Solène: I mean, I didn’t know my being happy would piss so many people off.
Tracy: Oh, right. Did I not warn you? People hate happy women.
This dialogue is from the movie The Idea of You, and it caught me off guard. In the field of happiness research, the general mood is one of multiplying this object. There is an optimism regarding people’s spirit: the more happiness, the better (see the motto of Positive Psychology). It is true that research on fear of happiness has been increasing, but that refers to the fear someone has of experiencing happiness. Alternatively, one might consider an extremely utilitarian and selfish person who wants to maximize their own happiness. But, once again, that is very personal. Nothing suggests that such a person would be against someone else’s happiness—especially in a case like the one in the movie, where another person’s happiness does not directly interfere with their own.
How can someone hate another person’s happiness? At first glance, this seems absurd, but on second thought, it is not such a strange idea. On the contrary, it is a very common one. One could argue that any form of hate directed at another person is also hate against their happiness. It seems difficult to imagine anyone arguing that genocide is not also an act of hatred and a crime against the happiness of the people being killed.
But let’s focus strictly on happiness theory. In this case, and more specifically regarding women, Sarah Ahmed has some brilliant writings. For those unfamiliar with her, she describes herself as, open quote, “a feminist writer and independent scholar. I work at the intersection of feminist, queer, and race studies. My research is concerned with how bodies and worlds take shape; and how power is secured and challenged in everyday life worlds as well as institutional cultures.” End quote. I highly recommend her book “The Promise of Happiness” and the two articles “Killing Joy: Feminism and the History of Happiness” and “Happiness and Queer Politics”. These last two are directly relevant to the dialogue between Solène and Tracy.
Two points deserve special attention. The first is that, historically, women’s happiness has been presented as being conditioned on men’s happiness. Rousseau, in his book Émile, richly expresses this idea when describing Sophy’s education. While Émile’s education represents the full realization of human potential according to intellectual and civilizational ideals, Sophy’s education is designed to prepare her to support Émile in his role as the protagonist.
Open quote:
“She loves virtue because there is nothing fairer in itself. She loves it because it is a woman’s glory and because a virtuous woman is little lower than the angels; she loves virtue as the only road to real happiness, because she sees nothing but poverty, neglect, unhappiness, shame and disgrace in the life of the bad woman; she loves virtue because it is dear to her revered father, and to her tender andworthy mother; they are not to be happy in their own virtue, they desire hers; and she finds her chief happiness in the hope of just making them happy!” ([1762] 1993, 359)
End quote. And a bit later in the book, open quote:
“You are a big girl now, Sophy, you will soon be a woman. We want you to be happy, for our sakes as well as yours, for our happiness depends on yours. A good girl finds her own happiness in the happiness of a good man” (434)
End quote.
The image of the housewife who cleans the house, takes care of the children, and prepares meals while eagerly awaiting her partner’s return is no longer as dominant as it once was. However, it is still very present in certain social and religious groups. Even in 1965—before the strong push for women’s integration into the workforce—one of the leaders of the feminist movement in the United States, Betty Friedan, was already pointing out that the happy housewife was a narrative full of holes.
Open quote:
“In 1960, the problem that has no name burst like a boil through the image of the happy American housewife. In the television commercials, the pretty housewives still beamed over their foaming dishpans. . . . But the actual unhappiness of the American housewife was suddenly being reported” (1965, 19–20 – The Feminine Mystique).
End quote.
It is quite normal to assume that happiness is conditional on certain things. We do this all the time. I expect to be happy—or happier—when I get a new job, when I win the lottery, when this or that happens. But for happiness to be conditioned on someone else’s happiness, as it has historically been for women, is something else entirely. Why should it be so different from men’s happiness?
This first point I want to highlight, therefore, refers to the ways in which happiness is framed and how certain paths to it are validated.
The second point—more directly related to Solène’s case and her love affair with a younger man—concerns those who experience happiness outside of the socially validated paths or who even challenge these paths.
Sara Ahmed uses the expression feminist killjoy to describe women who go against the usual contours of happiness. Open quote:
“they disturb the very fantasy that happiness can be found in certain places. To kill a fantasy can still kill a feeling. It is not just that feminists might not be happily affected by the objects that are supposed to cause happiness but that the failure to be happy is read as sabotaging the happiness of others. Feminists might be strangers at the table of happiness.”
End quote.
A trivial example, just to generalize: imagine that you get a promotion you worked hard for. You feel something strong and good, something that you recognize as happiness. Then, feeling happy, you share the news with a friend, who then reminds you of all the contradictions behind what you’re saying and feeling. The company took too long to recognize your effort, the salary increase is below market standards, you have little creative freedom, your boss has been treating you like shit… It’s almost as if this friend is telling you that you actually should be angry, not happy.
Another example, this time real: there’s an episode of the podcast Lives Well Lived in which the hosts, Peter Singer & Kasia de Lazari Radek, interview musician and activist Moby. At the end of the conversation, they ask Moby if he considers himself happy—a question they ask all their guests, who tend to respond “yes,” “very,” “in some way”… But Moby, a true killjoy, answers that as long as he knows that millions of sentient beings are being killed unnecessarily, he cannot be happy. It is worth noting that Moby has been a longtime vegan, but his response illustrates that being a killjoy applies to many groups and people.
Imagine the context of a trans or travesti person in Brazil, the country that has led the world in murders of these groups for the 16th consecutive year. It seems difficult to imagine happiness while facing this fact, and easy to imagine anger and fear. How can one remain indifferent in a society that allows this to happen?
The problem is that pointing out these contradictions and injustices in our world calls into question the happiness that others pursue and experience.
Women might face less drastic injustices than trans people in Brazil (depending on the place of the world, of course). But, anyway, that doesn’t erase the fact that there still are so many injustices: gender pay gap, violence against women and feminicide rates… these injustices are there and we don’t pay much attention to them because they are an absurd, they don’t fit the idea of being in a 2025 civilized world (this last phrase made much more sense before the Trump government).
Open quote to Sarah Ahmed:
“Feminists, by declaring themselves feminists, are already read as destroying something that is thought of by others not only as being good but as the cause of happiness. The feminist killjoy spoils the happiness of others; she is a spoilsport because she refuses to convene, to assemble, or to meet up over happiness.”
End quote.
Dissonant behavior from the norm creates such discomfort that it tends to provoke reactions. Think of a Sunday family lunch where a feminist starts discussing injustices, inequalities, structural problems, and the family reacts: “Mary Ann, couldn’t you just stay quiet and not stir things up… Look… look, Mary Ann, you made your grandmother cry!”
And it’s curious that the movie, The Idea of You, is from 2024—recent!—and yet it resonates (see the Vogue article). In other words, the issues of women being subordinated to men’s happiness and broader social injustices are not just things of the past. Perhaps they were more intense in the past, but they are by no means problems that exist outside of our current time and place.
For those researching happiness and related topics—well-being, life satisfaction, and so on—it seems essential to continually reflect on what objects are associated with happiness and what paths are validated. Inevitably, some objects and paths will be legitimized—whether in theory selection, measurement tools, language choices, or the audience we address—and, consequently, some people will be alienated from happiness.
We also need to be humble, especially as men, to recognize that when our joy is killed, we are in front of an opportunity to open ourselves to other happy objects and paths to happiness.
To conclude, one last quote from Émile, Rousseau’s message to Sophy near the end of the book:
“Every man who is happy at home loves his wife. Remember that if your husband is happy in his home, you will be a happy wife.”
See you next episode.
References
Ahmed, S. (2020). The promise of happiness. Duke University Press.
Ahmed, S. (2010). Killing joy: Feminism and the history of happiness. Signs: Journal of women in Culture and Society, 35(3), 571-594. https://doi.org/10.1086/648513
Ahmed, S. (2009). Happiness and Queer Politics. World Picture 3. http://worldpicturejournal.com/article/happiness-and-queer-politics/
Benevides, B. G. (2025). Dossiê: assassinatos e violências contra travestis e transexuais brasileiras em 2024 [Report: murders and violence against Brazilian transvestites and transsexuals in 2024]. Brasília, Brazil: Distrito Drag & ANTRA. https://antrabrasil.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/dossie-antra-2025.pdf
Cohen, C. (2024, May 2). The Idea of You Is Right About Society Hating Happy Women—Middle-Aged Ones Most of All. Vogue. https://www.vogue.com/article/the-idea-of-you-society-hating-happy-women-middle-aged-ones-most-of-all
Rousseau, J-J. (1993 [1762]). Émile (Trans. Barbara Foxley). London, UK: Everyman.
Showalter, M. (Director). (2024). The idea of you [Film]. Amazon Prime Video.
The Underside of Happiness 