PDA

View Full Version : Women are happier without a spouse or children



Angela
27-05-19, 19:29
See:
https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2019/may/25/women-happier-without-children-or-a-spouse-happiness-expert

"“We do have some good longitudinal data following the same people over time, but I am going to do a massive disservice to that science and just say: if you’re a man, you should probably get married; if you’re a woman, don’t bother.”

This isn't the first time I've seen someone make this claim. Single women live longer than married women, married men live longer than single men, etc.

My first reaction is that I've grown to distrust "psychology" papers. There is a huge replication crisis, partly because of small sample sizes and partly because of terrible statistical analysis or downright "tinkering" with data to get the required results.

Interesting that married people, probably women, answer the "happiness" question more negatively if their spouses aren't present.

There are a few common sense explanations, of course.

"Men benefited from marriage because they “calmed down”, he said. “You take less risks, you earn more money at work, and you live a little longer. She, on the other hand, has to put up with that, and dies sooner than if she never married. The healthiest and happiest population subgroup are women who never married or had children,” he said."

"Dolan said men showed more health benefits from tying the knot, as they took fewer risks. Women’s health was mostly unaffected by marriage, with middle-aged married women even being at higher risk of physical and mental conditions than their single counterparts."

One could say, I suppose, that a life trying to balance work with taking the major responsibility for the home and the children leads to a lot of stress and that's the cause.

A lot would depend on which husband and what kind of children, I would imagine. I've seen other studies which say that much more so in recent times than in the past both men and women say they regret having children. Given how some turn out nowadays than in the past I'm not surprised. I've also seen studies that deeply religious married couples are happier. Maybe they're fooling themselves, or maybe husbands in those situations are more likely not to stray and put more effort into parenthood. I don't know.

Meanwhile, IF this is true, you have society telling women they should want to marry and have children, only to have them discover it's no bed of roses.

On a partly jocular note, the happiest women I ever met were nuns. :)

bicicleur
28-05-19, 08:19
the happiest people are rich people with few responsabilities, provided they can coop with their wealth and find something usefull to do for themselves

markod
28-05-19, 09:43
The women I know are as a rule less dependent and better at forming new relationships than the men I know. If they are at all representative it doesn't surprise me that women don't derive the same benefits from marriage and children.

It took me a while to realize thisbecause popular culture would have you believe the opposite.

bicicleur
28-05-19, 15:53
The women I know are as a rule less dependent and better at forming new relationships than the men I know. If they are at all representative it doesn't surprise me that women don't derive the same benefits from marriage and children.

It took me a while to realize thisbecause popular culture would have you believe the opposite.

they are representative
it is a well-known fact

Joey37
28-05-19, 16:19
No one should promote what is basically an evolutionary dead end. It's irresponsible. This is the kind of tripe that makes the alt-right think there is a secret cabal of Jews intent on eliminating the white race. With contraceptives and advanced medical care, this is the best time in history to start a family because you can control the amount of children you have and not like the old days when you just shot all your arrows into the air and then went to see what stuck.

Angela
28-05-19, 17:25
I don't know if they're right and this can be replicated or not.

However, don't shoot the messenger if it does turn out to be true.

Women are, in my opinion, hard-wired to want children, probably partly because of hormones. Society also tells them constantly that they need a husband and children to be a "real" woman, and to be happy. That doesn't mean that it's always a joy. Being a wife and mother was never an unmitigated source of happiness no matter what society and your hormones were telling you to do.

My grandmother bore eleven children to a selfish, inconsiderate, idle man whom she basically supported for the second half of his life. She delivered seven of those children herself because he took her to the forests of Pennsylvania to run a lumber company. He then lost half of it on bad investments back in Italy, and she had to get them back on their feet with businesses which she ran. He never raised a hand to do the cleaning or the mountains of wash, or the cooking and never took a hand in rearing those children. Everything I've read indicates this was the norm everywhere and in all eras. That was all woman's work.

He used to say he didn't understand why all his children loved her more than him when he'd never laid a hand on them and she had. Well, he'd never done anything for or to them at all. Did she ever complain? No, she didn't, because that was a woman's lot in life. The closest she ever came was once when she was old she told me that every time her children were born her first thought was whether it was a girl or boy. If it was a girl she cried. Had she been honest I very much doubt she would have said marriage made her "happy", or that she wanted eleven children. That was, as I said, your lot in life.

Yes, in some ways things are better now. There "is" birth control now, and better medical care. We don't see in cemeteries burials of men with three wives next to them, because women don't die in childbirth so often. However, it's still no bed of roses.

Evolution would like women to have as many children as possible. Thank God we have the will and technology today to say I choose not to participate. Evolutionary purposes be damned.

I've been lucky, and I also need and want my man with me. A lot of women, in my experience, are not like that. I know more than a few women, with husbands who make a very good living which necessitates them traveling a good part of the time, and you know what? That's more than fine with them so long as the checks come in. As more than one of them has said: it's just one less child to "mother". Many of them don't have particularly strong sex drives, and have more to say and more "emotional" intimacy with their mothers, sisters, and friends than they do with their husbands. I actually feel sorry for some of these men and do understand how they can wind up just feeling like a "paycheck".

As Markod wisely alluded to upthread, women build communities for themselves. They survive widowhood and divorce much better than men in my experience. It's the men who are lost souls and have to quickly find another "wife". Most of the women I know tell me they would never marry again were they widowed. A "gentleman friend" would be great. Marriage? It's too much work.

Salento
28-05-19, 17:30
I would never dare to impose my ethics on women's choices.

That said :) imho If a woman isn't committed to marriage and motherhood, it would be best for everyone if she stay Zitella (single/no kids).

That goes for men too! :)

LABERIA
28-05-19, 17:34
A woman who has never experienced what it means to be a mother is not a woman.

Salento
28-05-19, 17:50
A woman who has never experienced what it means to be a mother is not a woman.

wow, you must be in touch with your inner woman.

Remind me never to accept women's advice from you. LOL

LABERIA
28-05-19, 18:44
wow, you must be in touch with your inner woman.

Remind me never to accept women's advice from you. LOL

https://www.geek.com/news/anaconda-gets-pregnant-without-a-male-has-virgin-birth-at-aquarium-1788794/

Ailchu
28-05-19, 18:52
No one should promote what is basically an evolutionary dead end. It's irresponsible. This is the kind of tripe that makes the alt-right think there is a secret cabal of Jews intent on eliminating the white race. With contraceptives and advanced medical care, this is the best time in history to start a family because you can control the amount of children you have and not like the old days when you just shot all your arrows into the air and then went to see what stuck.

It is imo kindof of irresponsible to have children especially now. makes 0 sense if we are honest. We aren't even playing the evolutionary game anymore.

bicicleur
28-05-19, 19:09
today we live in an artificial world, we've turned far away from the rythm of nature
the framework has gone, but hormones are still at play
it's hard to find new ways in harmony

bicicleur
28-05-19, 19:11
It is imo kindof of irresponsible to have children especially now. makes 0 sense if we are honest. We aren't even playing the evolutionary game anymore.

I think it is irresponsable that we all live to become 100 years old and obstruct the new youth. It makes no sense.
Does life make any sense?

Duarte
28-05-19, 20:09
Naughty Poem


Children ... Children?
Better not have them!
But if we do not have them
How to know them?
If we do not have them
How much silence
How I love you!
Sea bath
Spouse flies
Transpoin the space
It gets salty
Iodifycated
What a nice
What a brunette
That wife stays!
Result: child.
And then begins
The annoyance:
The poop is white
The poop is black
He ate the button.
Children? Children
Better not have them
Insomnia Nights
Convulsive tears
My God, save him!
Children are the demon
Better not have them ...
But if we do not have them
How to know them?
How to know
They suck razor
They drink shampoo
They put fire
In the neighborhood
But what thing
What a crazy thing
What a beautiful thing
That children are!


By Vinicius de Moraes

torzio
28-05-19, 20:45
A long time ago, a scholar of marital sciences, stated that a Marriage should be a contract for only 10 years, then they ( wife and husband ) can split or renew a new contract for only 2 year periods.

Angela
28-05-19, 21:04
today we live in an artificial world, we've turned far away from the rythm of nature
the framework has gone, but hormones are still at play
it's hard to find new ways in harmony

Beautifully said, Bicicleur. I completely agree.

Yeats is one of my favorite poets.

https://www.poemhunter.com/i/poem_images/033/the-second-coming.jpg

I just don't believe anymore that there will be a Second Coming of either Christ or Anti-Christ.

Another is T.S. Eliot. One of his greatest poems is called "The Wasteland". If you haven't read it, you should, but only in English, although not when you're feeling a little depressed. :)

As for whether life makes sense? When I was a religious woman, it did make sense. Now? To be honest, no, not to me it doesn't. The only thing to hold on to is the love of the people you love.

@Duarte,

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uFQfylQ2Jgg

See also:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fZ_4HEOfUdo

These are only the little problems, of course.

Duarte
29-05-19, 00:37
@Duarte,

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uFQfylQ2Jgg

See also:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fZ_4HEOfUdo

These are only the little problems, of course.

It’s all true. LOL. Very funny these stand up comedy shows:good_job::laughing::laughing:

Wanderer
29-05-19, 00:43
Men probably are too. Truth is both are probably happier alone because changes to our lifestyle. And what we can do is more limited.

08-06-19, 00:46
See:https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2019/may/25/women-happier-without-children-or-a-spouse-happiness-expertInteresting that married people, probably women, answer the "happiness" question more negatively if their spouses aren't present. [/FONT][/COLOR]Have you heard that there has been a retraction of the claim above? Apparently the author misunderstood the survey data and assumed that "spouse absent" meant that the spouse was out of the room (and the respondent was therefore free to make disparaging remarks). Actually the term meant the spouse was no longer living with the respondent. The source is https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2019/6/4/18650969/married-women-miserable-fake-paul-dolan-happiness. The article has other disparaging things to say about the book the Guardian article was based on.I guess this fits under the heading of "don't believe everything you read".

Angela
08-06-19, 01:16
Have you heard that there has been a retraction of the claim above? Apparently the author misunderstood the survey data and assumed that "spouse absent" meant that the spouse was out of the room (and the respondent was therefore free to make disparaging remarks). Actually the term meant the spouse was no longer living with the respondent. The source is https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2019/6/4/18650969/married-women-miserable-fake-paul-dolan-happiness. The article has other disparaging things to say about the book the Guardian article was based on.I guess this fits under the heading of "don't believe everything you read".

Yes, I read that. However, wasn't the point that women were more "negative" when "spouse absent".

I didn't really know how to interpret that. So, they were more negative when they were widowed and/or divorced? Maybe just when they had divorced?

Shoddy workmanship, anyway.

08-06-19, 02:35
I am saddened that so many things I thought were true in the past (newspapers, published books, the evening news) have proved to be, at least in these modern days, shoddy and unreliable. Were they ever anything else? Part of growing up was to realize that humans are fallible. However, I had hoped that large publishers at least had the integrity, and the editors, to ensure what they distributed was close to accurate. I don't like living in a world where everything is political and nothing is reliable. The only answer, I guess, is to use your nose. If it doesn't smell right, it probably isn't.

Tutkun Arnaut
08-06-19, 03:08
See:
https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2019/may/25/women-happier-without-children-or-a-spouse-happiness-expert

"“We do have some good longitudinal data following the same people over time, but I am going to do a massive disservice to that science and just say: if you’re a man, you should probably get married; if you’re a woman, don’t bother.”

This isn't the first time I've seen someone make this claim. Single women live longer than married women, married men live longer than single men, etc.

My first reaction is that I've grown to distrust "psychology" papers. There is a huge replication crisis, partly because of small sample sizes and partly because of terrible statistical analysis or downright "tinkering" with data to get the required results.

Interesting that married people, probably women, answer the "happiness" question more negatively if their spouses aren't present.

There are a few common sense explanations, of course.

"Men benefited from marriage because they “calmed down”, he said. “You take less risks, you earn more money at work, and you live a little longer. She, on the other hand, has to put up with that, and dies sooner than if she never married. The healthiest and happiest population subgroup are women who never married or had children,” he said."

"Dolan said men showed more health benefits from tying the knot, as they took fewer risks. Women’s health was mostly unaffected by marriage, with middle-aged married women even being at higher risk of physical and mental conditions than their single counterparts."

One could say, I suppose, that a life trying to balance work with taking the major responsibility for the home and the children leads to a lot of stress and that's the cause.

A lot would depend on which husband and what kind of children, I would imagine. I've seen other studies which say that much more so in recent times than in the past both men and women say they regret having children. Given how some turn out nowadays than in the past I'm not surprised. I've also seen studies that deeply religious married couples are happier. Maybe they're fooling themselves, or maybe husbands in those situations are more likely not to stray and put more effort into parenthood. I don't know.

Meanwhile, IF this is true, you have society telling women they should want to marry and have children, only to have them discover it's no bed of roses.

On a partly jocular note, the happiest women I ever met were nuns. :)



I do not believe these kind of articles!! It could be some outliers but generally women want children and a husband. Women health gets better after deliveries, and women who have kids live longer.

08-06-19, 03:24
I don't know, I try, as a man, to be careful telling women what they feel or what their lives are like. But . . . it seems that most people to want to couple up. If married women hated their married lives so much I don't think we'd see so many divorced people remarrying.

I can say, as an older man, that it feels good to know you have someone who wants to spend the rest of their life with you. Being two is better than being one.

That being said, the question is, how do we tell which articles to disbelieve? It can't be just those we disagree with.

Angela
08-06-19, 04:52
I don't know, I try, as a man, to be careful telling women what they feel or what their lives are like. But . . . it seems that most people to want to couple up. If married women hated their married lives so much I don't think we'd see so many divorced people remarrying.

I can say, as an older man, that it feels good to know you have someone who wants to spend the rest of their life with you. Being two is better than being one.

That being said, the question is, how do we tell which articles to disbelieve? It can't be just those we disagree with.

Well, the fact that the author used such sloppy methodology puts me off this one.

It doesn't mean it might not be true; it just means I would never use this study as support for the proposition.

I don't know the answer.

I've lost my faith in a lot of psychology research given the replication problem.

As to the underlying issues, ignoring any of the "psychology" papers, I can only go both by my own experience and what I hear from women friends.

For many of them, if they could continue their lifestyle (i.e. the same amount of money was coming in), they'd have a boyfriend, but most would not "marry" again, as in live in the same house, have "obligations", duties, etc. Of course, this is a completely unscientific sample. :)

I mean, look at the divorce statistics: if women are married to doctors, they're less likely to get divorced. Is that because doctors just make better husbands, or pick nicer women, or do financial factors enter into the picture?

Just to get personal for a second, I always wanted to be married, and I'd do it again if I had my life to live over again (Ever watch the film "Peggy Sue Got Married"?) However, at this stage in my life, if something happened, I doubt I'd marry again. I've done a lot of compromising. I wouldn't want to start compromising all over again because of someone else's needs, habits, attitudes. My gentleman friend and I could go out, he could stay overnight, but then he could go home and do his own laundry, and my home and my life would be run the way "I" want. Plus, I doubt I'm any longer capable of feeling for another man what I felt and still feel to a great degree for my husband: that kind of hit by "un colpo di fulmine", I'd walk through fire for you, I can't bear to be apart, thing perhaps only happens and imprints you when you're young.

Honestly, I think it will be decades before scientists really figure out human emotions, sexual attraction, "love", if they ever do.

That isn't to say that I don't know women who have to be married or they feel adrift. That's more than fine. No lifestyle is perfect for everybody.

Tomenable
08-06-19, 06:31
The gender gap in longevity disappears in a study of monks and nuns:

https://www.allianz.com/en/press/news/commitment/community/news-2013-09-11.html

This is based on a German study (small decline in life expectancy for monks in the 1970s coincides with permitting monks to smoke cigarettes):

https://i.imgur.com/NkCxWbR.png

If monks live much longer than married men, while nuns do not live much longer than married women, then something has to be wrong with an article which claims that marriage benefits men's health more.

Angela
08-06-19, 17:51
The gender gap in longevity disappears in a study of monks and nuns:

https://www.allianz.com/en/press/news/commitment/community/news-2013-09-11.html

This is based on a German study (small decline in life expectancy for monks in the 1970s coincides with permitting monks to smoke cigarettes):

https://i.imgur.com/NkCxWbR.png

If monks live much longer than married men, while nuns do not live much longer than married women, then something has to be wrong with an article which claims that marriage benefits men's health more.

You'd have to look at the study methodology. Where does it say that all the men and women not in religious orders were married? They may be looking at something completely different, like is the monastic life healthier.

Men who aren't monks, for example, would be much more likely not to die of work accidents, homicide, and suicide, all three of which kill men more than women.

Stuvanè
09-06-19, 14:00
For what is my personal experience - living and working in Milan, which in the Italian scenario has its own social and work specificity, and where I believe that singles now outnumber family groups or are very close in number - I think I can say that in the past the life of a couple, especially if publicly regularized with a religious or civil marriage, was a sort of social safety net, especially for women. Religious considerations aside (which in the past certainly had a greater weight), in the centuries and until a few decades ago the woman was a subject very weak from a contractual point of view, so her "survival" depended in large part on the economic availability of the partner and the possibility of entering a higher social sphere than the one of origin.


Now these differences have settled. Even in a traditional reality like the Italian one - and in particular in medium-large cities - the woman who works is frequently autonomous professionally and economically, she does not need to depend on the finances of others (and on the other hand the same men for the most part do not have more than a "commodity" as attractive as it used to be, making it quite interesting to a woman).


What are the results? On the one hand, autonomous women are able to manage their time even better, devoting themselves to training for professional advancements, but also for passions and interests that can sometimes be valid replacements for family or maternal joys (all within a framework of more or less deliberate de-responsibility, almost as if you were living a prolonged adolescence, also thanks to the new medical technologies that allow a woman to have children - or imagine having them - almost at the start of menopause).


On the contrary, the few who decide to marry and have an offspring can do it with two very different basic purposes:


1) to marry and become a mother with good reason, convinced, with a great sense of responsibility and greater awareness (often when one is a bit over the years), not marrying the first man that happens but usually a person of whom one is they trust a lot, in a frame of very mature emotional dimension
2) to marry and be mothers exactly as one can satisfy a hobby / pastime. It is not the absolute priority of their life, but something to experience during life.
It is obvious that the game must be worth the candle: in this second sub-group there are also the brides who consider it a hobby, but one of the most expensive ones, which well marks a specific status symbol. Therefore the husband / partner must be economically and socially up to the situation. Paradoxically, one returns to marriage as a social lift, but of great luxury, and few can afford it.

ArdianTH
10-06-19, 00:28
And there are studies saying that women (in general) are less content with their lifes since they've been given the possibilty to pursue a career, especially if that career has made it impossible for them to have and raise children. From an evolutionairy standpoint - and considering that mankind is probably the most successful species on Earth - it would also make no sense to punish women for ensuring the survival of humans.

Angela
10-06-19, 01:04
It's undeniable that in developed countries in our modern world the most educated women have the fewest children. I don't think evolutionary biologists believe that's a good idea.

bicicleur
10-06-19, 10:12
evolutionary biology is based on the principle of the survival of the fittest
since the end of WW II - or maybe earlier - that principle doesn't work for humans any more
testosteron in male biology is an adaptation to the the principle of the survival of the fittest itself

should we ban testosteron or should we re-install some kind of competition?
if you ban the testosteron we end up with a bunch of sexless males
if you exclude competition and rewards, you end up with males who don't know how to handle their testosteron

this is why it is harder for males to adapt to modern society than for females

Angela
10-06-19, 15:13
And there are studies saying that women (in general) are less content with their lifes since they've been given the possibilty to pursue a career, especially if that career has made it impossible for them to have and raise children. From an evolutionairy standpoint - and considering that mankind is probably the most successful species on Earth - it would also make no sense to punish women for ensuring the survival of humans.

I also don't think it makes sense to punish high IQ women by making it impossible for them to use their intellects. Don't misunderstand me: raising children is the hardest and most demanding job I've ever had. However, it didn't satisfy all of my "intellectual" needs. Plus, is society to lose all the advancements that women doctors and scientists, as just one example, have given the world?

Perhaps the solution is to make it easier for women to do both, and men as well if they so choose.

Flex hours, no penalty in terms of promotion for working part time for a few years etc.

The reality is that if a woman is working a dead end, repetitive job because the family needs the money, she more than likely would prefer to stay home and be a full time mother instead. If a woman is a high achiever, she and her husband together probably make enough money to hire help.

Is that ideal? Imho, no, I don't think so, not until they go to school. Ideally, one or the other parent should be with them until then. Once they're in school, that frees up a lot of time. Hiring some help for after school driving to activities, starting them on their homework until one of the parents gets home usually works. I did it, so I know. Of course, as attitudes in the workplace are now, one of you has to take the hit in terms of promotion by being home by 5 or 6. That was also me. That's what I mean by saying that the workplace rules and attitudes have to change. There's no putting the genie back in the bottle.

bicicleur
10-06-19, 17:18
raising children should be the responsbility of both parents
but men will always be more inclined to put the job first, and women vice versa

in Belgium the politicians have already spent all the money in the pension funds
so the working generation is paying for the people in retirement in the present
many countries are in the same situation (the politicians should have been jailed for setting up a Ponzi-scheme)

raising children is an investment
my proposal is to abolish legal pensions, and let the children pay for their retired parents
those who didn't raise children didn't make that investment, they should have saved for their retirement
I believe that would be the right way to stimulate having children
in a way, it is going back to the old traditional way

Dagne
10-06-19, 18:27
Women health gets better after deliveries, and women who have kids live longer.

Lol, you probably agree with Charles Darwin who though that it is not healthy for his wife (and other women) not to be pregnant a year after year, and that she may fall ill if not being pregnant for a longer period of time ...

This is what Charles Darwin though about marriage (he was putting pros and cons if to get married or not):

Marry
Children—(if it Please God) [14] — Constant companion, (& friend in old age) who will feel interested in one,— object to be beloved & played with.— —better than a dog anyhow.— [15] Home, & someone to take care of house— Charms of music & female chit-chat.— These things good for one’s health.— [16] but terrible loss of time. —
https://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/tags/about-darwin/family-life/darwin-marriage

Angela
10-06-19, 23:54
What a completely self-centered, obnoxious jerk.

See, you can be a brilliant scientist and an *** **** at the same time.

Btw, it gets worse. He entered into an incestuous marriage and then, knowing there might be risks, used his children as test subjects, keeping detailed diaries to see what problems might show up.

Originally Posted by Tutkun Arnaut https://www.eupedia.com/forum/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (https://www.eupedia.com/forum/showthread.php?p=579140#post579140)
Women health gets better after deliveries, and women who have kids live longer.

Who the heck told you that nonsense? The more pregnancies, the more chances you'd die during one of them: puerperal fever, hemorrhages, strokes, and on and on. Even before the birth, women get things like diabetes, and terrible varicose veins, high blood pressure, preeclampsia etc. That's today. Now just imagine what it used to be like. That's why if you visit the older part of cemeteries, you see one man and two or three wives.

Also, your health gets progressively worse if your body doesn't get to recover in between. The baby takes all the nutrients first, and working class and poorer rural women didn't get enough food as it was. So, it was common for women to lose teeth because the baby leached the calcium from their bones. Do you have any idea of the metabolic stress the female body goes through to bring that child to life?

"


It’s hard on your body. Having another child so soon after the first means your body doesn’t necessarily have sufficient time to fully recover. Your iron and calcium levels may be depleted, and you may suffer from prenatal anemia (https://www.whattoexpect.com/pregnancy/anemia/) or just feel tired and run down. Some research has shown that getting pregnant again within a year of giving birth puts you at higher risk of giving birth prematurely (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1471-0528.12891/abstract?systemMessage=Wiley+Online+Library+will+b e+disrupted+Saturday,+7+June+from+10:00-15:00+BST+(05:00-10:00+EDT)+for+essential+maintenance), and within two years could be tied to an increased risk of your second child developing autism (https://consumer.healthday.com/cognitive-health-information-26/autism-news-51/pregnancies-close-together-may-raise-autism-risk-study-says-709733.html). Plus you may be more likely to develop the baby blues (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10817873) after having a second child so quickly in succession to the first. If your first was born by C-section less than 18 months before your second arrives, it may be difficult (or dangerous) for you to deliver vaginally. All of which is why experts recommend waiting at least 18 months between pregnancies."

"


When it comes to how prepared your body is for the next baby, a 2-year gap is healthier for you than waiting less time (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC169644/): Your body has had enough time to bounce back from the last pregnancy.
It reduces risk of pregnancy complications. Experts recommend waiting at least 18 months between pregnancies because it reduces the risk of your youngest child being preterm or low birthweight (especially if you’re over 35)."

"


According to some research (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15820365), you may have the lowest risk of labor complications when you have your second baby around three years after your first.
Pregnancy may carry less risk for you and your baby. Again, this time frame seems to be easier on your body versus having a baby earlier (when you haven’t had as much time to recover) or later (when you’re older and potentially may face age-related risks)."

They don't even get into the idiocy of doing this eleven times like my poor grandmother. My nonna and my mother were agreed when it came to the church and birth control: If the Pope wants all these children being born, let him grow them, carry them, give birth to them, and then feed, clothe and house them until they're adults.

That goes for any men out there too.

Why don't you stick to commenting on things about which you have some accurate information, if there are any.

Exile
11-06-19, 09:20
today we live in an artificial world, we've turned far away from the rythm of nature
the framework has gone, but hormones are still at play
it's hard to find new ways in harmony

We may have turned away from nature, but nature hasn’t turned away from us.

In reality there is no separation between humans and nature, it’s an illusion (and perhaps a delusion) that is, for the time being, easy to maintain it you’re a city dweller who gets water from a tap, food from a grocery store and clothing from a retail shop or the internet. All these things, and many more, conveniently, almost magically, appear. You never have to think about the mechanics and logistics involved in getting water and electricity to your home and food stuffs to the supermarket and where these things originate. You don’t have to think about what the “stuff” the stuff you own is made from (e.g. all the parts and components of your smart phone) and the processes that are involved in manufacturing them.

The fact is, almost all the the tangible things we use are manufactured from or contain materials (e.g. plastic) that are made from non-renewable resources that have been extracted from the earth. The most common one being oil. We have been using up resources much much faster than the earth replenishes them. This obviously can’t go on indefinitely.

Then there are essentials for life, like drinking water and, if you live in a cold climate, heat in the winter. Do you know where your city or region gets its drinking water from and how it is delivered to your tap? If, for whatever reason, turning the tap no longer produces potable water and the supply chain bringing bottled water to store shelves is interrupted where would you get drinking water from? Some dry regions of the earth, like the desert states of the south western USA, are pumping up groundwater at a much faster rate than the natural replenishing cycle replaces it. In the SW United States not only is groundwater scarce but rivers that have been dammed and diverted to get water to cities and agricultural land are drying up because of drought conditions and shrinking glaciers and winter snowpacks. In 50 years large swathes of the region could be uninhabitable.

Last but not least, there is global warming due to climate change. It is already having a major impact and the effects will only get more intense as it continues. Nobody on earth will be able to ignore it. We are as reliant on “nature” as ever because that is all there is. Take away the easily extractible resources, interrupt supply lines, deplete water sources etc. and you will quickly find out just how dependent on the earth you are. Anyone who has ever gotten lost in the woods with no food or water knows this too.

Only fools take the earth for granted and lay waste to it in order to pull up, chop down and extract resources at an ever faster pace while spewing climate altering gasses into the atmosphere without any foresight whatsoever. Those fools are us humans and we will not be able to escape the grim reckoning we face by sticking our heads in the sand and hoping everything will just magically work out.

Exile
11-06-19, 09:22
Apologies for the lengthy OT post. Wasn’t my intention to hijack the thread.

Angela
11-06-19, 16:38
Two critics of the science of the original study:
https://quillette.com/2019/06/10/happiness-and-academic-malpractice/

I don't think the fact that one category, i.e. absent, was misinterpreted, necessarily invalidates all the findings of the study; however, the differences don't seem very significant.

bigsnake49
12-06-19, 18:04
I totally agree with the fact that women are probably happier being single. Marriage, puts a lot of pressure on women, not only to be sexy but to be a provider but also a mother, a cook, a cleaning lady. Unless the male helps in a substantial way, I don't blame a married woman with kids for being unhappy.

Tomenable
19-06-19, 02:43
Lol, you probably agree with Charles Darwin who though that it is not healthy for his wife (and other women) not to be pregnant a year after year, and that she may fall ill if not being pregnant for a longer period of time ...

Well he did not predict ectogenesis (which will detach pregnancy from women):

https://metro.co.uk/2019/05/14/human-babies-born-using-an-artificial-womb-possible-in-a-decade-8156458/

https://www.vice.com/amp/en_us/article/gyk3jq/artificial-womb-pregnancy-future-ectogenesis

https://i.imgur.com/bAARCtP.jpg

With ectogenesis there will also be egg banks for gay couples and single men.

Dagne
19-06-19, 07:40
eeea, this ectogenesis is not happening now. To think hypothetically, the idea of rejuvenation
http://theconversation.com/ageing-in-human-cells-successfully-reversed-in-the-lab-101214
may bring humans even further away from the current human world - giving birth may not be such a critical necessity because people would stay young for ever (or more than 100 years) ...

And Darwin was right that many things about women like hair and skin look much better when being pregnant (and that they get really crappy after giving birth)...

Dagne
19-06-19, 07:46
To return to our topic, I think being happy depends a lot more on person's genetic make up than to circumstances like if she's married/single/with children/no children. We all find our ways that make us happy, unless of course someone has serious depression issues.

The only thing that I find really sad is that humanity will have less and less IQ because clever women are less reproductive. It is likely that men can inherit their IQ only from their mothers...

"some studies suggest that intelligence is inherited from the mother. These findings were initially found in studies on mice, but confirmed when extrapolated to human brains. This was carried out by a study conducting a survey on >12,000 people. Paternal genes tend to accumulate in the limbic system, which is concerned with aggression, hunger, e.t.c. basic instincts. No paternal gene is found in the cerebral cortex, which is concerned with advanced functions like learning, reading, e.t.c.
Intelligence genes are carried by the X chromosome, which are 2 with women. Even if it comes from the X chromosome of the father, it gets deactivated. "https://www.newtimes.co.rw/section/read/228963

"15 IQ points decreases women's odds of parenthood by 21–25%. Because women have a greater impact on the average intelligence of future generations, the dysgenic fertility among women is predicted to lead to a decline in the average intelligence of the population in advanced industrial nations".https://reason.com/2014/07/31/smart-women-dont-have-babies/

Clever men often do not mind marrying a woman who is pretty though not so intelligent, but it means that his genes for intelligence may be lost if he has only boys as offsprings. Still if woman's IQ is average but her father is of high IQ, she may have deactivated IQ genes for an offspring with high IQ. So men should really scrutinise wife's family for IQ because his IQ genes may be passed only to girls and they will be deactivated until the next generation.
On the other hand, some men may feel somewhat intimidated if their woman is much smarter than himself, so smart women may not be seen as perfect marriage material by average men.

Besides, smart women themselves may tend to skip marriage and children if they cannot find a smart man for herself. I don't think that they always dislike the idea of children and family, only that smart women want a man who is even smarter than herself, someone to look up and to be worth of sacrificing or compromising her professional ambitions or whatever else she wanted to do in her life. Still, family is a structure which supports men's goals in live. A woman may also take some career, but her goals are somewhat secondary. In many cases this is how the woman feels, too, because fighting for contracts or doing big business requires a lot of male aggressiveness not so much IQ and it would not make women happy to adapt to male world too much, where roles in family were reversed with husband staying home to take care of children and her fighting for money/status, etc.


Technically the humanity would be better off under matriarchal system where clever women had many offsprings with whatever - either smart or handsome or men with strong instincts, instead of the opposite where the classical ideal is "clever man + pretty woman" (or man with status has a harem of beauties)
Female genes are more important in carrying intelligence while in case of other features like height - male genes behave more "aggressively" and some of female genes get deactivated (conditioned) so that children will get to inherit more of their father's features, especially girls, apart from IQ, as far as it is understood now.
Pity I don't remember where I read a study about it.

ArdianTH
19-06-19, 21:44
I also don't think it makes sense to punish high IQ women by making it impossible for them to use their intellects. Don't misunderstand me: raising children is the hardest and most demanding job I've ever had. However, it didn't satisfy all of my "intellectual" needs. Plus, is society to lose all the advancements that women doctors and scientists, as just one example, have given the world?I agree - forcing half of the population to sit around the stove would have a detrimental effect not only on science, but also on the economy and human development in general. However, Western societies have gone from encouraging women to aspire a career to shaming them for not doing so. A mother of three that invests all of her energy into keeping the household going and raising the kids is usually seen as inferior to a career driven woman; even if she chose to do so. And, in my opinion, that's the quintessence: Letting people chose, neither pressuring them into one nor the other direction. Equal opportunities should be provided (even through law, which is mostly the case in Western countries), however, trying to force an equal outcome by introducing quota systems (or similar) is the wrong way to go.


Perhaps the solution is to make it easier for women to do both, and men as well if they so choose.
Flex hours, no penalty in terms of promotion for working part time for a few years etc.The problem is not really based on working part time but in the willingess to do overtime (and therefore the willingess to sacrifice part of your social life, your life beyond your job). High achieving men and women usually are workaholics.


The reality is that if a woman is working a dead end, repetitive job because the family needs the money, she more than likely would prefer to stay home and be a full time mother instead.And what should men working in a repetitive, dead end job do in the same situation?


If a woman is a high achiever, she and her husband together probably make enough money to hire help.... And that help would usually be just another not really well paid woman, right? :) Or maybe a day care center in which, again, mostly women are employed.


Is that ideal? Imho, no, I don't think so, not until they go to school. Ideally, one or the other parent should be with them until then. Once they're in school, that frees up a lot of time. Hiring some help for after school driving to activities, starting them on their homework until one of the parents gets home usually works. I did it, so I know. Of course, as attitudes in the workplace are now, one of you has to take the hit in terms of promotion by being home by 5 or 6. That was also me. That's what I mean by saying that the workplace rules and attitudes have to change. There's no putting the genie back in the bottle.I think we're going in the right direction. Flex time is pretty widespread among private companies and the public sector now.

I'm rather concerned about the fact that we are entering an era in which a lot of human work is being made redundant by machines, while approx. 15% of a general population have an IQ of under 85, which should make us think how we're going to provide work for these people - as of right now, these are the ones working on the dead end, repetitive jobs.

Angela
19-06-19, 22:03
I agree - forcing half of the population to sit around the stove would have a detrimental effect not only on science, but also on the economy and human development in general. However, Western societies have gone from encouraging women to aspire a career to shaming them for not doing so. A mother of three that invests all of her energy into keeping the household going and raising the kids is usually seen as inferior to a career driven woman; even if she chose to do so. And, in my opinion, that's the quintessence: Letting people chose, neither pressuring them into one nor the other direction. Equal opportunities should be provided (even through law, which is mostly the case in Western countries), however, trying to force an equal outcome by introducing quota systems (or similar) is the wrong way to go.

The problem is not really based on working part time but in the willingess to do overtime (and therefore the willingess to sacrifice part of your social life, your life beyond your job). High achieving men and women usually are workaholics.

And what should men working in a repetitive, dead end job do in the same situation?

... And that help would usually be just another not really well paid woman, right? :) Or maybe a day care center in which, again, mostly women are employed.

I think we're going in the right direction. Flex time is pretty widespread among private companies and the public sector now.

I'm rather concerned about the fact that we are entering an era in which a lot of human work is being made redundant by machines, while approx. 15% of a general population have an IQ of under 85, which should make us think how we're going to provide work for these people - as of right now, these are the ones working on the dead end, repetitive jobs.

I agree with virtually everything you said.

I would respond to this one statement, however:


"https://www.eupedia.com/forum/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Angelahttps://www.eupedia.com/forum/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (https://www.eupedia.com/forum/showthread.php?p=579314#post579314)The reality is that if a woman is working a dead end, repetitive job because the family needs the money, she more than likely would prefer to stay home and be a full time mother instead.



And what should men working in a repetitive, dead end job do in the same situation?



I wouldn't presume to tell them what to do. However, if you want my honest opinion, no study because I don't know of one, I think men would be more likely to want to work on that factory assembly line, if such a thing even exists anymore, than staying home, cleaning the house, organizing everything and everyone, doing the laundry, cooking, and mostly having to be "mommy" every waking moment of the day.

I've also seen the emotional wrench which most women go through after returning to work from maternity leave. Maybe some exist somewhere, but I've never seen a man have that reaction going back to work after a week or so. We're more controlled by our genetics, by our hormones, than many people will admit.

I was never a little girl who wanted to "play house" with baby dolls, and I wanted to be a nun until high school. Hormones won out, though, both with men and with babies. :) It's as if they're still attached to you by the birth cord. When they were first born I didn't want to let them out of my sight or my hands, had no desire for anyone to watch them for a "night out", nothing. For years after my two were born, the smell of a baby, holding one in my arms, would make me go all "broody". It's only stopped within the last couple of years when I'm holding a baby. I used to call it "baby fever". It was real. :)

Raising them? That gets more and more challenging. I told you: it's the hardest job I ever had, and there were days when working at Walmart for a few hours would have been a welcome relief. :)

ΠΑΝΑΞ
28-06-19, 19:43
.
I find interesting and true all the opinions, from their perspective.

I also consider that all those who probably wish to have children or a spouse, are not necessary to be good parents or partners.
Well actually, maybe no one ever was... It is from those kind of few things that parents/partners someday will might say something like:
<<- Hey, I could done it better...>>. A lot of parents will confirm me and a lot more to the "future".

Anyway, It is not risky to say that from those who dont want, -and they dont have- in contrast to those who want - and they have- but are not able to, the
first is almost "painless" for the social impact. Mind the toxic behaviour inside the family... -crimes in silence, I would say.
I have no doubt, the issue is deep and we might have many and differents causes and all have a true share for that phaenomenα.

Of course that those of "denial" kind aspects of life are not unprecenteted. At 11th cent. at the E.Roman empire the ascetic "trend" of that time, led a lot of
the population to the monasteries and the institutionalize of a new of society inside the borders of the empire. Quite radical for the social consensus of that ages.

Well, I dont remember to know, where the first female monasteries appear, but surely they was and they are a good "remembrance" of similar turbulant;
times. I dont relate the past with today because are different causes behind, but a divergence up on the possible social norms is obvious.
It's not the first time.

ΠΑΝΑΞ
28-06-19, 20:23
Anyway, for me the undenial fact is that:
The pregnant women smells beautifull and the babies even better... Serotonine charger.
and
All that might be discussed...
<< ...It was about last night. Today is an other day...
-Darling..! >>


(We are talking about women...) :grin:

ΠΑΝΑΞ
28-06-19, 20:26
Of course the issue goes similar for both sexes. The modern people mature late, some never.
We have taboo's about the issues of " getting mature" and "death". Terms that cannot describe qualities of completence, but instead they decoded as loss.
How desperate and heartberaking is that Y.O.L.O sort of attitude, by the way.


Unfortunatelly for the women, they keep on search for the prince on the white horse for a long time, but at mid fourties they realise that a loyal servant would
be more... usefull. -lol

BlumKram
09-07-19, 14:52
The true value of happiness is decided by a person herself. We cannot limit ourselves with simple and ordinary dreams.