Marital Concepts from the 1950s

[123321]

Happiness for the most part and IMO comes from inside a person.

 

 

The survey question: “Taken all together, how would you say things are these days, would you say that you are very happy, pretty happy, or not too happy?”

 

In addition, respondents are asked about their satisfaction with a number of aspects of their life such as their marriage, their health, their financial situation, and their job.

 

The long duration of the GSS and the use of consistent survey language to measure happiness make it ideally suited for analyzing trends in wellbeing over time.

 

Or so they say, apparently we have some experts here who know better - I'd love to read their published work in the field.

 

 

Couple interesting results. First, if suicide rates are an indicator of how rough life is, men have always had it worse and continue to do so by a huge margin. Female suicide were low in the 50s (hmmm) and reached a peak in the early 70s before settling back to the level they were in the 50s ....

 

Second, this little gem: .... one reason married people report substantially greater happiness than unmarried people in a cross-section is because happy people are more likely than unhappy people to marry (Stevenson and Wolfers, 2007)

 

Married men are happier, don't cha know?

[xxoo]

Do you have statistics that show men reported less happiness than women in the 50's? I can't answer this questions without the proper context.

 

It's in the 36 page research paper we've been discussing. The full text is linked a few pages back.

[123321]

Do you have statistics that show men reported less happiness than women in the 50's? I can't answer this questions without the proper context.

 

Here is the actual text: http://www.nber.org/papers/w14969.pdf

[jay1983]

In a separate questions, why are women viewed poorly for reporting less than full happiness when they have more control of their lives, and men are not?

 

Well I take stuff like that with a grain of salt. We were just making assumptions of why women said they weren't happy.

 

Think about it, how many people are truly unhappy and openly admit it?

 

When they asked these questions, they probably worded in such way to produce the results. They probably asked several questions, something like 123 said "are you very satisfied with this?" "how do you feel about that?" and didn't get "Very satisfied" "It's amazing" for answers.

 

Something like that.

[xxoo]

 

Or so they say, apparently we have some experts here who know better - I'd love to read their published work in the field.

 

The theory I quoted was presented by the authors of that very study, within the study, in the discussion section.

 

Read the study, and you'll read their work

[123321]

Men in the 50s reported less happiness than women, yet they had more control, more opportunities, and fought hard to keep things as they were. If they were unhappy, why didn't they want change?

 

Did I miss the part of the survey that measured, by gender:

 

- the level of effort expended to maintain the status quo.

- The level of control exerted.

- The quantity and quality of the 'opportunities'.

 

Or is that pulled from Santas ass?

 

 

In a separate questions, why are women viewed poorly for reporting less than full happiness when they have more control of their lives, and men are not?

 

Not sure what you're on about here.

[123321]

Don't forget probably men have been that way all along, and women have just caught up.

 

The theory I quoted was presented by the authors of that very study, within the study, in the discussion section.

 

That doesn't LOOK like a quote from the study, and you know, when I do a text search it's not in there. Are you sure?

[xxoo]

This quote:

 

It has been recognized that an individual’s assessment of their well-being may reflect the social desirability of responses and Kahneman (1999) argues that people in good circumstances may be hedonically better off than people in worse circumstances, yet they may require more to declare themselves happy. In the context of the findings presented in this paper, women may now feel more comfortable being honest about their true happiness and have thus deflated their previously inflated responses. Or, as in Kahneman’s example, the increased opportunities available to women may have increased what women require to declare themselves happy. And indeed, Figure 7 shows that contrary to the subjective well-being trends we document, female suicide rates have been falling, even as male suicide rates have remained roughly constant through most of our sample. As such, from the early 1970s to the mid-1990s the ratio of female-to-male suicide declined.

 

Hope that helps.

 

My question is, why are women characterized as unable to please, or "whacky", when they report unhappiness, but men are not? Especially considering that men resisted change and, as the premise of this thread suggests, consider the 50s a better time for men than now?

[Rejected Rosebud]

It may be true for your career girl or your comfortably off woman who can leave at the drop of a hat and carve out a reasonable existence on her own, but for the poorer woman, is she still as dependent on her man providing for her and her kids, as she ever was?

Is she as stuck as those women in the 1950s were?

 

Actually low income couples are more likely to divorce though.

[Rejected Rosebud]

And so, when she decides to leave, she's entitled to all the assets and some travelling money? That's not right. It is the way it is, but full grown adult humans are supposed to be responsible for their OWN needs.

Then why did you support her and pay for her hobbies for 20 years obviously the idea of her being responsible for her own needs wasn't that important back then??

[123321]

This quote:

 

It has been recognized that an individual’s assessment of their well-being may reflect the social desirability of responses and Kahneman (1999) argues that people in good circumstances may be hedonically better off than people in worse circumstances, yet they may require more to declare themselves happy. In the context of the findings presented in this paper, women may now feel more comfortable being honest about their true happiness and have thus deflated their previously inflated responses. Or, as in Kahneman’s example, the increased opportunities available to women may have increased what women require to declare themselves happy. And indeed, Figure 7 shows that contrary to the subjective well-being trends we document, female suicide rates have been falling, even as male suicide rates have remained roughly constant through most of our sample. As such, from the early 1970s to the mid-1990s the ratio of female-to-male suicide declined.

 

Hope that helps.

 

Well it helps locate *A* quote, not seeing where it compares women to men and argues that "men have been that way all along, and women have just caught up" though.

 

 

My question is, why are women characterized as unable to please, or "whacky", when they report unhappiness, but men are not?

 

Men who act that way are whacky too.

 

 

Especially considering that men resisted change and, as the premise of this thread suggests, consider the 50s a better time for men than now?

 

I think today is the best time to be alive in human history, you should argue that with someone who believes whatever it is you're saying I believe in.

 

 

And, immediately following the quote you have above:

 

"Finally, the changes brought about through the women’s movement may have decreased women’s happiness. The increased opportunity to succeed in many dimensions may have led to an increased likelihood of believing that one’s life is not measuring up. Similarly, women may now compare their lives to a broader group, including men, and find their lives more likely to come up short in this assessment. Or women may simply find the complexity and increased pressure in their modern lives to have come at the cost of happiness."

 

An alternative explanation is offered.

[Rejected Rosebud]

Then some of the guys on forums start trolling the dating sites. They put up pics of models and start taking screen shots of what happens. We had someone link one while back, it went on for like 50 pages of screen shot after screen shot, all the girls (especially attractive ones) handing out their numbers and arguing to take it up bum, all kinds of sh*t.

Why is this a surprise or some kind of indictment of women, so what if we would respond "extra" to a gorgeous looking guy who might be available if we're single and looking, that still doesn't mean that looks are the "MOST" important thing, it just means we liked the way that guy looked!! Please don't tell me that men would not respond exactly the same way to a gorgeous looking girl when looking for dates!!! There is not anything wrong with it? I mean they didn't sell their soul to be with the guy they just were interested cause he was HAWT!!

[Rejected Rosebud]

Do you think the same is true of homosexuals. They are different than heterosexual men because of social conditioning?

 

Do you think there are any difference between gay men and straight men besides sexual preference? And is this all due to social conditioning? Or is it a coincidence that about 90% of the male actors on Broadway are gay?

 

I was engaged to a woman whose younger brother was gay. His mother said she knew by the time he was four years old. How? He liked to do girl things, like play with Barbie, instead of boy things, like playing with trucks. Yet you maintain that there is no significant difference between the genders?

 

You actually think that being a broadway actor or playing with a barbie is like genetically linked to being gay or something?? :lmao: Ha well among my gay friends we talk about "the gene" when someone starts making a still life arrangement on the table or something but srsly we are JOKING! Many gay men are super masculine and actually are NOT dancing on broadway or hairdressers!!! . Who knows maybe more manly than you are!! I guess you just don't know that they're gay but if they are playing with a barbie it's a clue!!

 

I don't think that you personally understand the "differences between THE genders" because you are obviously 100% down with traditional gender roles and every man and every women is slotted into their spots but really gender is quite fluid, and that is why a driven working woman has a good place in this world just like a man who likes to cook for his family does!!

[jay1983]

Why is this a surprise or some kind of indictment of women, so what if we would respond "extra" to a gorgeous looking guy who might be available if we're single and looking, that still doesn't mean that looks are the "MOST" important thing, it just means we liked the way that guy looked!! Please don't tell me that men would not respond exactly the same way to a gorgeous looking girl when looking for dates!!! There is not anything wrong with it? I mean they didn't sell their soul to be with the guy they just were interested cause he was HAWT!!

 

Calm down dude! lol

 

No there's nothing wrong with it, I understand it, but when the guys say something about it, it gets denied. You've heard it "my 8 is someone else's 3" of that were true don't you think there'd be more than 5 guys on this forum saying good things about OLD? lol Yes men like hot women and we admit it. I don't understand why women fight the allegations. The whole talk was about what physical attributes women are looking for. Come on dude you cut out the half my comment.

[Got it]

Do not confuse equality of choice with equality of perception. Men and women can both make the same choices, regardless of the fact there is a dichotomy in how the choice is viewed depending upon who's making it.

 

One thing I had to learn was how to stop caring how my choices are perceived. Why should I care if many women view me as a "pathetic whiny wimp"? How does that change anything?

 

It doesn't.

 

The sooner you realize that, the sooner you can let it all go and simply enjoy your life. The feelings and perceptions of others simply do not matter. What does matter is how YOU perceive YOURSELF.

 

I honestly think this whole argument would bubble down to this statement right here. If people stop focusing on "everyone else" and just focus on how they perceive themselves and their happiness this whole discuss about gender would be negated.

 

I don't care what others think, how someone is "supposed" to act/be, etc. I march to the beat of my own drum and I am very happy with it. I am contrary especially on gender stereotypes and I enjoy bucking trends and others doing so as well. I don't expect to fit into a box, or others to do so either. And my biggest assessment of people, regardless of gender, comes down to "are you a glass half full or half empty" and steer clear of the half empty people.

[Robert Z]

as the premise of this thread suggests, consider the 50s a better time for men than now?

 

 

Where did I say that? I said it was before the divorce rate went through the roof.

 

 

Considering that I only wrote one sentence, one would think you could get it right.

[Got it]

Where did I say that? I said it was before the divorce rate went through the roof.

 

 

Considering that I only wrote one sentence, one would think you could get it right.

 

Meeeoooowwww!! Hissssss!

[Robert Z]

Meeeoooowwww!! Hissssss!

 

 

It isn't rocket science. But if a person can't get one sentence straight, I don't think we can trust the reading of a an entire paper, huh.

[Robert Z]

............... double post

[WasOtherWoman]

While you and I seem to basically agree, this comment raises my hackles. Firstly, that is patronizing. To me this reads as: Just play helpless for the dumb man who is so easily fooled! And it is a typical attitude that I find among women that shows a fundamental disrespect. We aren't children.

 

Secondly, do you really need to make up reasons for him to feel needed? Don't you ACTUALLY need him? If so, why the need to pretend?

 

Of course I need him. And I was answering a bit "tongue in cheek". Besides the fact that I adore the man and all that entails and certainly need him to meet my emotional needs, as he needs me to meet his, I need him to help in areas when I need his physical strength and certainly reaching high places. In fact, I will generally pour on the charm telling him that I "need a strong man such as himself" to help me to x, y or z. He laughs, and comes to help.

 

My wonderful husband is the CEO of a very well known company, so he and I both definitely know he is not a child (and I honestly feel that the fastest marriage-killer is acting like your husband's mother). But, at home, we are just us.

 

Sorry if i raised your hackles.. hoping the above lowers them a bit

[Noirek]

People are notorious for romanticizing the past. 50s weren't all that perfect in homes. Lots of messy stay at home moms who were terrible parents. One cannot even begin to wase through all the stereo types and down right illogical statements on this topic.

 

The world has changed more so because of technology than feminism. We have gotten so much smaller. Now instead of knowing what goes on in our neighbor's backyard we can know what goes on in the backyard of someone who lives in a different country.

 

And that can lead to dissatisfaction in itself.

[123321]

.... so they just stand around complaining about them...

 

Glad you don't call them whiners, oh wait ...

 

 

People are notorious for romanticizing the past.

 

All I said was that the ideals that were popular back then are probably equally wrong as the ones we cherish today, not that EITHER set are particularly marvelous. But people on this board read what is written, understand it to be what they want to see, and carry on.

[Got it]

Glad you don't call them whiners, oh wait ...

 

 

 

 

All I said was that the ideals that were popular back then are probably equally wrong as the ones we cherish today, not that EITHER set are particularly marvelous. But people on this board read what is written, understand it to be what they want to see, and carry on.

 

Speaking of ideals from the 50s, seems like "whites only" was a particular popular one.

[123321]

Speaking of ideals from the 50s, seems like "whites only" was a particular popular one.

 

I'm pretty sure everyone could get married in the 50s right? Or are you trying to divert this thread?

[toolforgrowth]

While I don't think that feminism ended up being the magic bullet for happiness women in the past thought it would be, I'd never advocate returning to the 50s ideology. Not because it was misogynistic (and it was) but because theandare certain aspects of feminism that directly impact my life in a positive way. Men in the 50s were typically the only ones who worked, abd his entire family was dependent on him. I've been there done that, and it's NOT fun. It's highly stressful, in fact. Rejecting that way of life was very liberating, and it's easier to reject today because women are more inclined to take greater responsibility for their financial security today.

 

I can use that to go my own way by expecting my partners to follow that ideology. I expect my partner to work and care for herself. If she can't or won't, then she's not suitable for me.

 

She's a grown a$$ adult, not a large child. She can take care of herself.