# Women are happier without a spouse or children, says happiness expert



## EllisRedding (Apr 10, 2015)

Some thoughts:

- First off, the headline of the article is purposefully misleading by the authors as if this applies to all women
- I believe there is some merit to the ideas below on the basis that women (some/many), who are now working full time alongside their H are still expected to pick up the lions share of the household responsibilities. This is something I believe you will start to see balance out over time as family dynamics change away from the more traditional families.
- Just b/c you had a $h1tty partner doesn't automatically mean you would be your happiest if you were single. 
- I think that marriage and children in general is glamorized in society, and many people go into it not understanding that it is a lot of fn hard work to maintain a healthy LTR and raise a family. That can have a direct hit on their perceived happiness.
- Ask any couple knee deep in their relationship and family, and I am sure many would say *at that point* they aren't entirely happy. You probably get a bit of the "grass is greener" mentality where you imagine being single and leading this awesome life (which is probably far from reality). 





> It's quite disgusting to think that it is only within the last 100 years of human history that women have been able to be treated as equals within society. Just a few short decades ago, women were expected to stay at home, have some kids, and have dinner on the table for when her husband got back from work.
> 
> Now, (for the most part) women are treated equally, with more women in management positions than ever before, according to Inc.com. And it's not just business where a 'women's revolution' is occurring - we're seeing the empowerment of women in sport, film and television, and in the home.
> 
> ...


Women are happier without a spouse or children, says happiness expert - VT


----------



## red oak (Oct 26, 2018)

Bunch of twisted facts, and outright lies. 
Where does one start on eradicating Hype and propaganda of the article. Sure a lot of it.

Women live shorter lives if married??? Seriously??

An interesting study that has been repeated by several researchers. 
https://www.nber.org/papers/w14969

The first paragraph is laughable. 
If equality means being able to sell your life to an employer who can send you packing at the whims of economic change.... oh my. Sad world.


----------



## sokillme (Jun 10, 2016)

Here is the thing to remember. Articles, writers and websites like this are literally cancer.


----------



## Mr The Other (Feb 1, 2014)

red oak said:


> Bunch of twisted facts, and outright lies.
> Where does one start on eradicating Hype and propaganda of the article. Sure a lot of it.
> 
> Women live shorter lives if married??? Seriously??
> ...


People are happier with less responsibility. 

People are generally happier childless. 

Men are happiest if they divorce. Middle-aged men are typically happy and married men far less happy, once economic circumstances are accounted for (this is close as men who lose their job and suffer ill-health are more likely to lose their marriage).

If your life pursuit is happiness, you really should learn to live without these attachments and responsibilities. 

I can certainly believe the article is true. Benevolent sexism means you will not hear the other side. It does not mean the article is entirely false.


----------



## personofinterest (Apr 6, 2018)

sokillme said:


> Here is the thing to remember. Articles, writers and websites like this are literally cancer.


Yep. Sounds like the author need to shave and toss the Birkinstocks lol


----------



## personofinterest (Apr 6, 2018)

personofinterest said:


> sokillme said:
> 
> 
> > Here is the thing to remember. Articles, writers and websites like this are literally cancer.
> ...


Oh lord.....the author is a MAN???

He needs to lay off the soy


----------



## sokillme (Jun 10, 2016)

Who said the goal in life is to be happy anyway. The goal in life should be to do good.


----------



## EllisRedding (Apr 10, 2015)

personofinterest said:


> Oh lord.....the author is a MAN???
> 
> He needs to lay off the soy


Yeah, when I saw the author was Male I figured he was writing this in hopes of getting laid lol.

Amazing how someone who has never had kids can claim they are happier w/o kids. Would my life without my W and kids have been easier, sure. Would it have been happier, not even close... Easier does not equal happiness...


----------



## Mr The Other (Feb 1, 2014)

sokillme said:


> Who said the goal in life is to be happy anyway. The goal in life should be to do good.


You have said what I meant far more succinctly.


----------



## OnTheFly (Mar 12, 2015)

red oak said:


> Bunch of twisted facts, and outright lies.


The legacy media is like that, a lot!

Seems to be feminist/leftist propaganda to keep women barren and unloved........and unhappy.

We live in an inverse society where the media/academia/government promote the exact opposite of what is good. 

Much like the Seinfeldian ''Bizarro World'', you just have to do and believe the opposite. (not really, just making a point)


----------



## EleGirl (Dec 3, 2011)

I've read a lot of articles over the years that make these sorts of claims. This is has some mean spirited to. For example:

"It's quite disgusting to think that it is only within the last 100 years of human history that women have been able to be treated as equals within society. Just a few short decades ago, women were expected to stay at home, have some kids, and have dinner on the table for when her husband got back from work."​
Yea, well the man was expected to go to work all day and support the woman and the children. And, few men has any choice as to what their work would be... a farmer's son farmed; a factory worker's son worked in a factory, etc. 

Also keep in mind that back then, young boys at about age 5 on went with their fathers every day to work in the fields or to work at whatever their fathers did. It was "career" training. And young girls stayed with their mothers to help with the younger kids, tend the kitchen garden, feed the animals, can food, make clothes, etc.

There is nothing wrong with gender specific family roles in a society that is much simpler than today. And yea, women had fewer rights under the law than men did. But it was not horrible for all women. It was bad for women whose husbands left them to raise children alone, either through abandonment or death. It was bad for women who got pregnant out of wedlock whether with a lover or through rape. It was bad for a woman whose husband was shiftless, an alcoholic, etc. It was bad for any unmarried woman because the only jobs they could get were very low paid. 

That's all changed. I've watched and participated in those changes through my life. Women can do and be anything they want now. It's time to stop *****ing.

In my life, I was always very happy when I was single. Loved it. 

I was always happy when I dated.

I was happy when I was married... while things were good. But when he started cheating; when he started yelling, throwing things and being violent, I became very unhappy. But I did something about it. I dumped his ass. See, women can do that now.

Now I have always been happy as a mother to my son... how could I find any fault in raising a great kid who has become a wonderful man? (He just gave and passed his Phd presentation and now on to finalizing the dissertation - yes I'm bragging.  ).

Today, any woman who is unhappy in her marriage has plenty that she can do about it. If she's unhappy, it's on her if she continues to stay in without making serious changes or leaving.

Same with any man.


----------



## red oak (Oct 26, 2018)

I do need to add a caveat to my previous post:

To a certain extent it may be true some are less happy while in a relationship, yet they never bother to question why, and therein is the full deceleration of the situation, and the answers to many of life's conundrums.


----------



## I'mAllIn (Oct 20, 2011)

sokillme said:


> Who said the goal in life is to be happy anyway. The goal in life should be to do good.


Says who, and using whose standard of what's good and what isn't? I have a feeling this should be an entire post of its own.


----------



## frusdil (Sep 5, 2013)

Certainly not true for me. Yes, life can be hard at times with a family, but my life was hard at times too when I was single, just for different reasons.

My husband is my world. Without him, my life would just suck.


----------



## EllisRedding (Apr 10, 2015)

EleGirl said:


> I've read a lot of articles over the years that make these sorts of claims. This is has some mean spirited to. For example:
> 
> "It's quite disgusting to think that it is only within the last 100 years of human history that women have been able to be treated as equals within society. Just a few short decades ago, women were expected to stay at home, have some kids, and have dinner on the table for when her husband got back from work."​
> Yea, well the man was expected to go to work all day and support the woman and the children. And, few men has any choice as to what their work would be... a farmer's son farmed; a factory worker's son worked in a factory, etc.


What was interesting, I saw this article on Facebook, so after I read I like to scroll through the comments. It is amazing how quickly this group of angry / man hating women came out in packs lol. First, one lady claimed that the traditional marriage (man working and W a SAHM) was dead. I understand it is nowhere near as common, but it is not in fact dead. Another woman then claimed that Traditional Marriages were nothing more than the SAHM being overburdered with having to take care of the family (including Husband). The implication was that every single Husband in these marriages was just deadwood as soon as they walked into the house. Additionally, and going along with your post above, the assumption was that the husband just led some paradise type of life as if the stresses of his job, supporting the family financially, etc... were all inconsequential. I have seen this mentality quite often where for whatever reason the husband's job was just quickly dismissed (regardless of what he did, physical risks that may be present, etc...).

At the end of the day, it is hard to make sense of the purpose of such article except to simply be divisive (which unfortunately is becoming all the more common)


----------



## sokillme (Jun 10, 2016)

I'mAllIn said:


> Says who, and using whose standard of what's good and what isn't? I have a feeling this should be an entire post of its own.


To quote Justice Stewart - "You know it when you see it."


----------



## uhtred (Jun 22, 2016)

A friend of mine likes to say "babies ruin lives", and I think there is a lot to that. Too many couples decide to have children without *really* thinking about the consequences - and its an irreversible decision.


----------



## notmyjamie (Feb 5, 2019)

I think there are a lot of women out there who can't seem to figure out how to empower themselves without trashing men. 

There is nothing wrong with a guy that likes "traditional" roles. If he finds a woman with similar viewpoints they can be very happy together. That doesn't make him an ******* who has no respect for women. I know a few guys with SAHM wives and they have great respect for all that their wives are capable of and accomplish every day. I equate it to, some guys like blonds some like brunettes and some like redheads. As long as as a guy doesn't marry the brunette and force her to dye her hair blond it's all good. 

And too many brunette women marry the guy who likes blondes and think he'll change and then blame their unhappiness on marriage in general. No, you chose to marry someone you weren't compatible with and that's why you're unhappy. Big difference.


----------



## personofinterest (Apr 6, 2018)

notmyjamie said:


> I think there are a lot of women out there who can't seem to figure out how to empower themselves without trashing men.
> 
> There is nothing wrong with a guy that likes "traditional" roles. If he finds a woman with similar viewpoints they can be very happy together. That doesn't make him an ******* who has no respect for women. I know a few guys with SAHM wives and they have great respect for all that their wives are capable of and accomplish every day. I equate it to, some guys like blonds some like brunettes and some like redheads. As long as as a guy doesn't marry the brunette and force her to dye her hair blond it's all good.
> 
> And too many brunette women marry the guy who likes blondes and think he'll change and then blame their unhappiness on marriage in general. No, you chose to marry someone you weren't compatible with and that's why you're unhappy. Big difference.


I may be in love with you


----------



## In Absentia (Aug 21, 2012)

EllisRedding said:


> Amazing how someone who has never had kids can claim they are happier w/o kids. Would my life without my W and kids have been easier, sure. Would it have been happier, not even close... Easier does not equal happiness...


QFT


----------



## In Absentia (Aug 21, 2012)

notmyjamie said:


> I know a few guys with SAHM wives and they have great respect for all that their wives are capable of and accomplish every day.



Assuming they wanted to be a SAHM... you know, society is not always equal...


----------



## Talker67 (Apr 7, 2016)

i am sure SOME women are happier without a husband, or children. Some men would be too.

Hey some people wish to cover themselves with sack cloth and ashes....and live far out in the woods in a cave.

but genetically we are wired to have a spouse and kids....so the majority will be going that way


----------



## personofinterest (Apr 6, 2018)

In Absentia said:


> notmyjamie said:
> 
> 
> > I know a few guys with SAHM wives and they have great respect for all that their wives are capable of and accomplish every day.
> ...


What's your point? That all these women are being forced to stay home?


----------



## EllisRedding (Apr 10, 2015)

notmyjamie said:


> I think there are a lot of women out there who can't seem to figure out how to empower themselves without trashing men.
> 
> There is nothing wrong with a guy that likes "traditional" roles. If he finds a woman with similar viewpoints they can be very happy together. That doesn't make him an ******* who has no respect for women. I know a few guys with SAHM wives and they have great respect for all that their wives are capable of and accomplish every day. I equate it to, some guys like blonds some like brunettes and some like redheads. As long as as a guy doesn't marry the brunette and force her to dye her hair blond it's all good.
> 
> And too many brunette women marry the guy who likes blondes and think he'll change and then blame their unhappiness on marriage in general. No, you chose to marry someone you weren't compatible with and that's why you're unhappy. Big difference.


My W is a SAHM now but that is not how we started out. It just worked out that way between starting a family, my career taking off, and her hating her job in nursing. It always amazes me the things she gets done trying to balance the schedule of 3 kids in 3 different schools, doctors appointments, etc... all without finding time for herself. Honestly, I view it nothing more than my W and I are equal but with different roles. (one not more important than the other). Oddly enough, I have seen other women look down on SAHMs, and I always felt that was due in part b/c of jealousy. Even my Mom took some digs at my W a while back (kept asking her when she was going back to work, etc...). Meanwhile my Mom will say how she really enjoys getting to see my kids at school events during the day b/c it was something she never got to experience when she was a mom since she worked. Who knows, do whatever is best for your family, right???

As far as changing, it is tough. One female commented about how her H was always very driven (with work, with hobbies, etc...). Those traits are very likely what attracted her to him, but those same traits left her unhappy after they got married and had kids as he was never home. So on one side you could argue that there was no reason for her to believe he would change. On the other side, you would hope that going into a marriage with kids, he would understand that he needs to change and make some sacrifices as well. Maybe now in society more and more people are unwilling to make sacrifices, IDK?

I also don't understand how implying/promoting the idea women are happiest single is in any way empowering to Women.


----------



## notmyjamie (Feb 5, 2019)

In Absentia said:


> Assuming they wanted to be a SAHM... you know, society is not always equal...


You missed my point. Their marriages are working well because they *do* want to be SAHMs and that's what their husband's wanted as well. They made a point to marry someone who wanted the same things they did. And they both respect each other for the jobs that they do within the family. 

I agree, society is not always equal. When were we promised that it would be? 

For example, I am not a SAHM. Never have been. It's just not in my genetic makeup. I need to be out in the world, feeling like I'm making a difference, making my own money and seeing other adults. My STBX knew that and had no problems with it. I worked part time when my kids were little so that I got what I needed but was also there to take care of our family. My husband was home alone with the kids 3 nights a week and did everything for them while I was at work. It was a wonderful compromise. 

I chose to breastfeed my kids. As a consequence, the nighttime care of our babies fell to me. Was it fair that I had to lose so much sleep all the time? I mean, he's a parent too...shouldn't he have to lose some too? Well, life it's always fair or equal. It makes no sense for him to wake up when the baby wants what only I can provide. If I wasn't prepared to deal with that inequity, I shouldn't have chosen to breastfeed or quite frankly, had kids.

Is it fair that my STBX has to do all the yardwork and snow shoveling by himself because I have a bad back and can't do it? Nope, but that's just the way life is. 

I didn't complain about my lot and he never complained about his because life is not fair and whoever told you it would be is a damn liar. But if, overall, in a marriage, people go into it with the right expectations of who will be doing what and marry someone who has the same game plan they do, it works much better and then nobody is the "bad guy"


----------



## In Absentia (Aug 21, 2012)

notmyjamie said:


> You missed my point. Their marriages are working well because they *do* want to be SAHMs and that's what their husband's wanted as well.



My point is that this is a very old-fashioned concept that should be discouraged, not encouraged, but that's my opinion.


----------



## In Absentia (Aug 21, 2012)

personofinterest said:


> What's your point? That all these women are being forced to stay home?


See above...


----------



## EllisRedding (Apr 10, 2015)

In Absentia said:


> My point is that this is a very old-fashioned concept that should be discouraged, not encouraged, but that's my opinion.


Can you elaborate, why should SAHMs be discouraged?


----------



## notmyjamie (Feb 5, 2019)

EllisRedding said:


> My W is a SAHM now but that is not how we started out. It just worked out that way between starting a family, my career taking off, and her hating her job in nursing. It always amazes me the things she gets done trying to balance the schedule of 3 kids in 3 different schools, doctors appointments, etc... all without finding time for herself. Honestly, I view it nothing more than my W and I are equal but with different roles. (one not more important than the other). Oddly enough, I have seen other women look down on SAHMs, and I always felt that was due in part b/c of jealousy. Even my Mom took some digs at my W a while back (kept asking her when she was going back to work, etc...). Meanwhile my Mom will say how she really enjoys getting to see my kids at school events during the day b/c it was something she never got to experience when she was a mom since she worked. Who knows, do whatever is best for your family, right???
> 
> As far as changing, it is tough. One female commented about how her H was always very driven (with work, with hobbies, etc...). Those traits are very likely what attracted her to him, but those same traits left her unhappy after they got married and had kids as he was never home. So on one side you could argue that there was no reason for her to believe he would change. On the other side, you would hope that going into a marriage with kids, he would understand that he needs to change and make some sacrifices as well. Maybe now in society more and more people are unwilling to make sacrifices, IDK?
> 
> I also don't understand how implying/promoting the idea women are happiest single is in any way empowering to Women.


It's unbelievable the things a SAHM can accomplish all day and keep running smoothly and not lose their minds with no adult contact all day. These women are absolute rock stars in my opinion and yes, other Moms do look down on them sadly. When I worked part time (2-3 days a week, evenings so I was still home most of the day), I didn't fit into either world. The SAHM moms thought of me as a working mom and the working moms thought of me as a SAHM. I got judgement from both sides LOL. But, Moms in general are very judgmental of each other. The breast feeders look down on the formula feeders, the SAHM's look down on the working moms and vice versa, the vegan moms look down on the women who occasionally give their kid a twinkie and on and on it goes. "Well, I guess you can do what you want, but *I'd* never...."

I totally agree that people do need to go into marriage and parenthood with the expectation that some things they'll have to change. That's just a given and not realizing you will is a disaster waiting to happen. But if a man or women feels the ONLY way to raise kids is to have Mom stay home they should have that all worked out before they marry and have kids. If you can't work it out beforehand, it will only get more difficult afterwards. 

And women feel that stating women are happier single is empowering to women is because it "proves" women don't need a man to be happy. See, we're so strong and independent and smart that we are powerful enough not to need you. Except that most people need love and companionship. If we didn't, dating sites would be empty. 

I don't need a man to get along in the world. I can take care of business by myself and keep things running smoothly. I want a man for companionship, love, friendship, and intimacy. And I don't think the fact that I want those things makes me "weak" but for some reason, many women do.


----------



## In Absentia (Aug 21, 2012)

EllisRedding said:


> Can you elaborate, why should SAHMs be discouraged?


Sure... if you want a truly progressive and equal society, don't teach women it's ok to stay at home. I shouldn't really need to post this, but there you go... a few pointers...

https://www.wealthysinglemommy.com/how-stay-at-home-moms-hurt-gender-equality/


----------



## notmyjamie (Feb 5, 2019)

In Absentia said:


> My point is that this is a very old-fashioned concept that should be discouraged, not encouraged, but that's my opinion.


And my point is that you are fine to have that opinion. There is nothing wrong with that opinion. But in your next life, don't marry a women who feels the only way to raise children is to stay at home. You'll both be much happier if you find people who share the same goals for how to raise a family.


----------



## In Absentia (Aug 21, 2012)

notmyjamie said:


> And my point is that you are fine to have that opinion. There is nothing wrong with that opinion.


We agree that they are just opinions. You have yours and I have mine...



notmyjamie said:


> But in your next life, don't marry a women who feels the only way to raise children is to stay at home. You'll both be much happier if you find people who share the same goals for how to raise a family.


Not sure where you got this from... my wife has always worked. That wasn't the problem, unfortunately... :laugh:


----------



## EllisRedding (Apr 10, 2015)

In Absentia said:


> Sure... if you want a truly progressive and equal society, don't teach women it's ok to stay at home. I shouldn't really need to post this, but there you go... a few pointers...
> 
> https://www.wealthysinglemommy.com/how-stay-at-home-moms-hurt-gender-equality/


See, and I call BS on some of that stuff. My W is now a SAHM and it is the best for our family. Had she continued to work, we would still have managed, but once again, we chose what was best for our family. Here is thing, no one is telling women you have to stay at home. However, it is two people working together to do what is best. Now, maybe my situation is a little different b/c my W could easily jump back into the workforce. Likewise, I have a male friend who is now a SAHD. Should he have been shamed into working because "male equality"? Should my W have continued to work even though we don't need her to, b/c you know, female equality? How would that benefit our family? She was not forced to become a SAHM.

Just look at the article itself, it is basically shaming SAHMs for setting back female equality lol. 

The problem is you have all these people who feel the need to tell everyone else how to run their lives which makes no sense.


----------



## notmyjamie (Feb 5, 2019)

In Absentia said:


> Sure... if you want a truly progressive and equal society, don't teach women it's ok to stay at home. I shouldn't really need to post this, but there you go... a few pointers...
> 
> https://www.wealthysinglemommy.com/how-stay-at-home-moms-hurt-gender-equality/


Except, by telling a woman she can't stay home with her children you are taking away her choice and her power to make her own decisions which is in fact the very opposite of empowering women. In a truly equal society, women and men can both choose what they want in life and if they're really smart, they'll choose a mate whose wants and needs complement their own. 

As I said, I am not a SAHM. But God help anybody who tries to tell me that I can't choose to stay home if that's what I want. As a women and as a mother, that's MY choice not society's.


----------



## red oak (Oct 26, 2018)

In Absentia said:


> Sure... if you want a truly progressive and equal society, don't teach women it's ok to stay at home. I shouldn't really need to post this, but there you go... a few pointers...
> 
> https://www.wealthysinglemommy.com/how-stay-at-home-moms-hurt-gender-equality/


Seriously?

Woman who wrote it is rather controlling, manipulative and racist. 
Come on. Especially White variety husbands need to learn??


----------



## EllisRedding (Apr 10, 2015)

notmyjamie said:


> Except, by telling a woman she can't stay home with her children you are taking away her choice and her power to make her own decisions which is in fact the very opposite of empowering women. In a truly equal society, women and men can both choose what they want in life and if they're really smart, they'll choose a mate whose wants and needs complement their own.


So much this. In order to be equal, we need to take away your choices or shame you for making the "wrong" one :scratchhead:


----------



## EllisRedding (Apr 10, 2015)

red oak said:


> Seriously?
> 
> Woman who wrote it is rather controlling, manipulative and racist.
> Come on. Especially White variety husbands need to learn??


You are just not "woke"...


----------



## notmyjamie (Feb 5, 2019)

In Absentia said:


> We agree that they are just opinions. You have yours and I have mine...
> 
> 
> 
> Not sure where you got this from... my wife has always worked. That wasn't the problem, unfortunately... :laugh:


My point is that you should marry someone whose opinion matches your own on these kinds of important matters. It sounds like yours and your wife's matched and that's great. My friends who are SAHM's also married people with the same opinion and so it's working out great for them too. 

I was speaking hypothetically about a next marriage for you, not commenting on your actual marriage, of which I know very little...ie. a person should marry someone with the same opinion as theirs on this issue and their life will be much happier. If a person chooses to marry someone with the opposite opinion as themselves, thier life won't be as happy. But it will not be the fault of the institution of marriage, it will be because they didn't marry someone with the same opinion as themselves.


----------



## personofinterest (Apr 6, 2018)

In Absentia said:


> notmyjamie said:
> 
> 
> > You missed my point. Their marriages are working well because they *do* want to be SAHMs and that's what their husband's wanted as well.
> ...


Your opinion is not fact. Your opinion is one man's thought.

Perhaps you should remember that.

There is nothing "old fashioned" about prioritizing your home and family.

And no, I was not a SAHM. I just know how to respect other people.


----------



## In Absentia (Aug 21, 2012)

notmyjamie said:


> Except, by telling a woman she can't stay home with her children you are taking away her choice and her power to make her own decisions which is in fact the very opposite of empowering women.


You are not _telling_ women they have to stay at home. It's matter of educating society - men and women - in a different way. Of course it's only theory. But women are still staying at home, very often NOT by choice. Let's not forget this.


----------



## personofinterest (Apr 6, 2018)

In Absentia said:


> EllisRedding said:
> 
> 
> > Can you elaborate, why should SAHMs be discouraged?
> ...


You're pretty condescending.

You aren't the arbiter of truth, sweetie.


----------



## In Absentia (Aug 21, 2012)

personofinterest said:


> Your opinion is not fact. Your opinion is one man's thought.
> 
> Perhaps you should remember that.
> 
> ...



I'm not sure where I was disrespectful. I think you are being quite disrespectful with your posts. Just re-read the above and reflect, just for a couple of seconds, on your TOV...


----------



## In Absentia (Aug 21, 2012)

personofinterest said:


> You're pretty condescending.
> 
> You aren't the arbiter of truth, sweetie.


Goes both ways. That's why they are called _opinions_... I can't believe I'm reading this! And don't call me _sweetie_... that's condescending!


----------



## In Absentia (Aug 21, 2012)

EllisRedding said:


> See, and I call BS on some of that stuff.


It's not the Bible... :laugh: some of the stuff is a bit off, I agree, but she makes very good points.


----------



## personofinterest (Apr 6, 2018)

In Absentia said:


> personofinterest said:
> 
> 
> > You're pretty condescending.
> ...


I just talked to you like you're talking to all of us.

This is why modern feminism is a joke. It's supposed to empower women to make choices....ANY choices.

FTR, all knowing condescension is a sexual turn off. Just something to ponder.


----------



## EllisRedding (Apr 10, 2015)

In Absentia said:


> You are not _telling_ women they have to stay at home. It's matter of educating society - men and women - in a different way. Of course it's only theory. But women are still staying at home, very often NOT by choice. Let's not forget this.


Here is a different POV. The women I do know who are SAHMs are by choice. Also, I know females who actually wish that being a SAHM was a choice, but for a variety of reasons it is not. My W had the choice. It would have made things harder on us, but we would have made it work if she decided to go that route. 

It goes back to what @notmyjamie stated, find someone who shares the same beliefs as you. If you ever feel like you are forced to do something in a relationship, it is likely that is not the ideal relationship for you.


----------



## EllisRedding (Apr 10, 2015)

In Absentia said:


> It's not the Bible... :laugh: some of the stuff is a bit off, I agree, but she makes very good points.


See, I don't think the author makes very good points, but instead relies on stereotypes and shaming. However, just differing opinions here so nothing wrong with that.


----------



## notmyjamie (Feb 5, 2019)

In Absentia said:


> You are not _telling_ women they have to stay at home. It's matter of educating society - men and women - in a different way. Of course it's only theory. But women are still staying at home, very often NOT by choice. Let's not forget this.


Actually, yes, you are *telling* women that in order to have an equal society they can't stay home . Educating and telling are the same damn thing. The point of the article was to educate/tell women that they have to work in order maintain equality with men. I disagree. An equal society is when both men and women can make their own decisions about how to run their lives. Period. 

When you talk about women who are being forced to stay home or forced to work, they are being forced by their spouse. And I'm saying if they had married someone who believed what they believe, there would be no forcing of anything happening. A women who strongly believes in working outside the home, such as myself, should NEVER marry a man who strongly believes a women should stay home. That is a recipe for disaster. Neither opinion is wrong but they do not match up well in a marriage.


----------



## In Absentia (Aug 21, 2012)

personofinterest said:


> FTR, all knowing condescension is a sexual turn off. Just something to ponder.



You see, you become aggressive and get personal. And you call me sweetie. That's a _real_ turn off... :laugh: Is it the only way you can talk to people? You are always like this on TAM. I wonder what your problem is.


----------



## In Absentia (Aug 21, 2012)

notmyjamie said:


> Actually, yes, you are *telling* women that in order to have an equal society they can't stay home . *Educating and telling are the same damn thing*.


They are not. I hope you understand the difference.


----------



## In Absentia (Aug 21, 2012)

EllisRedding said:


> See, I don't think the author makes very good points, but instead relies on stereotypes and shaming. However, just differing opinions here so nothing wrong with that.


Cheers for your balanced view. I feel more human now... :smile2:


----------



## EllisRedding (Apr 10, 2015)

In Absentia said:


> They are not. I hope you understand the difference.


I think in the context of that article, "educating" is being used as a way of telling someone. Let me "educate" you on why you need to make the "right" choice. You can educate someone so they see all the available options/choices. "Educating" someone based on shaming and stereotypes is not really educating at all, it is nothing more than a condescending way of telling someone they are wrong (not directed at you, at the author of the article and just how I see where educating and telling can very much be the same thing)


----------



## personofinterest (Apr 6, 2018)

"I think in the context of that article, "educating" is being used as a way of telling someone. Let me "educate" you on why you need to make the "right" choice"

Exactly


----------



## red oak (Oct 26, 2018)

In Absentia said:


> You are not _telling_ women they have to stay at home. It's matter of educating society - men and women - in a different way. Of course it's only theory. But women are still staying at home, very often NOT by choice. Let's not forget this.


By educating in the sense of: to persuade or condition to feel, believe, or act in a desired way. Webster's 

Let's see: more people in workforce, more job competition, lower wages, would put the 2.1 trillion into corporate coffers, while lower wages would negate the ability of families to continue living comfortably.

Or looking at it from another angle, make people need to work longer harder hours to make ends meet. 

Yep. Sounds like a good idea........for corporations.


----------



## In Absentia (Aug 21, 2012)

EllisRedding said:


> I think in the context of that article, "educating" is being used as a way of telling someone. Let me "educate" you on why you need to make the "right" choice. You can educate someone so they see all the available options/choices. "Educating" someone based on shaming and stereotypes is not really educating at all, it is nothing more than a condescending way of telling someone they are wrong (not directed at you, at the author of the article and just how I see where educating and telling can very much be the same thing)


I wasn't referring to the article when I was talking about educating. Just in the general sense. Sometimes, you need to get a bit over the top to convey your point across. To make a point. This is what the article does. She is not always right.


----------



## notmyjamie (Feb 5, 2019)

In Absentia said:


> They are not. I hope you understand the difference.


In the context of this particular article they are absolutely the same thing. You will never convince me otherwise. I agree that in other instances they are not the same thing.

In my work I educate women on the advantages of breastfeeding. I do not tell them they have to breastfeed. So yes, there is a difference. But, if I taught my patients in the same manner that this article educates, they would feel I was telling them they had to breastfeed.


----------



## In Absentia (Aug 21, 2012)

notmyjamie said:


> In the context of this particular article they are absolutely the same thing. You will never convince me otherwise. I agree that in other instances they are not the same thing.
> 
> In my work I educate women on the advantages of breastfeeding. I do not tell them they have to breastfeed. So yes, there is a difference. But, if I taught my patients in the same manner that this article educates, they would feel I was telling them they had to breastfeed.


See above... I think we can close this little parenthesis, because we will never agree... but I enjoyed the debate (well, kind of... :laugh...


----------



## red oak (Oct 26, 2018)

In Absentia said:


> They are not. I hope you understand the difference.


You sound like a copyrighter.

Telling and education. 
Yes there is a difference. Educating in this since is same as mesmerizing, and altering thought processes to eliminate critical thinking, shaming any who don't comply. 

Cult tactics much??


----------



## In Absentia (Aug 21, 2012)

red oak said:


> You sound like a copyrighter.


I am one... only joking!



red oak said:


> Yes there is a difference.


I'm glad you got that... :grin2:

Cult? Come on!

Just seen your signature...


----------



## notmyjamie (Feb 5, 2019)

In Absentia said:


> See above... I think we can close this little parenthesis, because we will never agree... but I enjoyed the debate (well, kind of... :laugh...


To be clear, I totally get that your goal is to help empower women and make things more equal between men and women in society and I love that you have that goal. I just disagree with how that can be accomplished and what that should actually look like once it's been accomplished. 

For me it comes down the power to make your own choices, no matter what you choose. Men have had that power for a very long time. Women should have that power as well. And from what I see, the ones who mostly want to block women from having the power to make their own choices are other women.


----------



## Married but Happy (Aug 13, 2013)

EllisRedding said:


> Amazing how someone who has never had kids can claim they are happier w/o kids. Would my life without my W and kids have been easier, sure. Would it have been happier, not even close... Easier does not equal happiness...


Not having lived your life having had kids, how can you claim you wouldn't have been happier if you hadn't? I do think _most_ people ARE happy they've had kids (and many keep telling themselves they are - delusion keeps them going). But I don't think you can honestly put down those who think they're happier without. While I don't regret having kids, I think I would have been happier if I hadn't. In the end, it's a personal decision, and for those who choose (rather than have an "accident") not to have kids, I can believe they made a good choice for themselves.

I will add that I have several friends who have never had kids, and they are _ver_y happy with their lives, and have never expressed any wish to have kids or regret that they didn't.


----------



## In Absentia (Aug 21, 2012)

notmyjamie said:


> To be clear, I totally get that your goal is to help empower women and make things more equal between men and women in society and I love that you have that goal. I just disagree with how that can be accomplished and what that should actually looks like once it's been accomplished.
> 
> For me it comes down the power to make your own choices, no matter what you choose. Men have had that power for a very long time. Women should have that power as well. And from what I see, the ones who mostly want to block women from having the power to make their own choices are other women.


I get your point too and I agree to a certain extent. We are not miles away. I chose that article to prove my point, and I know it pushed things a bit too far. But, as I said before, sometimes you have to push the limits to do that...


----------



## EllisRedding (Apr 10, 2015)

Married but Happy said:


> Not having lived your life having had kids, how can you claim you wouldn't have been happier if you hadn't? I do think _most_ people ARE happy they've had kids (and many keep telling themselves they are - delusion keeps them going). But I don't think you can honestly put down those who think they're happier without. While I don't regret having kids, I think I would have been happier if I hadn't. In the end, it's a personal decision, and for those who choose (rather than have an "accident") not to have kids, I can believe they made a good choice for themselves.
> 
> I will add that I have several friends who have never had kids, and they are _ver_y happy with their lives, and have never expressed any wish to have kids or regret that they didn't.


Well, until I had kids I had in fact lived my life married without kids so I can do a comparison and can say my W and I are happier now (not like i was born with kids lol)  . I agree it goes both ways, but the point is that article is specifically pointing at people who haven't had kids as being happier which I find rather subjective. Not saying you have to have kids to be happier as I believe each person will be different in how they define happiness. I just feel the article goes to great lengths to try and "prove" not having kids is the happier approach.


----------



## Mr The Other (Feb 1, 2014)

EllisRedding said:


> Well, until I had kids I had in fact lived my life married without kids so I can do a comparison and can say my W and I are happier now (not like i was born with kids lol)  . I agree it goes both ways, but the point is that article is specifically pointing at people who haven't had kids as being happier which I find rather subjective. Not saying you have to have kids to be happier as I believe each person will be different in how they define happiness. I just feel the article goes to great lengths to try and "prove" not having kids is the happier approach.


Yes.

It does seem to me that is hard to accept a reality of:
- having a lazy husband
- being determined to bring this work on yourself
- having a husband who contributes plenty in other ways that are not appreciated.

Blaming the way society is as a whole is easier.

There are general rules that affect us all. But, they affect not dictate.


----------



## Mr The Other (Feb 1, 2014)

Married but Happy said:


> Not having lived your life having had kids, how can you claim you wouldn't have been happier if you hadn't? I do think _most_ people ARE happy they've had kids (and many keep telling themselves they are - delusion keeps them going). But I don't think you can honestly put down those who think they're happier without. While I don't regret having kids, I think I would have been happier if I hadn't. In the end, it's a personal decision, and for those who choose (rather than have an "accident") not to have kids, I can believe they made a good choice for themselves.
> 
> I will add that I have several friends who have never had kids, and they are _ver_y happy with their lives, and have never expressed any wish to have kids or regret that they didn't.


Indeed. 

I am sure I might have been very happy being a girl born in 1995 in Tokyo, but I cannot imagine it being me. I cannot identify with it and with the joy I would get in that life. So, it seems more real to believe I am happier being a bloke born in mid-70's London.

It is the way we generally are.

As long as I am not French. Obviously.


----------



## TheDudeLebowski (Oct 10, 2017)

Mr The Other said:


> Indeed.
> 
> I am sure I might have been very happy being a girl born in 1995 in Tokyo, but I cannot imagine it being me. I cannot identify with it and with the joy I would get in that life. So, it seems more real to believe I am happier being a bloke born in mid-70's London.
> 
> ...


Its 2019. You can identify as a 24 year old Asian girl if you want to. Not only that, people are required to go along with you. If they don't, they are bigots. The good news is in 2019 you just have to say how you feel, and at that moment, that is what you are. You don't have to worry about going under the knife or changing your life in any way. You just have to say how you feel. 

Btw, I identify now as a single woman with no kids. I can't believe how much happier I am! Its like going into a fountain of youth. I can just feel the extra years added on to my life. You guys should try it!


----------



## uhtred (Jun 22, 2016)

I think its possible to look at other couples with and without kids and make some educated guesses on how children or lack of children would affect your own life. 

I'm 100% convinced that *I* am happier without kids, but make no claims as to how many other people would feel the same. 



Married but Happy said:


> Not having lived your life having had kids, how can you claim you wouldn't have been happier if you hadn't? I do think _most_ people ARE happy they've had kids (and many keep telling themselves they are - delusion keeps them going). But I don't think you can honestly put down those who think they're happier without. While I don't regret having kids, I think I would have been happier if I hadn't. In the end, it's a personal decision, and for those who choose (rather than have an "accident") not to have kids, I can believe they made a good choice for themselves.
> 
> I will add that I have several friends who have never had kids, and they are _ver_y happy with their lives, and have never expressed any wish to have kids or regret that they didn't.


----------



## SpinyNorman (Jan 24, 2018)

sokillme said:


> Who said the goal in life is to be happy anyway. The goal in life should be to do good.


Both of those are waaay too hard. The goal of life is to ruin other people's happiness.


----------



## SpinyNorman (Jan 24, 2018)

sokillme said:


> Here is the thing to remember. Articles, writers and websites like this are literally cancer.


Literally?

I didn't think much of the article either, he quotes a behavioral scientist who claims to have data. How about showing us the data?


----------



## Mr The Other (Feb 1, 2014)

TheDudeLebowski said:


> Its 2019. You can identify as a 24 year old Asian girl if you want to. Not only that, people are required to go along with you. If they don't, they are bigots. The good news is in 2019 you just have to say how you feel, and at that moment, that is what you are. You don't have to worry about going under the knife or changing your life in any way. You just have to say how you feel.
> 
> Btw, I identify now as a single woman with no kids. I can't believe how much happier I am! Its like going into a fountain of youth. I can just feel the extra years added on to my life. You guys should try it!


Haha! Good luck and good for you!

I have only lived in the USA and Europe, nowhere like that.


----------



## TheDudeLebowski (Oct 10, 2017)

Mr The Other said:


> Haha! Good luck and good for you!
> 
> I have only lived in the USA and Europe, nowhere like that.


California might as well be a different nation compared to Texas. Just move to the Bay area and tell everyone you identify as a 24 year old Asian woman. You will get nothing but support.


----------



## EllisRedding (Apr 10, 2015)

TheDudeLebowski said:


> California might as well be a different nation compared to Texas. Just move to the Bay area and tell everyone you identify as a 24 year old Asian woman. You will get nothing but support.


Just watch where you step when walking through the streets lol


----------



## badsanta (Oct 13, 2014)

EllisRedding said:


> - I believe there is some merit to the ideas below on the basis that women (some/many), who are now working full time alongside their H are still expected to pick up the lions share of the household responsibilities. This is something I believe you will start to see balance out over time as family dynamics change away from the more traditional families.


 @EllisRedding if you could flip a switch and see how women get treated in other cultures where the men are extremely dominant, it will leave you scratching your head. 

For example in some countries where there is so much poverty that it is not uncommon for the equivalent of a middle-class American family to have a full time staff of about five people taking care of the house (cleaning, cooking, nanny, gardening, washing cloths, home repair/maintenance, armed guards, pool service, and shopping). All these poor people happily work for a meager salary of basically nothing, a place to stay and food to eat as there are no government regulations or minimum wages. This leaves the woman of the house with just a few prerogatives to just mostly take care of her looks and socialize. 

So look at the following:










Now look at that in terms of GDP Per Capita 










*MORE MONEY = MORE DIVORCE*

The reason for this is that in wealthy countries when the toilet is stopped up, well there are no poor people to go behind you and clean that shît up. Wealth also creates entitlement, and if you have to clean up someone's toilet it is better if it is just your own. Once you get to the point of having enough money that everyone can afford their own house and just clean up their own shît, then YES women are probably happier living on their own (as are men). 

*LESS MONEY = LESS DIVORCE*

These are countries where there is plenty of poor people to work for middle class families and the woman does not have to lift a finger! These women live like freaking kings of the world while the men kill themselves working and providing. 

Regards, 
Badsanta


----------



## Mr The Other (Feb 1, 2014)

TheDudeLebowski said:


> California might as well be a different nation compared to Texas. Just move to the Bay area and tell everyone you identify as a 24 year old Asian woman. You will get nothing but support.


Good to know! Still, as long as it is not compulsary


----------

