Happiness Women are happier without a spouse or children

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.
 
See:
https://www.theguardian.com/lifeand...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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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):

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.
 
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):

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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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
 
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.
 
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
 
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
 
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
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 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, and within two years could be tied to an increased risk of your second child developing autism. Plus you may be more likely to develop the baby blues 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: 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, 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.
 
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.
 
Apologies for the lengthy OT post. Wasn’t my intention to hijack the thread.
 
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.
 
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/huma...artificial-womb-possible-in-a-decade-8156458/

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

bAARCtP.jpg


With ectogenesis there will also be egg banks for gay couples and single men.
 
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)...
 
Last edited:

This thread has been viewed 20303 times.

Back
Top