Thursday, September 6, 2012

Why women are unhappier

There have been a number of theories attempting to explain why women self-report being less happy than oppressed women did back in the evil old days of the pre-equalitarian Patriarchy. 80 Proof Oinomancy presents a simple and cogent alternative explanation:
Now, I’ve heard plenty of thoughts and conjecture as to the reason for the decline [in female happiness]. But I’ve yet to see someone get it right. Care to take a shot? Go ahead…

“Because men aren’t ‘manning up’.”


“Because the economy is rapidly draining the pool of desirable (Alpha) men.”


“Because the “self-esteem” and “empowerment” trends have caused women to price themselves out of the market.”

Strike 3; you’re out.

Here’s the answer: It’s because women have stopped trying to please men in favor of trying to please women. And they’re learning just how impossible a task that is.
I don't know how convincing I find that explanation, but it is certainly both pithy and amusing. Being of an economic bent, I tend to favor the explanation that educational trends combined with hypergamy and misleading expectations of the joys of self-supporting labor are the primary cause myself.

HT: Complimentarian Loners


Mike M. said...

Sounds like a T-shirt...

Men. Because they're a lot easier to please.

Lucas said...

It’s because women have stopped trying to please men in favor of trying to please women

No doubt, this has some truth in it.

Anonymous said...

A slight variation:

Women have stopped trying to please God in favor of trying to please thmselves. And they’re learning just how impossible a task that is when there is an inate spark of divinity within them that keeps telling them that what they are doing is wrong.

Stingray said...

Easier? Nah. Possible.

Ian Ironwood said...

Word. To your mother.

The Social Pathologist said...

Women have always been trying to the gain the approval of other women. It's nothing new.

The reason why women are unhappier is because masculinity is dead. All day long I get to listen to them bleat about their husbands. An after I meet their husbands I realise that they are right.

Women now have more balls than men do. It's as simple as that. The hypergamic natural order has been inverted, and as such, women are continually frustrated in their interactions with men. The reason why so many women go off sex with their husbands is because their husbands are wusses. Instead of building stuff they play X box. Instead of being house proud I see women mowing the lawn and doing basic maintenance. Instead of sorting out the family finances they watch porn. My old man would never, ever, ever let my mother pick up a hammer. He would have regarded it as shameful to him. Shit, so many guys don't even know how to use basic tools.

Of course, it's so much easier to say that there is something wrong with women (and in many cases there are) with the resultant solution, for a lot of the manosphere, being to cut of a woman's nuts instead of growing a pair of their own. Manning up does not mean being everything the feminists want you to be, rather it means acting like a grown man. It means being able to do stuff, organise your shit and being able to impose your will. The girly boy shit has got to stop.

Steve Canyon said...

Their happiness? Not my responsibility. It's also not my job to make someone happy who refuses to do it for themselves. I only care about it when they group together en-masse and use their dissatisfaction as a means to demand yet another restriction of freedom to be imposed upon us by the ruling class.

SarahsDaughter said...

They take drugs in order to silence that innate spark of divinity. "How dare I tell myself that what I'm doing is wrong!"

Doom said...

Uhrm... Oh. hahaha Oh, but who is the joke on?

Stickwick said...

Only one problem with your hypothesis. Happiness for black women has increased significantly during the same period that white women have gotten less happy, and at the same time the illegitimacy rate for blacks has exploded. It's safe to assume that the 70% of unwed black mothers aren't having their houses fixed and lawns mowed by the fathers of their children, or any other man, and yet their happiness has increased. You'll have to modify your hypothesis to account for this.

Trust said...

How abouts because we have elevated every feeling they have to have universal significance and made even the most trivial of challenges out to be akin (no pun intended) to a war on them.

Take this Sandra Fluke who spoke last night. She was given a national stage bc she wanted the government to ensure she had birth control. Imagine a man getting a national audience because he didn't get free condoms... he'd be laughed out of town. She wasn't treated worse because she was a woman, she was treated infinitely better than she deserved bc shes female. She'd probably be happier if she'd have been scolded like a man would have been. Instead she's like a child who is at Disney complaining about how she has it so.rough.

Cail Corishev said...

I think your explanations boil down to much the same thing. Women were told that they'd be happier if they stopped doing things for men and started doing things for themselves. Those things being educational attainment and careers to start; and more recently, as those joys paled, trying to be as slutty as they considered men to be. But the meme behind it all was "make yourself happy without a man."

VryeDenker said...

I think women pricing themselves out of the market is the biggest factor. Simply because being hit in the face by cruel reality tends to make one a bitter old hag.

It's simple: if you want to have a relationship with Brad Pitt, you'd damn well better look like Angelina Jolie (feel free to substitute any high-value male and female as required).

Or look at it this way: I drive an Opel Corsa (Basically a Buick Sail). I love it and I believe it's an awesome car at $10000. But would I have thought the same if the price was $30000? Of course not, that's Mustang territory. And I sure love me some American muscle. Is it still politically correct to admit that?

Unknown said...

You forgot to mention WHY "masculinity is dead." (And no it's not dead, but it is greatly diminished.) Pervasive feminism erodes masculinity in males, from birth until they're old enough to be jailed for masculinity, and beyond.

Most men today not only don't know how to reclaim their masculinity, they don't realize it's missing (where are the role models?) because they're following all "the rules." They start out attempting to do everything right, but whatever they do turn out to be "wrong." So many MANY men learn at a young age, to not waste their time. Why be a man? That's the wife's job, according to her and society. What marriage needs two husbands?

Stickwick said...

The scholarly paper 80-Proof identifies in his post is fascinating, because it comes close to identifying the genuine causal factors in women's declining happiness, but is ultimately confused by ideology. The authors find it paradoxical that at a time when women have unprecedented levels of choice, personal power, opportunities, prosperity, and male cooperation, they are unhappier than ever. Any time you see the word "paradoxical" relating to a study of human behavior, it means the authors have missed some excruciatingly simple principle. In this case, it is the spoiled child principle: the more a person gets what she (thinks she) wants, the unhappier she is. Unfortunately, the failure of the authors to identify this problem stems from the pervasive humanist belief that good comes from good and bad comes from bad, and that if only people had more happiness they'd be happier.

However flawed Social Pathologist's hypothesis may have been, he's properly identified the relationship between happiness and traditional roles. While he's unfairly placed the blame on the failure of men to man up around the house, the fact is, the more women eschew opportunities and stick to traditional roles, the happier they tend to be. The above paper shows that women whose job it is to "keep house" have actually gotten happier over time compared with women who work outside the home. Now, it's quite likely that such women also have husbands who are also more traditional, masculine Mr. Fixit types, but my sense is that the overall measure of happiness is due to women assuming restrictive roles that are natural to them and give them the most satisfaction.

The authors are honest enough to state that the decline in women's happiness despite dramatic improvements in women's lives "raises questions about whether modern social constructs have made women worse off." They further note that "the decrease in gender discrimination since the 1970s has not improved the (subjectively perceived) lot of women," but unfortunately proceed down the predictable humanist path when they state: "[rather] than immediately inferring that the women’s movement failed to improve the lot of women, we conclude with a simple taxonomy for organizing alternative explanations of this paradox." (It's very difficult to let go of a cherished idea.) Later, they again note that "the changes brought about through the women’s movement may have decreased women’s happiness," but attribute it to increased opportunities for women leading to a sense of failure in measuring up to men.

What that confused morass of truth and cognitive dissonance tells you is that they know the women's movement has failed, they just can't bring themselves to fully explore the reason. And by failed, I mean in the sense that the ostensible goal of the women's movement was to improve women's lot, not the actual reason which was to undermine traditional, masculine, Western culture. (In the latter sense, it has largely succeeded.) The reason the women's movement has failed in its ostensible purpose is that the women's movement was really just a hissy fit on the grandest possible scale in which daddy gave in, and now the child is a miserable spoiled wretch. Given that the authors previously discussed the increased happiness of more traditional women, they probably have a sense of what the explanation is, but are caught in the usual cognitive trap of being unwilling to relinquish a cherished idea.

One thing this tells you men is that you need not concern yourself with any further attempts to improve women's choices, opportunities, and cooperation in doing housework and child-rearing. Not only does it not help, it makes things worse. If you want women to be happy, encourage them to eschew all of the choices and opportunities in favor of traditional roles.

Michael Maier said...

Should that maybe be "The Word... to your mother"?

Stickwick said...

Note for clarification: While it is certainly good scientific practice to present plausible alternative explanations for a phenomenon, far more weight should always be given to the most obvious correlating factor, which in this case is the failure of the women's movement to improve women's lives. The authors barely touch on this, and largely fail to identify the most plausible reasons for its failure.

Doom said...

I think this is the right answer, or full answer, if pleasing God is part and parcel with pleasing men. A woman pleases God through men, with men, something... It's a holy thing when it is right. Which is why so many governments fear families more than they do foreign invasions.

Anonymous said...

Women are unhappier because families are smaller and social ties are weaker, and because they are not charged with raising kids and domestic upkeep. They are not taking their traditional, proper role. It's as simple as that.

Trust said...

Because there is power in being unhappy. Politicians, husbands, workplaces, divorce mediators, and people in general pander to unhappy women.

This is also why women are so different before marriage... when dating there is more power in being pleasant than in being unhappy.

JCclimber said...

Careful Stickwick, or someone might accuse you of being a scientist in a field like physics or somethin'...

Yes, studies have been done that your belief system can cause your brain to misinterpret visual signals, hear different audio than what was sounded, or add sensory input where you expected something but it didn't actually happen.

It is not at all surprising that a paradigm held at the level of a religious belief will not allow the researchers to explore alternative explanations unless they can be made to fit that paradigm.

Daniel said...

That right there is slaughterhouse analysis, Stickwick: cut to the bone, and keep on going.

I'm doing a search right now on academic social science research papers with the keywords paradox and paradoxical. Fascinating, both in quantity (huge) and in testing your rule of thumb: it is dead on.

Jeigh Di said...

"Manning up does not mean being everything the feminists want you to be..."

One problem is that feminists say, and perhaps even believe, that they want a man who treats her as an equal, does his share of household chores, is not afraid to show his emotions, and so on. Unfortunately when they find such men, they end up despising them. They will never be happy with any man.

Anonymous said...

It's because they are on hormonal contraception. It plays havoc with their systems. Oh, also - barrier methods of contraception mean they don't get the happiness-causing pheromones in semen.

A lot of what we see in the developed world really comes down to this. Brain chemistry.

Anonymous said...

I would be skeptical about any study that claims women are more "unhappy" than they were before woman's liberation and feminism.

I mean. were there even proper scientific surveys that measured the "happiness" level of women before? Was that even a concept that was comprehensible in a very sexist, male-dominated worldview? I mean.. the very idea that women should be entitled to happiness. to their own independence.. to autonomy.. to determine their own path in life.. Those are fundamental human rights.

It's like saying black people are more unhappy now after slavery than they were before. It's ridiculous. Sorry, men. You can't turn back time. Either you get with the program. .and adapt to women's new elevated position in society and the home, or you get left behind.

Duke of Earl said...

You're not from around these parts are you?

Of course you can have all those things, but don't expect men to make a way for you. You're empowered dontcha know.

Anonymous said...

Hey! Do you know if they make any plugins to safeguard against hackers?

I'm kinda paranoid about losing everything I've worked hard
on. Any suggestions?

Here is my weblog:

Anonymous said...

Excellent post however I was wanting to know if you could write a litte more on
this subject? I'd be very thankful if you could elaborate a little bit further. Cheers!

my homepage: help

Anonymous said...

I'm not sure why but this weblog is loading extremely slow for me. Is anyone else having this issue or is it a problem on my end? I'll check
back later and see if the problem still exists.

Check out my weblog ... comp

Anonymous said...

Guys ,guys go to ' Voice of Men ' !!!! Its a must read for every guy with Cohunes . Paul Elan is a Geniuses.
Thank me later !!
Cheers from Toronto the most Misandric place in North America I know ,I know im screwed.

Anonymous said...

Read 'Voice of Men ' !!!!!!! Never mind the BS on TV .

Anonymous said...

Fantastic goods from you, man. I have take into accout
your stuff previous to and you are simply too great.
I actually like what you have received right here, certainly like what
you're stating and the way by which you are saying it. You make it entertaining and you continue to care for to keep it sensible. I can not wait to learn much more from you. This is really a great website.

Visit my blog; minecraft giftcode

Anonymous said...

Wonderful blog! I found it while searching on Yahoo News. Do you have any tips on how to get
listed in Yahoo News? I've been trying for a while but I never seem to get there! Many thanks

My blog - nights

JH Bassist said...

I go with the two cardinal rules of Economics 101: 1) YOU CAN'T HAVE YOUR CAKE AND EAT IT TOO, and 2) THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A FREE LUNCH. Any attempt to defy these rules leads to misery and dysfunction.

This is EXACTLY what today's women are trying to do. They want the best of both worlds. They want to have the OPTION for a career, but they don't want to HAVE TO go to work. They want chivalry when it's convenient, and 'equality' when it suits them. They want casual sex, but they don't want the consequences of casual sex that we ALL must deal with. They want sensitive, new age guys, but they also want Navy Seals.

The list goes on and on. Go and randomly check out any woman's profile on a dating site and tell me I'm wrong.

Unknown said...

Like always is the evil men's's always his fault ! We are done with this bull**** . We men are tired of hearing this . MGTOW !!!

Rani Sapnoki said...

VIP Call girls in Delhi and Gurgaon, Young Call Girls in Delhi
Our VIP Young Delhi Call Girls are best in all aspects and will give you immense pleasure and satisfaction

Awesome Elite Delhi Call Girls. All of our stylish and fashionable Call Girls strive to satisfy the every need and desire of their clients; the feedback provided by our clients suggests that this is something that they achieve and exceed time after time

Escorts in South Delhi
Call Girls in South Delhi

Call Girls in Vasant Kunj
Call Girls in Munirka

Post a Comment