Who decides whether a woman is "free" or "oppressed"?

I read a fascinating New York Times article
The College Student Who Has France’s Secularists Fulminating,
which describes how Maryam Pougetoux, a student leader has caused offense because she wore a traditional head scarf when interviewed on TV about student protests.
Some secularists considered it inconsistent with her being president of a student union and with advocacy of the progressive and feminist values she stands for.
Critics seem focused on her clothes rather than what she said.

In such discussions I wonder about whether some women in the Western world are really free?

There is incredible social pressure (from both men and women) for women wear make up, high heels, revealing clothing, and adopt certain poses. Some women freely choose such options, others do so out of compulsion, whether consciously or sub-consciously.

This cartoon is by Malcolm Evans 

The article about the french controversy is interesting to juxtapose with a recent article in The Australian newspaper, Race, gender politics swamp great debate, Controversy has arisen because the Sydney University Debating Society has introduced gender-based quotas for their teams.

The article features the photograph below of a student who supported the quotas. 

A new spin on women's rights

I saw my wife reading an excellent article A comfort bill of rights for women by Froma Harrop. It points out that in the Western world women do not feel they have

• The right to walk (i.e. wear sensible and comfortable shoes)
• The right to eat
• The right to be covered
• The right to be warm.

The idol of happiness

My dear wife sent me an interesting item  Hear Me Roar! (Musings on Women's History Month) by Mary Kassian on the Desiring God blog. It reviews how the feminist revolution offered to make women happier by giving them greater independence through freeing them from the shackles of marriage and family. Yet, it seems that American women are the most unhappy they have ever been! Kassian then reflects on a Biblical model for womanhood and concludes:

History proves that woman’s happiness is not found in pursuing the current cultural ideal. But that doesn’t mean it’s an elusive goal. My “woman’s history”—and the history of a multitude of sisters who have loved Christ—testifies to the fact that happiness (of the deep, lasting kind) can be found in pursuing the One to whom true womanhood points.  

Although I have some sympathy to this I am uneasy about this emphasis on happiness. It seems to be a utilitarian argument for following Christ: Women's goal should be to be happy. Being a feminist does not bring happiness. Feminism doesn't work. But, what will make women happy is following Christ. So women should give up on feminism and follow Christ. 

This emphasis on happiness probably comes from the United States Declaration of Independence. The second sentence of is:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Christ does offer joy and an abundant life. But he also promises persecution, suffering, sacrifice, and the "way of the Cross".