Happiness Women are happier without a spouse or children

Angela

Elite member
Messages
21,823
Reaction score
12,327
Points
113
Ethnic group
Italian
See:
https://www.theguardian.com/lifeand...without-children-or-a-spouse-happiness-expert

"[FONT=&quot]“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.”[/FONT]

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.

"[FONT=&quot]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."

"[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]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. :)


[/FONT]
 
the happiest people are rich people with few responsabilities, provided they can coop with their wealth and find something usefull to do for themselves
 
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.
 
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
 
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.
 
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.
 
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! :)
 
A woman who has never experienced what it means to be a mother is not a woman.
 
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
 
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.
 
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
 
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?
 
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
 
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.
 
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.

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,

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

These are only the little problems, of course.
 
Men probably are too. Truth is both are probably happier alone because changes to our lifestyle. And what we can do is more limited.
 
See:https://www.theguardian.com/lifeand...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/...ied-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".
 
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/...ied-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.
 

This thread has been viewed 20315 times.

Back
Top