Personal Autonomy Linked to Increased Happiness, Less Depression

According to research done by Ellen de Bruin, a Dutch psychologist and journalist, personal autonomy and freedom make people happier. That's the conclusion she draws from a study showing that Dutch women are both the happiest women as well as the most free. The fact that Holland is a relatively wealthy and democratic country surely helps a lot, but apparently personal autonomy is important above and beyond all of that. Is it coincidental that Holland is also relatively less religious?

"It has to do with personal freedom," said de Bruin, whose work, sure enough, is titled "Dutch Women Don't Get Depressed." "Personal choice is key: in the Netherlands people are free to choose their life partners, their religion, their sexuality, we are free to use soft drugs here, we can pretty much say anything we like. The Netherlands is a very free country." ...the Dutch as a nation emerge close to the top of the world happiness rankings established by Ruut Veenhoven, professor of social conditions for human happiness at Erasmus University in Rotterdam. On a scale of 1 to 10, where 10 signals greatest life satisfaction, the Dutch score 7.5 - beating 6.5 for the French and 6.2 for the Japanese. They also defeat Americans with 6.4, the British with 7.1, and the Italians and Spanish who each total 6.9.

Source: International Herald Tribune

The relative weakness and/or absence of religion can't be ignored because traditional religions would work against the personal autonomy described here. Either people accept the boundaries demanded by religion, and they are less free in their lives because they don't feel able to make the choices they want, or they fight the boundaries demanded by religion and in the process create personal conflicts like guilt and interpersonal conflicts with people who still accept those boundaries. Either way, happiness will be reduced when compared to those who are more free and more autonomous.

The differences between Holland and other countries are rather clear:

Part of the reason lies in the social organization of the Netherlands, which offers women greater control over their lives than that of France or Japan. "Japan is a very collectivistic culture with very little personal freedom when it comes to the choice of a job, a partner, a religion, the major things in life," de Bruin said in an interview. A high degree of centralization, meanwhile, seems to reduce life satisfaction in France. "We have a built-in distrust of central governments and a very high need for, and rates of, personal freedom in every aspect of our lives." ...

Modern Dutch men are expected to share the chores at home, "without being told, or when told," de Bruin said. The Dutch woman "wants the man to do housework to help her feel equal, but he has to do it her way."

Men are already relatively autonomous in their lives. This is true even in more religious contexts because traditional religions accord men more power and more freedom of movement than women. They key to improving overall social happiness, then, must lie with improving the position of women in society: more education, more career opportunities, more support in childrearing, and more personal autonomy in their lives.

It's a shame that there is still so much fear and hatred of women that these simple, obvious steps would be considered too radical for some countries — including especially the United States. Religion remains the primary problem because so many religious leaders and institutions object to any measures designed to promote and ensure the full equality of women. A good example of that was Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary president Paige Patterson when he complained in 2007 that educating women is bad for the family and society:

Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary president Paige Patterson says families need to be concerned that in America, 60% of college students are female. He predicts that in a few years, men will be increasingly underrepresented among “the intelligentsia” and will gradually cede leadership in many areas to women. Patterson laments that most of the women ascending to these new roles will maintain a major focus on a career, not on the family and on children.

“Instead of encouraging adolescents to cut the apron strings of mother and venture out into society, we are begging mothers not to cut the apron strings [to] their babies and catapult them prematurely into a menacing world,” said the two-time president of the Southern Baptist Convention. “Mom and hot apple pie have been replaced by institutional daycare centers and cold apple turnovers at McDonald’s.”

…A biblical model of the family is key to restoring social order in the world, stated the Southern Baptist leader. Although innocents continue to be executed in the womb by their mothers and divorce is “eviscerating family life on every hand,” said Patterson, there is still hope for the world.

Source: Pandagon

Just what is the "intelligentsia," anyway? Conservatives have spent a lot of time attacking "intellectuals," so if those are the same people shouldn't conservatives be happy if there are fewer men in the group? What, exactly, would be wrong with more women in the intelligentsia?

What is wrong with women being in leadership positions? What does Paige Patterson fear from female leaders and females in charge of various social, cultural, and political institutions? Does he worry that undeserving men might have to make way for more deserving women — women who have for too long been kept out of position of power merely on account of their gender?

A "biblical model of the family" would be a model where men have concubines, men own slaves, and everyone in the family isn't much higher than the man's property. Is this the sort of "social order" Paige Patterson wants? It seems quite common for religious conservatives to complain about a need for more "social order" where the intent is to establish greater authority and power for white male Christians over everyone else.

Religion isn't the only problem, of course, because we can find fear and hatred of women outside religious contexts. Still, it seems to me that undermining the faith-based opposition to women's equality would go a long towards achieving the most important goals and it might even be enough to achieve them. Religion may not be needed to hate women and to oppose equality for women, but religion frequently makes it easier, provides a transcendent justification for it, and certainly laid the political and cultural groundwork for it.