Are women becoming unhappier?

[yllus]

The Paradox of Declining Female Happiness

Betsey Stevenson and Justin Wolfer, researchers at the University of Pennsylvania, recently published a very interesting research report about the subjective happiness of men and women. If you want to you can read the whole paper, but the most important findings are summarized in the abstract:

By many objective measures the lives of women in the United States have improved over the past 35 years, yet we show that measures of subjective well-being indicate that women?s happiness has declined both absolutely and relative to men. The paradox of women?s declining relative well-being is found across various datasets, measures of subjective well-being, and is pervasive across demographic groups and industrialized countries.

Relative declines in female happiness have eroded a gender gap in happiness in which women in the 1970s typically reported higher subjective well-being than did men. These declines have continued and a new gender gap is emerging?one with higher subjective well-being for men.

On what conclusions we might draw from this study, the article writer offers this:

First of all it informs us that the traditional gender roles gave women a higher subjective happiness than men, a finding that flies in the face of feminist theory.

Second of all, it is inviting us to admit once and for all that there are innate differences between the sexes, and that gender equality does not necessarily mean gender sameness.

I'm not sure I agree with that first conclusion - perhaps it has more to do with women, like men, being generally risk-averse, and the new availability of choice adding stress to their lives? Interesting nonetheless.

 

[Crono]

More crap to deal with generally makes people - men or women - unhappier.

 

[JulesMaximus]

Sounds like a load of bullshit if you ask me.

 

[bignateyk]

I'd be happier too if I could be a stay-at-home dad and cook/clean while the wife went out and worked all day.

 

[Deeko]

hmmm sounds like they were happier in the kitchen than in the office!

 

[Beev]

I predict 3 people post something in this thread that is witty and sarcastic and ultimately gets them wrongfully banned.

 

[Sea Moose]

Originally posted by: Beev
I predict 3 people post something in this thread that is witty and sarcastic and ultimately gets them wrongfully banned.

Not me :thumbsup:

 

[surfsatwerk]

So it wasn't just my imagination that my ex-wife hated her life and could only derive pleasure by dragging me down to Hell with her?

 

[Cogman]

So.. The article is saying that woman are less happy because they are out of the kitchen?

 

[rivan]

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus
Sounds like a load of bullshit if you ask me.

Oh? Why?

Seems perfectly reasonable to me. With women 'in the home' we had a similar economic standard of living, but didn't have to bust ass every weekend to knock out all the chores that pile up during the week because both parents are working. We had a better sense of community and I believe a better system of raising our children.

I'm no cheauvanist, but I think we'd have been better off sticking with a single breadwinner per household. Keeping it a single sex would make for a simpler societal arrangement but isn't necessary. I'd even go so far as to say that women would be better in the home specifically on the issue of raising children, as most women I've known have been better nurturers than most men.

All together, I think the spouse in the home - male or female - has an easier life than the breadwinner. There's no boss, there's no office politics, there's no competition for jobs, etc. It's not all poolside daiquiris and naps, but it's certainly lower stress than "working for a living".

 

[Titan]

What, women decided to go be more masculine and go get jobs and climb the corporate ladder and work in an office world full of BS, and they became less happy? Gee, I wonder why.

There's a reason baking cake is easy as cake.

 

[Minerva]

Well if the men produced, protected and earned more it would help.

I kid, I kid!

:laugh:

 

[shortylickens]

I dont even wanna get into a whole feminist or gender roles argument here but yes, I can totally see why women would be less happy since the 70's.

People think they want or need all kinds of things but what they REALLY want (even if its only a subconsious desire) is to be happy. What makes people happy? MANY different things. A lot of folks dont realize they just wanna be happy or cant figure out exactly what makes them happy until they are too old to do anything about it.

The 70's feminists thought they were horribly unhappy with the homemaker role and thought they could be happy doing bigger and better things. I'm not saying its impossible for a woman to find personal satisfaction in a succesful business oriented career, but I often wonder how many children of the feminism generation are utterly miserable because they were spood-fed bullshit since preschool.

Crap, I guess I did just start a feminism debate.

 

[n yusef]

This data can be explained in two ways. First, women's expectations have risen more than reality has improved. That is, they expect to be treated fairly, but there are still people like Rivan who discriminate against them. Second, as gender norms have relaxed, women are more likely to express their unhappiness than before. 35 years ago, it would have been unladylike to say that one was unhappy, but now it's more acceptable.

 

[Cogman]

Originally posted by: n yusef
This data can be explained in two ways. First, women's expectations have risen more than reality has improved. That is, they expect to be treated fairly, but there are still people like Rivan who discriminate against them. Second, as gender norms have relaxed, women are more likely to express their unhappiness than before. 35 years ago, it would have been unladylike to say that one was unhappy, but now it's more acceptable.

I kind of side with #2 myself.

 

[TehMac]

It's because Feminists have filled their heads with a lot of bull shit nonsense. People tried to talk sense to them about it, but they immediately set about yelling their ideas louder. Some women joined eagerly in a militant attempt to re-identify themselves. Others became confused, "realizing" that they should feel bad because they wanted to serve their husband (and ideally, vice versa).

That is the problem, instead of society focusing on the positives of each individual, we perverted those positives (being a good wife, serving/loving your man (vice versa)) and now a woman who wants to stay at home and cook and clean feels guilty about that.

No wonder the Islamists point and laugh at our 'corrupt' culture; we're attempting to defy nearly 20,000 thousand years of anthropological development in a mere 40-50 years! I'm all for individual rights, women's suffrage, etc., but at some point the line needs be drawn or else our society's fabric will just implode into a bunch of unhappy marriages and people only willing to please themselves.

 

[Blackjack200]

Originally posted by: rivan

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus
Sounds like a load of bullshit if you ask me.

Oh? Why?

Seems perfectly reasonable to me. With women 'in the home' we had a similar economic standard of living, but didn't have to bust ass every weekend to knock out all the chores that pile up during the week because both parents are working. We had a better sense of community and I believe a better system of raising our children.

I'm no cheauvanist, but I think we'd have been better off sticking with a single breadwinner per household. Keeping it a single sex would make for a simpler societal arrangement but isn't necessary. I'd even go so far as to say that women would be better in the home specifically on the issue of raising children, as most women I've known have been better nurturers than most men.

All together, I think the spouse in the home - male or female - has an easier life than the breadwinner. There's no boss, there's no office politics, there's no competition for jobs, etc. It's not all poolside daiquiris and naps, but it's certainly lower stress than "working for a living".

Interesting. I live in my house all by myself and I don't think I have to "bust my ass" to get things done. Yeah, I don't watch a lot of TV or veg out a whole lot, but once you learn to enjoy the chores a bit, it's not too bad.

I wonder if the reason that women are less happy is because their men are not as good at pleasing them anymore...

If any women out there think that might be the case, please feel free to send me a PM and set up some "therapy" sessions

 

[Crono]

I don't think Rivan's statement was discriminatory, or if it was, it wasn't negative.

It makes sense for one person to take a more active role in care of the kids and the household (not just cleaning, but finance and upkeep of the home), because those are things that are just as important as earning money to provide for that family.

People think that gender roles are bad, but I don't think that's true. It's wrong when there is some kind of abuse of power or unequal distribution of responsibilities. It's not wrong for women to work outside of the home, but if that's the case, the husband should (presumably he's willing) take the role of maintaining the household and raising the kids.

It's possible for both husband and wife to work in a family with kids, however if they are working full time with inflexible schedules, it becomes nearly impossible to find time to adequately spend time with their kids and take care of the household. Sure, if they are making enough money they can hire people to do those things, but it's not quite the same, especially with their children.

I am speaking generally, there are always exceptions.

 

[Dirigible]

Originally posted by: Blackjack200
Interesting. I live in my house all by myself and I don't think I have to "bust my ass" to get things done. Yeah, I don't watch a lot of TV or veg out a whole lot, but once you learn to enjoy the chores a bit, it's not too bad.

I wonder if the reason that women are less happy is because their men are not as good at pleasing them anymore...

If any women out there think that might be the case, please feel free to send me a PM and set up some "therapy" sessions

LOL. Get married and have kids. Report back on how many chores you have to do and how much free time you have to do them in.

 

[BoomerD]

Ladies, welcome to "liberation." Now you get to be as fucking miserable as men have been for centuries...

 

[MiniDoom]

Originally posted by: Dirigible

Originally posted by: Blackjack200
Interesting. I live in my house all by myself and I don't think I have to "bust my ass" to get things done. Yeah, I don't watch a lot of TV or veg out a whole lot, but once you learn to enjoy the chores a bit, it's not too bad.

I wonder if the reason that women are less happy is because their men are not as good at pleasing them anymore...

If any women out there think that might be the case, please feel free to send me a PM and set up some "therapy" sessions

LOL. Get married and have kids. Report back on how many chores you have to do and how much free time you have to do them in.

+1
when I was single I use to go home to relax and chill. now that I have a newborn I go to work to relax and chill.

 

[Beev]

Originally posted by: rdubbz420
+1
when I was single I use to go home to relax and chill. now that I have a newborn I go to work to relax and chill.

I've never understood this. Work sucks for nearly everyone. How shitty must your life be if you WANT to go to work?

 

[Ktulu]

Originally posted by: Deeko
hmmm sounds like they were happier in the kitchen than in the office!

QFT

 

[MiniDoom]

Originally posted by: Beev

Originally posted by: rdubbz420
+1
when I was single I use to go home to relax and chill. now that I have a newborn I go to work to relax and chill.

I've never understood this. Work sucks for nearly everyone. How shitty must your life be if you WANT to go to work?

ever raised a newborn with colic? it's a lot of work and I actually like my job. thank you.

 

[n yusef]

Originally posted by: Crono
I don't think Rivan's statement was discriminatory, or if it was, it wasn't negative.

It makes sense for one person to take a more active role in care of the kids and the household (not just cleaning, but finance and upkeep of the home), because those are things that are just as important as earning money to provide for that family.

People think that gender roles are bad, but I don't think that's true. It's wrong when there is some kind of abuse of power or unequal distribution of responsibilities. It's not wrong for women to work outside of the home, but if that's the case, the husband should (presumably he's willing) take the role of maintaining the household and raising the kids.

It's possible for both husband and wife to work in a family with kids, however if they are working full time with inflexible schedules, it becomes nearly impossible to find time to adequately spend time with their kids and take care of the household. Sure, if they are making enough money they can hire people to do those things, but it's not quite the same, especially with their children.

I am speaking generally, there are always exceptions.

After Rivan claimed that women are suited to housework, and men to working-outside-the-house, it was easy to extrapolate his preference; were he in a position of power, able to choose between two similarly qualified people of different genders for promotion, whom do you think he would pick?