a means to an end: put food on the table and keep a shelter over their families. For women, though, a career was the end in itself. It was a way of moving into a world that used to be reserved for men, and that seemed to be a good idea.
I sometimes wonder if our “work-ethic” ways may have influenced feminism in an unexpected way, especially in North America. Yes, there’s no such thing as a free lunch. But who said we actually had to enjoy selling our services to a boss who could often be abusive toward us? Who said that working 60 hours a week for 40 hours of pay was supposed to lead to self-fulfillment? For that matter, who ever said that being one’s own boss is a true sign of success? As if government regulations aren’t bad enough, imagine having to track down people who owe you money and just don’t want to pay.
While I don’t want to discourage women from having careers, and while I don’t want to appear to support the antifeminists, I do think they may have a point when it comes to the bill of goods we call self-fulfillment through careers. The most basic fact of life is we must eat to survive. We can hunt, fish or gather our food from the wild, we can raise or cultivate it or we can obtain it through trade or purchase. For all of our lofty accomplishments as a species, that basic fact has not changed. Almost everything we do at work, and sometimes away from work, deals with getting our next meal, as well as securing shelter and medicine.
I have nothing against self-fulfillment, but I gave up on it ages ago where work is concerned. I can find aspects of my job that I either like or not. I will not expect my job to fulfill me because being fulfilled is my own responsibility.
I’m still hopeful for contentedness. It’s a matter of perception, but sometimes I’m content just to be doing the job I do. I can think of a few jobs I wouldn’t be cut out for. At this time, I don’t have to think about them. And that’s actually a happy thought!
No comments:
Post a Comment