Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
"...when couples have children, happiness levels plummet. "Children do seem to increase happiness [while] you're expecting them, but as soon as you have them, trouble sets in," he told the "Happiness and its Causes" conference. "People are extremely happy before they have children and then their happiness goes down, and it takes another big hit when kids reach adolescence."
"Using data sets from Europe and America, numerous scholars have found some evidence that, on aggregate, parents often report statistically significantly lower levels of happiness (Alesina et al., 2004), life satisfaction (Di Tella et al., 2003), marital satisfaction (Twenge et al., 2003) and mental well-being (Clark & Oswald, 2002) compared with non-parents."
"There is also evidence that the strains associated with parenthood are not only limited to the period during which children are physically and economically dependent. For example, Glenn and McLanahan (1981) found those older parents whose children have left home report the same or slightly less happiness than non-parents of similar age and status. Thus, what these results are suggesting is something very controversial — that having children does not bring joy to our lives."
In other words, a no child policy would make for happier people than a one child policy
The key seems not to be merely having children, but having lots of children - six or more according to the study. Perhaps many women with fewer children have children only grudgingly: their relative unhappiness could be an attitude thing.
I would surmise that women with more than the average number of children are happier in their own skin, as women ... comfortable with their femininity, willing to work with their biology rather than against it. This comports with my own experience. I've met lots of unhappy mothers of small broods for whom their children were a nuisance, whereas mothers of large families seem to actually be more relaxed and have a lot of joy in their lives.
I think you may be on to something - at least in modern America.
Decades ago, before contraceptives were widely available of effective, there were probably a lot of women who didn't really want a lot of children, but got them anyway. I can't imagine being thrilled by that.
On the other hand, women of today who have many children are probably doing so because they WANT a lot of children - and having a lot makes them very happy.
My wife & I are perfectly happy with being the parents of 3 grown children. On the other hand, I'm sure we would have been equally happy if we had 4 or 5.
Maybe they simply live longer because such breeding machines usually don't go to work. Thus they may be exposed to less stress and fewer risks
Most stay-at-home moms don't not do any work. Looking after the kids, cleaning up after them, feeding them, etc. is a lot of work. Kids, especially young kids, don't, and can't, take care of themselves. There's nothing wrong with staying at home full time to look after your family
Most stay-at-home moms don't not do any work. Looking after the kids, cleaning up after them, feeding them, etc. is a lot of work. Kids, especially young kids, don't, and can't, take care of themselves. There's nothing wrong with staying at home full time to look after your family
I did not say they don't work, I said they don't go to work. Running a household is not the same as going to an office with deadlines, disgusting colleagues and bosses, etc.
Usually a mother likes the kind of work she does at home, otherwise she would probably not have half a dozen kids, but call it quits after two.
Traditionally, stay-at-home moms were more than just moms: they were the anchor of the family and the neighborhood. Taking in sick or elderly relatives, for instance. Volunteering at church and school. Organizing civic events. Etc. There's no one around to do these things anymore.
I grew up in a very Catholic, rural part of MO.
Lots of my schoolmates had at least 10 siblings, I can think of 1 who had 20.
By and large, all those women were embittered and died young.
I know because I am still in close touch with most of my classmates.
Traditionally, stay-at-home moms were more than just moms: they were the anchor of the family and the neighborhood. Taking in sick or elderly relatives, for instance. Volunteering at church and school. Organizing civic events. Etc. There's no one around to do these things anymore.
Exactly. They were the pillars of our community, and people interacted more back then. More people knew each other and weren't little islands of isolation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neuling
I did not say they don't work, I said they don't go to work. Running a household is not the same as going to an office with deadlines, disgusting colleagues and bosses, etc.
Usually a mother likes the kind of work she does at home, otherwise she would probably not have half a dozen kids, but call it quits after two.
I beg to differ that a mom would stay at home because she loves doing chores. Not all maids love cleaning, but they do it because it's quick cash. A stay-at-home mom does not stay at home because she wants to do chores, but because she wants to stay close to her children
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
