Woman and Progress

a history of unhappiness

One of my favorite books is "The Wealth and Poverty of Nations: Why some are so Rich and Why some are so Poor" by David Landes. He has described how early-Japanese industrial revolution (in textiles, silk, and cotton) was largely built on a workforce made up of woman. And that role was very important. In his words, "factory enterprise had the best of both worlds: labour cheap and yet industrious, committed to task, to group, to family."In some sense, that was true. It also meant that the worse conditions of the industrial revolution was suffered by Woman rather than man. Women did far worse than men during both the European and Japanese industrial revolution. They got the brunt of the abuse but less of the reward.

Ironically, compared to the previous norm of family-exploitation, one can even describe it as progress.

The movement of the textile industry from cottage (family) to factory was a shift from exploitation within the family to one which was external. Landes recounted a rather popular story about a woman who was a weaver at home, and what happened to her at pages 384-388. (Source: Hane, Peasants, Rebels and Outcastes: The Underside of Modern Japan (New York: Pantheon Books, 1982). The story is heart wrenching, but for sheer length, the rendition here will be rather impossible. But this was Landes' version of the conclusion:

"No one came her to see her in prison. She sat there huddled against the cold and the wind and comforted herself with songs about rhubarb shoots pushing through the snow - the same shoots she once picked for her own mother when she was a little child and her mother in her illness got comfort from them. Her son Mii wrote her only once: a family that brutalizes its women does not make men of virtue and gratitude. It was a prison mate, Yamashiro, who heard her out and preserved her story. The orphan mother and wife was then fifty years old." (at 388)

Even till today, what we cannot pay others to do, we will enslave/force/compel/influence others to do [FN1]. Slavery was condemned partly because it became increasingly inefficient for the exploiters considering the alternative (very very cheap but obedient labour). Appeal to kinship, nationhood, manhood, womanhood, family, and society itself have fared better. As Landes described, "Those who wonder at the resistance opposed by Japanese armed forces in the closing months of World War II and ascribe it to fanaticism or suicidal impulse are missing the point. This is a society whose sense of duty and collective obligation, in all realms, sets it apart from the individualism cultivated in the West." Back to woman.

In a recent NYTimes article (also featured in the Straits Times), it was reported:

"Two new research papers, using very different methods, have both come to this conclusion. Betsey Stevenson and Justin Wolfers, economists at the University of Pennsylvania (and a couple), have looked at the traditional happiness data, in which people are simply asked how satisfied they are with their overall lives. In the early 1970s, women reported being slightly happier than men. Today, the two have switched places."

In other words, man report being happier while woman report being unhappier. What is happening is not that "woman are working more" but "that they are doing different kinds of work". I am not surprised. I believe Singapore is following the way of United States. And unlike the individualism US is associated with, Singapore's communalist tendencies will definitely place greater pressures on womanfolk.

Larger expectations invariably leads to the potential for greater unhappiness. As a result, unlike the proverbial advice, one should aim steadily higher and not the moon at once. Or at least not the moon, the sun, and all the planets at once. Woman also seems to be doing better at school and the workplace. Purely on observation, there seems to be more girls in poly, more girls in JC, more girls in Uni. In Singapore, very unAsean, we have a larger number of woman in the legislative/executive wing of the ruling party. Woman also have equal political rights, and have participated in a larger say in the country in the US. Yet, unhappiness is greater.

"A big reason that women reported being happier three decades ago — despite far more discrimination — is probably that they had narrower ambitions, Ms. Stevenson says. Many compared themselves only to other women, rather than to men as well. This doesn’t mean they were better off back then."

Although I grew up with the impression that my father worked very hard, while my mother worked less hard (but made up in ways that cannot be quantifiable) I increasingly realize that this was probably not going to be the rule in my generation. Increasingly, woman are required to build the 'GDP' of both country and home. Yet, the role of child bearer can only be undertaken by woman. At the same time, the role of home maker is primarily on the shoulders of the woman. The ideal woman the state has can be observed from one of those Mediacorp dramas. Ambitious, good of character, successful, wants to have a family and puts family before career. And then there are Western lifestyle pressures. Consumerism for the sake of happiness is getting really popular.

I can imagine (but not have sympathy) with the pressure. Woman are supposed to compete within the traditional male idea of "career" and "independence", play the traditional/Confucian/Asian role of dutiful daughter to the family, live the "exciting" life of a Western free "liberal" "individual", become the Mediacorp infused role of wife and home-marker, keep up with the fashion and dress sense of the fashionable and cool "woman, ad infinitum.

For man, if you don't want to drink beer, appreciate fine wine, enjoy soccer, be a ladies man, a womanizer, rich, drive a sports car, a family man, a dutiful husband, provide for children, family and yourself, somewhat angry, succeed in your career, be the envy of your peers and your own father, be able to fix electronic appliances and have a six-pack all at the same time - it seems okay - there is somewhat less pressure.

What happened perhaps was the realisation that people should not be forced to live similar lives and pursue similar objects. Perhaps it was the ability of man to succeed in achieving the above 'ideals' which revealed that those were not as good as they might seem. Perhaps its a matter of time that girls realise that the the ambitious career woman who looks very happy, pretty and young, smart and intelligent in that MediaCorp drama, with her three children in tow - still looking cool - is a myth, a path that she need not follow.

"What has changed — and what seems to be the most likely explanation for the happiness trends — is that women now have a much longer to-do list than they once did (including helping their aging parents). They can’t possibly get it all done, and many end up feeling as if they are somehow falling short."

I suppose its about cutting ourselves and others some slack.


[FN1]: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1408233

[FN2] The NYTimes Article I quoted extensively from.
[FN3] Another interesting NYTimes article about Amazing Girls who feel inadequate