chiver78
Administrator
Current Events Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 13:04:45 GMT -5
Posts: 38,876
|
Post by chiver78 on Nov 9, 2015 22:42:38 GMT -5
That wasn't sarcasm. I guess me and most of my friends are outliers, but we would have been miserable if our only real options were housewife, teacher or nurse. Also, as someone who has chosen to delay marriage and skip having kids, I still get judged for that, but it is nothing close to the scrutiny I would have faced in the 50s. I almost feel silly for complaining about feeling unfairly categorized as "likely mommy track" in job interviews. ![](http://syonidv.hodginsmedia.com/vsmileys/yeahthat.gif) seriously, this.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Nov 10, 2015 4:04:48 GMT -5
Is this sarcasm? The science is what's telling us that women are more miserable and unsatisfied today than ever before, declining steadily since the 1950's. So... hooray for misery? ![](http://syonidv.hodginsmedia.com/vsmileys/sarcasm.png) Because woman can now admit that they aren't happy without being shamed? How did I know you were going to make that excuse? ![](http://syonidv.hodginsmedia.com/vsmileys/rolleyes2.gif) Seeing as survey results are collected privately, anonymously, using too many different methodologies to count (all of which scientists have striven to engineer in ways that eliminate bias), and are corroborated by measures of happiness and stress that don't rely on surveys: no, swamp, you don't get to "women are just more forthright these days" your way out of this one. I never cease to marvel at how quickly "scientifically-minded" people pitch established research into the trash bin when it tells them something they don't want to hear.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Nov 10, 2015 4:14:03 GMT -5
Virgil Showlion aren't you one of the ones always saying that correlation does not equal causation. A lot of things have changed since the 50's that could contribute to those survey results. That's true. We can't prove causation here. The four major candidates for the shift (i.e. four major demographic shifts common across western nations) over the past 60 years are: third-wave feminism, increasing population density, increasing urbanization, and increasing secularism. I know that research has generally found only weak correlations (or none at all) in the case of population density and urbanization. I don't know about secularism. There are very likely many causes. Even so, none of the major demographic trends of the past 60 years are going to reverse in the next 20, hence I see no reason to believe the slide in women's happiness will suddenly reverse course either.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Nov 10, 2015 4:32:03 GMT -5
I'm sorry so many women and men consider themselves miserable. As the descendent of peasants, poor & working class from Great Britain and Aboriginal Canadians, I am so happy I live in a time when I have more options to correct my misery then death or marrying the right man. We've gone well beyond that. Remember that in this thread the argument is that women shouldn't be passed over for hiring or promotion or have their salaries discounted because of the increased risk they'll prioritize their family life over their working life in future. That risk goes away--all the legitimate tangible factors that contribute to bias against women go away--if and only if women no longer prioritize family life over working life. Hence we're not talking about a state of society where women never work outside the home, which has actually been the norm more often than not since the Industrial Revolution. We're talking about a state in which women more or less universally prioritize their work life over their family life, much like they did in the early Soviet Union in accordance with Karl Marx' theories. The impact on their society was catastrophic. Don't fall prey to the fallacy of extremes here.
|
|
mmhmm
Administrator
It's a great pity the right of free speech isn't based on the obligation to say something sensible.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 18:13:34 GMT -5
Posts: 31,770
Today's Mood: Saddened by Events
Location: Memory Lane
Favorite Drink: Water
|
Post by mmhmm on Nov 10, 2015 4:40:12 GMT -5
I'm wondering from whence the data for all this discourse has come. I was a sentient being in the 1950s and knew, pretty much, what was going on. I don't remember all these surveys being taken to find out if people were happy, unhappy, slightly miffed, or blissful. Nobody asked. Everyone appeared to be going about their lives without worrying about whether they were happier than people were in the twenties. I find myself puzzling as to whether there were secret surveys nobody knew anything about or if, perhaps, the surveys of today are being drawn from people who are remembering what it was like in the fifties and vomiting that out as "data."
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Nov 10, 2015 5:10:20 GMT -5
I'm wondering from whence the data for all this discourse has come. I was a sentient being in the 1950s and knew, pretty much, what was going on. I don't remember all these surveys being taken to find out if people were happy, unhappy, slightly miffed, or blissful. Nobody asked. Everyone appeared to be going about their lives without worrying about whether they were happier than people were in the twenties. I find myself puzzling as to whether there were secret surveys nobody knew anything about or if, perhaps, the surveys of today are being drawn from people who are remembering what it was like in the fifties and vomiting that out as "data." Considering a landmark survey might comprise 20,000 respondents, you'd have to have 50 landmark surveys to sample even 0.1% of the population of the western world in 1950. A more reasonable survey might look at 1,000 respondents. Even 1,000 capita is an excellent sample size. I'd be very surprised if all research on the subject conducted to date comprised survey results from more than a million capita worldwide. As for studies on the comparative happiness of older people and younger people, there are plenty of those too, and you'd still have negligible odds of ever being involved in one. The other thing is that not every survey on happiness presents itself as a survey on happiness. I have no doubt many methodologies will bury happiness questions in larger, more general surveys.
|
|
mmhmm
Administrator
It's a great pity the right of free speech isn't based on the obligation to say something sensible.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 18:13:34 GMT -5
Posts: 31,770
Today's Mood: Saddened by Events
Location: Memory Lane
Favorite Drink: Water
|
Post by mmhmm on Nov 10, 2015 5:20:06 GMT -5
I don't deny those points, Virgil Showlion. I do, however, doubt very seriously there was all that much surveying being done. Today, there's a veritable plethora of surveys. Think of it and you'll find a survey on it. That just wasn't the way things were in the fifties. People were too busy earning their livings and living their lives to worry about what everybody else was doing - including worrying about participating in surveys about what everyone else was doing. Data was much more difficult to come by in "olden times." I'm just not convinced of the accuracy of these new surveys about days of old. Sorry.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Nov 10, 2015 5:47:49 GMT -5
I don't deny those points, Virgil Showlion. I do, however, doubt very seriously there was all that much surveying being done. Today, there's a veritable plethora of surveys. Think of it and you'll find a survey on it. That just wasn't the way things were in the fifties. People were too busy earning their livings and living their lives to worry about what everybody else was doing - including worrying about participating in surveys about what everyone else was doing. Data was much more difficult to come by in "olden times." I'm just not convinced of the accuracy of these new surveys about days of old. Sorry. I don't know how I can convince you then. Surveys weren't as common in the 1950's as they are today, and a greater proportion of them were administered by academic institutions (as opposed to marketing research firms, pollsters, etc.), but studies definitely existed and were scientifically rigorous. Analogously, the data about temperature and climate that was collected back in the 1950's is only a tiny fraction of the data being collected today, but I still believe scientists who say the Earth is warmer today than back then. Moreover, this is a progressive phenomenon. The 1950's is where it starts, mainly because older records are harder to come by, but the trend itself has been observed every decade for 65 years now.
|
|
zibazinski
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 16:12:50 GMT -5
Posts: 47,873
|
Post by zibazinski on Nov 10, 2015 6:21:48 GMT -5
I don't know. It's not easy to serve two masters. I always felt happiest in summer when I was off with my kids. Everything ran smoother and I didn't have an 8-5 job. You can hire out a lot of stuff but still, the never ending guilt is always there. I'm hoping the next generation doesn't feel the guilt of not being a good enough parent or a good enough employee.
|
|
Cookies Galore
Senior Associate
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 18:08:13 GMT -5
Posts: 10,795
|
Post by Cookies Galore on Nov 10, 2015 7:39:51 GMT -5
I don't deny those points, Virgil Showlion. I do, however, doubt very seriously there was all that much surveying being done. Today, there's a veritable plethora of surveys. Think of it and you'll find a survey on it. That just wasn't the way things were in the fifties. People were too busy earning their livings and living their lives to worry about what everybody else was doing - including worrying about participating in surveys about what everyone else was doing. Data was much more difficult to come by in "olden times." I'm just not convinced of the accuracy of these new surveys about days of old. Sorry. Pssh! Actual experience of living in the 1950s is not valid.
|
|
Cookies Galore
Senior Associate
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 18:08:13 GMT -5
Posts: 10,795
|
Post by Cookies Galore on Nov 10, 2015 7:49:43 GMT -5
I'm disappointed in this thread. Multiple days, five pages, devolving into arguments over a woman's worth, but not one inquiry into whether Justin Trudeau recieved any binders full of women.
|
|
Cookies Galore
Senior Associate
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 18:08:13 GMT -5
Posts: 10,795
|
Post by Cookies Galore on Nov 10, 2015 7:56:44 GMT -5
I'm disappointed in this thread. Multiple days, five pages, devolving into arguments over a woman's worth, but not one inquiry into whether Justin Trudeau recieved any binders full of women. how many binders should one have? Whole binders! Full of women! I think they're most comfortable in the Avery 1".
|
|
resolution
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 13:09:56 GMT -5
Posts: 7,055
Mini-Profile Name Color: 305b2b
|
Post by resolution on Nov 10, 2015 7:57:35 GMT -5
I was curious and pulled up the actual study, and it looks like the big spike down in happiness for adults over 30 started in the year 2000, long after women entered the work force. Happiness for children and adolescents is up over that time.
spp.sagepub.com/content/early/recent
I can't find anywhere in the study where they are relating the downward trend in happiness to women working, although they did bring up in the intro section that less people are marrying, more marriages breaking up, and out of wedlock births. They also mention in the results discussion section income inequality and the increased use of social networking giving people unrealistic expectations.
Most of the analysis of reasons is on pages 8 and 9 of the study, and I can't figure out where anyone got working women as a cause because it certainly doesn't match the dates on the charts or the discussion section of the study. It appears to me that someone is twisting the results to support their biased point of view.
|
|
whoisjohngalt
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 14:12:07 GMT -5
Posts: 9,140
|
Post by whoisjohngalt on Nov 10, 2015 8:17:33 GMT -5
All studies aside, I don't think women are happier today than they were 50 years ago. My guess is they are about as unhappy as they were 50 years ago. Just for different reasons.
Yes, in theory, they are/should be happy about all the choices they now have.
In reality, there seem to be constant struggle to find the right balance, to find their place, to be happy and content with their lives.
And while a lot of times, the blame seems to be put on men - they don't help out at home, they still get paid more, they don't value women, etc etc - I can't help to think that the "new" way made things very complicated for women, just like the "old" way was, just in a different way and it's not all men's fault.
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,836
|
Post by Tennesseer on Nov 10, 2015 8:18:27 GMT -5
I'm wondering from whence the data for all this discourse has come. I was a sentient being in the 1950s and knew, pretty much, what was going on. I don't remember all these surveys being taken to find out if people were happy, unhappy, slightly miffed, or blissful. Nobody asked. Everyone appeared to be going about their lives without worrying about whether they were happier than people were in the twenties. I find myself puzzling as to whether there were secret surveys nobody knew anything about or if, perhaps, the surveys of today are being drawn from people who are remembering what it was like in the fifties and vomiting that out as "data." How was the information gathered in the 1950s? According to historical census, 1 in 5 households had no phone. Some of the southern states had 40% or greater hiuseholds with no phones. So how representative could the data be? In person interviews? Maybe, but that brings into play the possibility of subjective screeing/polling based upon physical biases of the poller. Historical Census of Housing Tables:Telephones
|
|
resolution
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 13:09:56 GMT -5
Posts: 7,055
Mini-Profile Name Color: 305b2b
|
Post by resolution on Nov 10, 2015 8:28:13 GMT -5
I recently watched a very interesting TED Talk on happiness by a Harvard psychologist. He said that the human mind is so amazing that if we are put in a situation of little choices, we can create our own contentment in almost any situation. But if we have a lot of choices we tend to question if we made the right decisions and if we should switch to a different decision. I was curious about the study if it was going to have information along the same lines, but it ended up totally different. Here is a link to the TED talk if anyone is interested. www.ted.com/talks/dan_gilbert_asks_why_are_we_happy?language=en
|
|
MJ2.0
Senior Associate
Joined: Jul 24, 2014 10:27:09 GMT -5
Posts: 11,000
|
Post by MJ2.0 on Nov 10, 2015 8:34:03 GMT -5
All studies aside, I don't think women are happier today than they were 50 years ago. My guess is they are about as unhappy as they were 50 years ago. Just for different reasons. Yes, in theory, they are/should be happy about all the choices they now have. In reality, there seem to be constant struggle to find the right balance, to find their place, to be happy and content with their lives. And while a lot of times, the blame seems to be put on men - they don't help out at home, they still get paid more, they don't value women, etc etc - I can't help to think that the "new" way made things very complicated for women, just like the "old" way was, just in a different way and it's not all men's fault. We say that women should all feel free to do whatever makes them happy - be a career woman, have kids, stay at home, work part or full time, go back to school, whatever. But we still judge each other about every detail relating to those choices. We're still holding ourselves to this impossible standard of womanhood, and it's especially true for moms. We say that we can accept the fact that our houses won't be spotless, our kids won't be perfect angels, and that we won't look as good as Gloria (or whatever her name is - Sofia Vergara) from Modern Family when we play Mom - and yet we still aspire to be all of this while working hard outside the home/not loving being a SAHM/fighting our own other demons, whatever they are. We say that as long as the kids are fed, happy, healthy, and aren't being abused in any way that it's okay to have wide varieties in parenting styles... and yet we STILL judge each other! Do men do this?
|
|
ArchietheDragon
Junior Associate
Joined: Jul 7, 2014 14:29:23 GMT -5
Posts: 6,371
|
Post by ArchietheDragon on Nov 10, 2015 8:36:14 GMT -5
All studies aside, I don't think women are happier today than they were 50 years ago. My guess is they are about as unhappy as they were 50 years ago. Just for different reasons. Yes, in theory, they are/should be happy about all the choices they now have. In reality, there seem to be constant struggle to find the right balance, to find their place, to be happy and content with their lives. And while a lot of times, the blame seems to be put on men - they don't help out at home, they still get paid more, they don't value women, etc etc - I can't help to think that the "new" way made things very complicated for women, just like the "old" way was, just in a different way and it's not all men's fault. We say that women should all feel free to do whatever makes them happy - be a career woman, have kids, stay at home, work part or full time, go back to school, whatever. But we still judge each other about every detail relating to those choices. We're still holding ourselves to this impossible standard of womanhood, and it's especially true for moms. We say that we can accept the fact that our houses won't be spotless, our kids won't be perfect angels, and that we won't look as good as Gloria (or whatever her name is - Sofia Vergara) from Modern Family when we play Mom - and yet we still aspire to be all of this while working hard outside the home/not loving being a SAHM/fighting our own other demons, whatever they are. We say that as long as the kids are fed, happy, healthy, and aren't being abused in any way that it's okay to have wide varieties in parenting styles... and yet we STILL judge each other! Do men do this? yes. Just not in the same way.
|
|
yogiii
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 19:38:00 GMT -5
Posts: 5,377
|
Post by yogiii on Nov 10, 2015 8:45:25 GMT -5
I would love to be a housewife who stays home and cooks all day but that's because my husband isn't an asshole. Instead, I just keep working. Why do I do this to myself?
|
|
yogiii
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 19:38:00 GMT -5
Posts: 5,377
|
Post by yogiii on Nov 10, 2015 9:08:43 GMT -5
I'm in a male dominated field and I feel lucky that I've never felt like I've been treated differently. I also don't easily offend, so I can joke around with the guys maybe in ways others would not. If anything, I feel like I have to constantly try to gracefully turn down opportunities (aka extra work) and try to maintain where I am at now while not becoming irrelevant. If I was more of a go-getter I feel I could easily be anywhere I wanted to be. Why is there such a difference between experiences? If it's only age it should sort itself out eventually but if not the industry differences would need to stabilize before a "whole world" change can happen.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Jun 29, 2024 1:44:28 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 10, 2015 9:10:13 GMT -5
Virgil Showlion aren't you one of the ones always saying that correlation does not equal causation. A lot of things have changed since the 50's that could contribute to those survey results. That's true. We can't prove causation here. The four major candidates for the shift (i.e. four major demographic shifts common across western nations) over the past 60 years are: third-wave feminism, increasing population density, increasing urbanization, and increasing secularism. I know that research has generally found only weak correlations (or none at all) in the case of population density and urbanization. I don't know about secularism. There are very likely many causes. Even so, none of the major demographic trends of the past 60 years are going to reverse in the next 20, hence I see no reason to believe the slide in women's happiness will suddenly reverse course either. Actually I read studies that indicated that people that lived near people that had a lot more material wealth than them were inherently less happy than those that were surrounded by people of the same means. With the gap between rich and poor widening and the explosion of mass media to make sure that we are all aware of it, there is another contender for why people are less happy. One that has nothing to do with women working.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Jun 29, 2024 1:44:28 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 10, 2015 9:17:13 GMT -5
I just want to make sure I'm keeping up with the debate here. First the argument was that there are no women qualified as the best candidate for jobs. Then the argument became women don't work as hard as men, or as long, and management doesn't know they want promotions. And now it is that women are actually unhappy working. Have I got that right?
|
|
yogiii
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 19:38:00 GMT -5
Posts: 5,377
|
Post by yogiii on Nov 10, 2015 9:19:41 GMT -5
I just want to make sure I'm keeping up with the debate here. First the argument was that there are no women qualified as the best candidate for jobs. Then the argument became women don't work as hard as men, or as long, and management doesn't know they want promotions. And now it is that women are actually unhappy working. Have I got that right? I think males and females are individuals. Some men don't want to travel (my husband), some do, some women don't want to travel (me), some do. Some women don't want a promotion, some do, same for men and SURPRISE! you can't tell just by looking at them.
|
|
MJ2.0
Senior Associate
Joined: Jul 24, 2014 10:27:09 GMT -5
Posts: 11,000
|
Post by MJ2.0 on Nov 10, 2015 9:22:49 GMT -5
I just want to make sure I'm keeping up with the debate here. First the argument was that there are no women qualified as the best candidate for jobs. Then the argument became women don't work as hard as men, or as long, and management doesn't know they want promotions. And now it is that women are actually unhappy working. Have I got that right? I think males and females are individuals. Some men don't want to travel (my husband), some do, some women don't want to travel (me), some do. Some women don't want a promotion, some do, same for men and SURPRISE! you can't tell just by looking at them. no no no... you've got it all wrong. All men want to bring home the bacon, and all women want to raise up the chi'rin.
|
|
yogiii
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 19:38:00 GMT -5
Posts: 5,377
|
Post by yogiii on Nov 10, 2015 9:29:54 GMT -5
This thread is a lot like one of the days I was home on maternity leave. We had someone over doing some work on the house and when he was leaving I said "Do you want me to write a check now or are you sending a bill?" His response was a shocked "Oh, your husband left you the checkbook?!?!?!".
We were laughing about that one for weeks. My husband would have no idea where our checkbook is, instead I just said "Yes, he left it for me". I figure being able to pass as a ditzy housewife is just another good skill to have around!
|
|
whoisjohngalt
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 14:12:07 GMT -5
Posts: 9,140
|
Post by whoisjohngalt on Nov 10, 2015 9:32:00 GMT -5
All studies aside, I don't think women are happier today than they were 50 years ago. My guess is they are about as unhappy as they were 50 years ago. Just for different reasons. Yes, in theory, they are/should be happy about all the choices they now have. In reality, there seem to be constant struggle to find the right balance, to find their place, to be happy and content with their lives. And while a lot of times, the blame seems to be put on men - they don't help out at home, they still get paid more, they don't value women, etc etc - I can't help to think that the "new" way made things very complicated for women, just like the "old" way was, just in a different way and it's not all men's fault. We say that women should all feel free to do whatever makes them happy - be a career woman, have kids, stay at home, work part or full time, go back to school, whatever. But we still judge each other about every detail relating to those choices. We're still holding ourselves to this impossible standard of womanhood, and it's especially true for moms. We say that we can accept the fact that our houses won't be spotless, our kids won't be perfect angels, and that we won't look as good as Gloria (or whatever her name is - Sofia Vergara) from Modern Family when we play Mom - and yet we still aspire to be all of this while working hard outside the home/not loving being a SAHM/fighting our own other demons, whatever they are. We say that as long as the kids are fed, happy, healthy, and aren't being abused in any way that it's okay to have wide varieties in parenting styles... and yet we STILL judge each other! Do men do this?Well, I know my husband doesn't do this at all ![](http://images.proboards.com/new/smiley.png) I do know that *I* do this to myself. My expectations for myself are much higher than my husband's expectations of me. As a matter of fact, I think my expectations of myself are much higher that most of other people. And it's always been the case.
|
|
MJ2.0
Senior Associate
Joined: Jul 24, 2014 10:27:09 GMT -5
Posts: 11,000
|
Post by MJ2.0 on Nov 10, 2015 9:32:23 GMT -5
Right, because it's 1960 and the only way to pay for stuff is with a checkbook.
I wrote out a check for the guy who did the floors. He made no comments and happily took the check.
|
|
yogiii
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 19:38:00 GMT -5
Posts: 5,377
|
Post by yogiii on Nov 10, 2015 9:33:57 GMT -5
Right, because it's 1960 and the only way to pay for stuff is with a checkbook. I wrote out a check for the guy who did the floors. He made no comments and happily took the check. I figured it was eye opening enough for him to witness me write out a check that day. He didn't need a lecture on gender equality. Baby steps.
|
|
MJ2.0
Senior Associate
Joined: Jul 24, 2014 10:27:09 GMT -5
Posts: 11,000
|
Post by MJ2.0 on Nov 10, 2015 9:36:10 GMT -5
Right, because it's 1960 and the only way to pay for stuff is with a checkbook. I wrote out a check for the guy who did the floors. He made no comments and happily took the check. I figured it was eye opening enough for him to witness me write out a check that day. He didn't need a lecture on gender equality. Baby steps. you should have blown his mind and gotten out your credit card! ![](http://images.proboards.com/new/tongue.png)
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Nov 10, 2015 9:49:10 GMT -5
That's true. We can't prove causation here. The four major candidates for the shift (i.e. four major demographic shifts common across western nations) over the past 60 years are: third-wave feminism, increasing population density, increasing urbanization, and increasing secularism. I know that research has generally found only weak correlations (or none at all) in the case of population density and urbanization. I don't know about secularism. There are very likely many causes. Even so, none of the major demographic trends of the past 60 years are going to reverse in the next 20, hence I see no reason to believe the slide in women's happiness will suddenly reverse course either. Actually I read studies that indicated that people that lived near people that had a lot more material wealth than them were inherently less happy than those that were surrounded by people of the same means. With the gap between rich and poor widening and the explosion of mass media to make sure that we are all aware of it, there is another contender for why people are less happy. One that has nothing to do with women working. I suppose so, but unless you're going on record that women are more materialistic than men, we'd expect to see comparable declines in happiness across both genders, which we're not seeing. We've drifted too far off topic anyway. We started with P.M. Trudeau's cabinet. One study that I'd love to see but never have is whether or not more female politicians correlate with greater public deficits. Since our nations will eventually implode in spectacular fashion from our insurmountable debts and obligations (and the associated problems they create), that would be a reasonable basis on which to determine whether more women or fewer women in government is a good thing.
|
|