No wonder (some) men struggle

[SolG]

To take this off on a little tangent...

 

I don't think the construct of marriage--that is the nuclear family--in western society is structured in a way to best support itself. When I visit the country my mother was born and raised in, I am often struck by the contrast in this respect. This is not to say that the poverty and other challenges are not heartbreaking... but the way they see and support family is to me amazing.

 

The reality is that women have ALWAYS worked; until such time that a particular society has sufficient wealth and time to allow otherwise. Throughout history women were gatherers, domestic servants, factory workers, etc, etc. There seems to be some mythical illusion that women have been predominately solely nurturing Madonnas. So false!

 

Getting back to my mother's village... even today these women are subsistence farmers, stall holders, domestic servants... all while caring for children. But they don't do it alone. I am often hard pressed to be able to tell exactly whose children are whose because of the love and affection I see expressed by all. The philosophy is very much if you can't care for your children right now because of your other pressing needs... I will and hand them back much loved when you can. And children without fathers--and there's quite a number of them in a country with a high young mortality rate---they have easy and often access to other father-figures in the community. And it's natural; just as I'm sure it was throughout much of human history. No existential angst about taking advantage of one another... it just is.

 

And I sometimes despair when I contrast this with my own western context where child care is seen as a profit making enterprise rather than the important and beautiful co-custodianship of the next generation in support of parents. To my way of thinking it should be a community endeavour where we support one another.

 

And we isolate the family. We pop them in a box on a fenced block and tell them they must be self sufficient above all else; regardless the cost. No wonder people are unhappy when they're isolated and expected to fend for themselves. And even worse, it's become a matter of pride to project that we're absolutely satisfied with our lot. I'm a SAHM/D... I'm soooo fulfilled by what I do and nothing could be grander! And conversely, I'm a working parent; I CAN do it all... just watch me. In some respects I think we've lost our desire to WANT and WELCOME empathy and help; to allow ourselves to be human and imperfect and admit our struggles in a truthful way.

 

Even the term 'nuclear' family is telling to me. I think families should be 'atomic', and in concert families/communities should be 'molecular'. There should be connectedness. I hope to someday write a dissertation on how we may be able to do this in western society in a way that is compatible with capitalism.

 

I just think that the whole stepford vs power mom thing is just noise in the system when it comes to modern marriage and family. There are more basic principles that need to be addressed that will perhaps have far more impact IMO. Then maybe women, and men will be more at peace with marriage.

[Buddhist]

Well, the whole premise of the thread hangs on the oft touted and should well and truly be dead by now, idea that the sole purpose of a woman is to keep some man company. That would be like claiming that the sole purpose of a man is to keep some woman safe. Which of course is ridiculous 19th Century thinking....:roll eyes: Why we are still holding onto it over a century later is anyones guess.

 

It's no-ones sole purpose or even primary purpose in life to be a crutch to another person. Why is this such a difficult concept?

[xxoo]

Well, these are my questions about the study:

 

1. Women being less happy IN marriage than men, vs women WANTING TO get married less than men do: Aren't those two very different things?

 

2. Has the relative happiness of single women vs single men been studied.

 

Maybe women really do more work around the house than men. It does seem quite believable to me. I still am going to conjecture (from 1. ) that some of the men today like being single and that some truly want to get married, just as for women, but that a higher percentage of women than men still want to be married.

 

I have the same questions.

 

Having a child is also associated with lower levels of happiness, yet people consistently WANT to have a second child. My conclusion is that people are motivated by something other than relative happiness, something not being measured.

 

Also, I believe the "marriage fantasy/goal" still does exist for women and not men. That fantasy can result in higher expectations, which might lead to lower relative happiness with the reality.

Edited May 9, 2016 by xxoo

[Els]

To take this off on a little tangent...

 

I don't think the construct of marriage--that is the nuclear family--in western society is structured in a way to best support itself. When I visit the country my mother was born and raised in, I am often struck by the contrast in this respect. This is not to say that the poverty and other challenges are not heartbreaking... but the way they see and support family is to me amazing.

 

The reality is that women have ALWAYS worked; until such time that a particular society has sufficient wealth and time to allow otherwise. Throughout history women were gatherers, domestic servants, factory workers, etc, etc. There seems to be some mythical illusion that women have been predominately solely nurturing Madonnas. So false!

 

Getting back to my mother's village... even today these women are subsistence farmers, stall holders, domestic servants... all while caring for children. But they don't do it alone. I am often hard pressed to be able to tell exactly whose children are whose because of the love and affection I see expressed by all. The philosophy is very much if you can't care for your children right now because of your other pressing needs... I will and hand them back much loved when you can. And children without fathers--and there's quite a number of them in a country with a high young mortality rate---they have easy and often access to other father-figures in the community. And it's natural; just as I'm sure it was throughout much of human history. No existential angst about taking advantage of one another... it just is.

 

And I sometimes despair when I contrast this with my own western context where child care is seen as a profit making enterprise rather than the important and beautiful co-custodianship of the next generation in support of parents. To my way of thinking it should be a community endeavour where we support one another.

 

And we isolate the family. We pop them in a box on a fenced block and tell them they must be self sufficient above all else; regardless the cost. No wonder people are unhappy when they're isolated and expected to fend for themselves. And even worse, it's become a matter of pride to project that we're absolutely satisfied with our lot. I'm a SAHM/D... I'm soooo fulfilled by what I do and nothing could be grander! And conversely, I'm a working parent; I CAN do it all... just watch me. In some respects I think we've lost our desire to WANT and WELCOME empathy and help; to allow ourselves to be human and imperfect and admit our struggles in a truthful way.

 

Even the term 'nuclear' family is telling to me. I think families should be 'atomic', and in concert families/communities should be 'molecular'. There should be connectedness. I hope to someday write a dissertation on how we may be able to do this in western society in a way that is compatible with capitalism.

 

I just think that the whole stepford vs power mom thing is just noise in the system when it comes to modern marriage and family. There are more basic principles that need to be addressed that will perhaps have far more impact IMO. Then maybe women, and men will be more at peace with marriage.

 

I grew up in a non-Western country similar to what you described, and I honestly think that the culture there tends to be a little sugar-coated, especially by those who only visited and did not grow up in it. Yes, there are some positive values. But there are also issues that you don't realize at a glance.

 

(1) Fathers are not encouraged to spend time with their children. Some fathers still try, but society and the work culture makes it as difficult as possible for them to do so. There is no paternity leave (except for the day when the mother gives birth) and there is no acknowledgement of the need for work-life balance. If your work requires 16 hours a day and you are only being paid $1 an hour and have to work 7 days a week - too bad, so sad, gotta do it anyway. Many children grow up not knowing their dads because the dads would only arrive home after they have gone to bed. Developed countries tend to be better at workers' rights and a work-life balance.

 

(2) 'Connectedness' comes at a cost in a traditional culture. For instance, the family home of the firstborn son is expected to be the home of the son's parents as well. For all their lives. I don't mean regular visiting or such, I mean literally living together in the same house. If you are rich, you are lucky and you get separate rooms, If you are poor, you all live together in one room. The daughter-in-law does not get a say in this. MIL and DIL conflicts are very common.

 

(3) Children are expected to fulfill certain roles set out for them. They get little autonomy or choice in their future, unless they rebel and consequently lose much of the family ties aforementioned. For instance, if you are a son you are expected to get a job capable of supporting your family and stick to it (even if you hate it), expected to marry a 'decent' woman and have children with her (even if you are homosexual or have no desire for marriage/kids), etc.

 

I could go on, but the crux is that I think people blame 'Western culture' for far too much. IMO most people in developed nations already have things pretty good, and live in an environment that is reasonably conducive for having families and relationships in. If fewer people are having marriages or families because they don't want to, that might not be such a bad thing.

Edited May 9, 2016 by Elswyth

[SolG]

I grew up in a non-Western country similar to what you described, and I honestly think that the culture there tends to be a little sugar-coated, especially by those who only visited and did not grow up in it. Yes, there are some positive values. But there are also issues that you don't realize at a glance...

 

...I could go on, but I think people blame Western culture far too much. IMO most people in developed nations already have pretty good lives that are reasonably conducive for having families and relationships in. If fewer people are having marriages or families because they don't want to, that might not be such a bad thing.

 

I absolutely agree with you Elswyth. There are many social problems in the society I reference. Unemployment is endemic (as is rape and incest to be frank) and there is no social security net. Fathers/men in the village don't really 'work' by western standards; but rather still in the traditional manner fish or hunt. So in that respect they are quite present; and young boys participate in this.

 

There is also a cadre of well educated. My BIL did his graduate studies in architecture at an Ivy League institution. But they still don't traditionally 'work', but rather sacrifice for the community.

 

And yes, there are prescriptive roles. Men hunt/fish, women do what they can in terms of gardening, etc. A first born son bears a large burden of support for all and sundry in the family. Frankly also too does a first daughter in terms of maintaining family cohesiveness, and also practical/financial support if she is able. My brother is western born and raised; a first son, and also first grandson. We are lucky. He is self employed and earns seven figures. So he sees his responsibilities as a gift as opposed to a burden. And his western sensibilities allow him the ability to truly gift the deserving as opposed to giving without discrimination.

 

I remember a recent visit with my mother. Westernised as she is, she was appalled at a couple of things in particular. 1) That she repeatedly bought milk that was consumed within minutes of being placed in the fridge, and 2) That our shoes were stolen from the verandah where we left them.

 

Collective society is so different to individualistic society. When asked, family members spoke of the 'if you have enough, then the rest is for the us' mentality. There is no such thing as surplus or savings, because what you don't individually need to survive should be invested in the collective.

 

I don't necessarily subscribe completely to this view. But I do subscribe to the view that we do not exist alone and there should always be an eye on what can make life better for others. And in western society we chose our 'family' by association; through affiliation and community. Shouldn't we have an eye on what we might be able to do to make life better? And I don't mean volunteering at a soup kitchen (although there's nothing wrong with that), but rather looking to our peers to just help and empathise in a meaningful way.

 

My point is there should be a medium there somewhere. At what point did we decide that we don't have a responsibility to support our fellow families? At what point did we wholescale move away from this model? Surely there's a hybrid that helps families help each other and themselves?

[elaine567]

At what point did we decide that we don't have a responsibility to support our fellow families? At what point did we wholescale move away from this model? Surely there's a hybrid that helps families help each other and themselves?

 

The neoliberalism doctirine.

ELIMINATING THE CONCEPT OF "THE PUBLIC GOOD" or "COMMUNITY" and replacing it with "individual responsibility."

Pressuring the poorest people in a society to find solutions to their lack of health care, education and social security all by themselves -- then blaming them, if they fail, as "lazy."

[SolG]

The neoliberalism doctirine.

 

I'm familiar with neoliberalism. But... I just don't think it needs to be labelled as a 'movement' per se. I would just really like for people to take an interest in each other. (I get the irony that I want to write a paper on this! *sigh*)

 

Go to that guy or girl (getting back to the initial thread topic) that's struggling in marriage and/or with parenthood. And just go... we understand, we're here, we can help. Marriage is effing hard nowadays the way we've divvied up responsibility... lets help each other out!

 

Does it have to be that hard? I dunno... obviously it is :-(

[Jabron1]

I actually read the initial article. The entire basis of it is complete feminist nonsense. The way she even broaches the subject of marriage is hilarious. Get a load of this:

 

"Someone recently sent in the following bombshell: “Ever since we started getting married and buying houses,” she writes, “my girlfriends and I don’t laugh much anymore.”

 

It’s part of what has been called the “paradox of declining female happiness.” Women have more rights and opportunities than they have had in decades and yet they are less happy than ever in both absolute terms and relative to men."

 

You mean that the more feminism we have, the less happy women are? Sounds like you might be on to something!

 

"Marriage is part of why."

 

Of course not! . The problem is that damn patriarchy! You know, marriage! The institution that hasn't changed is apparently the reason for the fall in women's happiness.

 

This makes no sense.

[SammySammy]

Actually, it makes a lot of sense.

 

Many women try to place responsibility for their happiness in someone or something else. Something aside from themselves.

 

As much as they try, we know happiness comes from inside a person. No one causes you to be happy or unhappy.

 

Doesn't stop some people from trying to place blame elsewhere though.

[Kamille]

Actually, it makes a lot of sense.

 

Many women try to place responsibility for their happiness in someone or something else. Something aside from themselves.

 

As much as they try, we know happiness comes from inside a person. No one causes you to be happy or unhappy.

 

Doesn't stop some people from trying to place blame elsewhere though.

 

Agreed with the last part of your post. It would explain why single men are less happy than single women. []

Edited May 9, 2016 by a LoveShack.org Moderator

[Liam1]

Unless we are in each person's house there is no way of knowing who does what. How do they even take these studies? I am not saying it is or isn't true but how do they know without studying each household?

 

 

Exactly, Woggle. The studies cited are just not capable of being reliable. Any study that claims to pinpoint human emotions is likely hogwash.

 

Psychology and social sciences are soft sciences. Unlike a hard science like chemistry, the soft science studies can not POSSIBLY control for all the variables. Human emotions are far too complex.

 

In addition, they can not possibly factor in a control for lying. Even if the person is hooked up to a lie detector test, or a brain scan, they still CAN not be sure that the person is actually lying. Perhaps the test is skewed because the test subjects are nervous.

 

Studies that study human emotions are just not possible to be factual because they depend on self-reporting.

 

How can a scientist know if a person is lying when a person in psychological denial does not even know themselves that they are lying. They deny the lie to themselves. So, on any brain scan or lie detector test they would appear to be telling the truth because they THINK they are telling themselves the truth.

[William]

I noted a meta-discussion trending to comments on LoveShack members developing and, as that's against our guidelines, did some editing. Please confine your comments to the subject material and avoid comments regarding members of this web site. Thanks!

[Aniela]

Actually, it makes a lot of sense.

 

Many women try to place responsibility for their happiness in someone or something else. Something aside from themselves.

 

As much as they try, we know happiness comes from inside a person. No one causes you to be happy or unhappy.

 

Doesn't stop some people from trying to place blame elsewhere though.

 

Since when is this something that only women do? *edited. I've just seen the above post.

 

It seems to be me that we all get happiness from other people: family [parents, siblings, children, spouses], friends, boyfriends/girlfriends/friends with benefits, work friends, etc. How many of us would be happy completely alone in the world?

[Woggle]

What Sol G brings up is the concept of a community which used to be common in 38th west until isolation and consumerism took over.

[Jabron1]

Agreed with the last part of your post. It would explain why single men are less happy than single women. []

 

Where are you getting this stuff from Kamille? If it's anything like the last one, I'm not bothering reading it!

 

I get the sense (tell me if I'm wrong ) that you are seeking some sort of consensus. Almost a permission to be single.

 

Be happy! Don't worry about what everyone else is or isn't doing.

 

You don't need 700 different studies for that!

[Woggle]

Since when is this something that only women do? *edited. I've just seen the above post.

 

It seems to be me that we all get happiness from other people: family [parents, siblings, children, spouses], friends, boyfriends/girlfriends/friends with benefits, work friends, etc. How many of us would be happy completely alone in the world?

 

Relationships are part of what bring happiness but certain people expect a partner to fill what is pretty much a bottomless good and that get mad and resent their partner when they can't fill it.

[Liam1]

The studies that show that married men live longer may be true because those studies are citing a measurable statistic. The majority of deaths are recorded, along with date of birth, except for perhaps the homeless.

 

HOWEVER, and this is a big however, we can NOT say that the married men live longer because they are HAPPIER simply because there is no truly accurate way to measure true happiness.

 

So to say a married man is happier because he is married is too simplistic and impossible to measure.

 

Just because a person SELF REPORTS being happy, does not really measure the reality of their happiness. It is simply their self-reported statement.

 

It is more likely that married men live longer because women trust doctors more.

 

Therefore, the wives of married men likely push their husbands to visit doctors, and push them to take the medications prescribed.

 

Men are notorious for waiting too long to visit a doctor about an illness. Perhaps it is the machismo factor. If a man has a wife, she will likely notice that he is not looking well, and haul him off to the doc.

 

Also, perhaps if a married man has children, he might live longer not because he is happier but that he feels a sense of obligation to ensure his children grow to adulthood and have opportunities to thrive.

 

The longer he lives, the more likely his children are to survive and thrive.

 

Still, that says nothing about whether or not he was ever happy, while married.

[BlueIris]

I have the same questions.

 

Having a child is also associated with lower levels of happiness, yet people consistently WANT to have a second child. My conclusion is that people are motivated by something other than relative happiness, something not being measured.

 

Also, I believe the "marriage fantasy/goal" still does exist for women and not men. That fantasy can result in higher expectations, which might lead to lower relative happiness with the reality.

 

I think that it is decreasing though. Granted it's only anecdotal, but my daughters and their friends are not at all as motivated to get married as we were when I was young. I sure agree that there is a lot of fantasy and idealism in the thinking about marriage.

[wmacbride]

I'm familiar with neoliberalism. But... I just don't think it needs to be labelled as a 'movement' per se. I would just really like for people to take an interest in each other. (I get the irony that I want to write a paper on this! *sigh*)

 

Go to that guy or girl (getting back to the initial thread topic) that's struggling in marriage and/or with parenthood. And just go... we understand, we're here, we can help. Marriage is effing hard nowadays the way we've divvied up responsibility... lets help each other out!

 

Does it have to be that hard? I dunno... obviously it is :-(

 

"western culture" isn't homogeneous either. What one culture view as an important support for people, another may not.

 

For example, at one time, newly weds, new parents, families who had lost a loved one and others going through life changes had a lot of social support, albeit often informal. People had an opportunity to learn how to be married, how to raise a child, how to grieve a loss, and had plenty of help along the way.

 

Is that still there? s it gone, or has it just morphed and evolved into a different form?

 

In some western cultures, there is a great emphasis on the individual and not the group- "me" vs. "we". There also seems to be an increase in social isolation and face to face contact.

 

Humans evolved, for the most part, as social creatures, and I wonder if the increased n the use of electronic communication vs. actual face to face contact is part of what is making some people feel isolated, alone and unhappy.

 

People are also being told that relatively shallow relationships- e.g.- hook ups- can be a substitute for human emotional closeness. I wonder if that's really true. If not, I wonder what the long term effect that will be on society a a whole.

[wmacbride]

I think that it is decreasing though. Granted it's only anecdotal, but my daughters and their friends are not at all as motivated to get married as we were when I was young. I sure agree that there is a lot of fantasy and idealism in the thinking about marriage.

 

Same here. Mine have zero interest in getting married or having children. Mind you, they are drop dead pretty and gt lots of male attention, but they don't want it,and dating is not something they are interested in. I have aksed them about it, and they say that have better things to do with their time. They do have male friends though.

[Revolver]

Throughout history the vast majority of poor people got married.

[singlelife]

I hear women have better sex when they are single also. Uh oooohhhhh guys!!

[Imajerk17]

I have the same questions.

 

Having a child is also associated with lower levels of happiness, yet people consistently WANT to have a second child. My conclusion is that people are motivated by something other than relative happiness, something not being measured.

 

Also, I believe the "marriage fantasy/goal" still does exist for women and not men. That fantasy can result in higher expectations, which might lead to lower relative happiness with the reality.

 

 

Yep. I am sure parents feel more stressed on a day-to-day basis but that doesn't mean that if they could wave a magic wand and go back to being childless and carefree that they would do it. I'd imagine that many parents would say that, even with all the stress and work, that having kids was the most rewarding thing they have done.

 

Kamille, this is a really interesting thread, but I'm skeptical with what the study is concluding too. Or rather, I'd need to see more evidence. Married women may be less happy than both single women and married men does not imply that women are less motivated to get married than men are.

 

A few more questions:

 

--Has age been taken into account? I suspect it may be one thing for 30-year-olds and something else for 60-year-olds.

 

--Are we talking about happiness in these groups now versus a couple decades ago? Has a similar study been done back in say the 1980s or 1990s?

 

I agree more with what is mentioned before: Some single men find dating and sex easier than ever, and other single males find dating to be more bewildering and frustrating than ever. If we want to compare genders, I think single females are happier than single males due to having a stronger support group.

Edited May 9, 2016 by Imajerk17

[xxoo]

Yep. I am sure parents feel more stressed on a day-to-day basis but that doesn't mean that if they could wave a magic wand and go back to being childless and carefree that they would do it. I'd imagine that many parents would say that, even with all the stress and work, that having kids was the most rewarding thing they have done.

 

Kamille, this is a really interesting thread, but I'm skeptical with what the study is concluding too. Or rather, I'd need to see more evidence. Married women may be less happy than both single women and married men does not imply that women are less motivated to get married than men are.

 

A few more questions:

 

--Has age been taken into account? I suspect it may be one thing for 30-year-olds and something else for 60-year-olds.

 

--Are we talking about happiness in these groups now versus a couple decades ago? Has a similar study been done back in say the 1980s or 1990s?

 

I agree more with what is mentioned before: Some single men find dating and sex easier than ever, and other single males find dating to be more bewildering and frustrating than ever. If we want to compare genders, I think single females are happier than single males due to having a stronger support group.

 

To the bolded: absolutely! I knew exactly what I was getting into when I had my second, years after the first. I took on the struggles to gain the rewards.

 

There are studies that show a U-curve of happiness related to middle age. Basically, happiness is higher before and after middle age, which is not so much a crisis but rather an ennui. The theory is that middle age for many includes the most responsibilities: kids, peak of career, paying for college, caring for aging parents, etc. I too wonder how much of the effects are correlated with age, and specifically middle age. I've also seen studies showing that marriages getting happier after the kids leave the nest, again pointing to stress of kids.

 

I'm happy to report that raising kids, while stressful for certain, hasn't lessened my satisfaction with my marriage. I view my husband as an enormous help when dealing with parenting stuff. I thank my lucky stars to have him to lean on and not be facing all this stress alone! But we have always worked very well together, and don't tend to turn on each other in times of stress. We are more likely to circle our wagons and support each other.

 

I'd be interested in a study comparing happiness in single vs married parents of both genders.

 

Here's one: http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/02/07/parenthood-and-happiness-its-more-complicated-than-you-think/

 

Table: http://www.pewresearch.org/files/2014/02/FT_marriage-parenthood-happiness.png

Edited May 9, 2016 by xxoo

[Got it]

And, it's an interesting example of how one "author" took the data and drew unemotional, rational conclusions as to what it meant

 

and another "author" took the same data and concluded something that made him and his readers feel better about the whole danged *mess*.

 

 

Personally, I prefer *educated conclusions* to be just that and devoid of any emotional, knee-jerking reactionism.

 

Not much of a Fox News view are you?