An article that suggests young singles, meaning Gen Z, are NOT relationship averse. Millennials were but Gen Z seems more eager to be involved.
Good question, I see that the cited expert is behavioral scientist Paul Dolan with a study of data from the American Time Use Survey, but I do not find a link to the actual analysis.
And I see criticisms that Dolan misinterpreted some of the data. However, I also see a description of a different study by a different researcher that confirms the basic premise that never-married people, especially women, are in many ways happier than married ones, including being less lonely in old age.
Mind you, I am strongly against the notion of turning this into a competition, or trying to draw any oversimplistic deductions from such studies to try to advocate for everybody’s making the same lifestyle choices. I’m just pushing back against the lazy and stereotyped assumption that marriage is inherently a happier condition than singledom, or that singledom is inherently unfulfilling and lonely, and therefore getting married partly or primarily out of fear of singledom is a rational choice.
Broad stereotype brushstrokes: women tend to have broader and more diverse social support systems so are frequently less dependent on their partner for social support and even help than men during aging. Women are more likely to have friends still alive as they reach older ages than men are.
I can easily imagine a never partnered woman having the broadest surviving social networks of all, followed by a widowed woman. With most men way behind.
I can also imagine a selection bias that someone of either gender prone to fear of singledom may be the person with most reason to fear it? Who has the least extant satisfying social support systems.
Imagination though is not worth too much.
Sort of like how a tiger benefits from being put in a zoo.
Is “happiness” the most important goal in life?
sounds like you are saying men don’t really benefit from marriage because they lose their freedom - am I understanding you?
What are you implying that “real men” (your term from an earlier post that I’m suspecting really wasn’t satire) should aspire to over happiness?
Let’s define happiness here. Are we talking on the hedonism scale or the basic life satisfaction scale?
I guess I’m doing it wrong
Ergo…“MORE!!”
The way Dolan describes the benefits of marriage in @kimstu’s post, it sounds literally like the main benefit to men is that they get “domesticated”.
I guess is there a difference, other than one of these terms would seem to imply an affront to someone’s particular sense of morality?
I have a few friends and relatives who remained (or became) single and/or childless past their 40s or 50s. Most aren’t particularly “hedonistic”. By and large they seem to live full lives between their career, hobbies, and network of friends and family.
By contrast, marriage and kids can feel like not stop work.
What I’m saying is you can’t just do whatever makes you happy. At least not if you get married and have kids. Single people can do whatever the fuck they want. I’ve seen a number of marriages fail because the man decides what “makes him happy” is playing golf all day instead of looking for a job or sleeping with other women.
I’m also saying you shouldn’t just strive to live a life that’s comfortable either. If I just let me kids do what made them happy and comfortable all day, they would do nothing but play with toys and videogames and eat Gummy Bears.
That at least has a nuance beyond the earlier post I quoted you on, which was
“A real man does not seek to be a “happy and fulfilled human being”. A real man seeks MORE.”
Which in the context of the conversation implied to me that a “real man” had to follow some duty to a higher calling whether they liked it or not. And not in the sense that they need to care for their wife and children’s needs if they have them but in the sense that someone isn’t a “real man” if they don’t buckle down and become a parent even if they don’t want to, else they aren’t a “real man”. Which I couldn’t tell if you were being sarcastic or you really held that view. (Lots of people do think that way–the richest man on Earth, for instance.)
There’s no moral question here to me. I’m asking if we’re measuring happiness by sheer pleasure, comfort, getting to do what you want to do when you want to do it, or some kind of happiness that isn’t pleasure in the moment but that nonetheless feels really satisfying. Researchers make a distinction here.
The problem I think when we talk about parents and their relative happiness is that caring for a young child is not remotely pleasurable in the hedonistic sense. Many parents’ attempts to find hedonistic pleasure is shot all to hell. Or really to just do anything apart from childcare becomes unreliable. Yes, I can meditate in the evenings, and sometimes I get away with it, but half the time I attempt it, I am interrupted by a pestering four year old.
So I’m living a life where I can’t reliably do anything relaxing. (Fortunately I attempt it with enough frequency that I usually do get some time to relax every day, I’m just never exactly sure when that’s going to be.)
My point is, if you ask a parent on any given day if they’re having fun right now, they probably will not give an enthusiastic yes. Some people point to that and say, “See? Parents are miserable!”
But pleasure isn’t the only way to measure happiness. Some things are not fun in the moment, but deeply satisfying anyway. Because they are tied to something we value, or someone we love, or something about our identity, or they give us purpose in some way. That is what parenting can be for many people.
I think a good life would ideally include some amount of both hedonistic pleasure and the other sort, but I think that deeper sort of satisfaction is pretty necessary for any meaningful definition of happiness. That can, but must not necessarily come from having children.
When I think “hedonistic” I tend to think of activities like drinking, drugs, sleeping around, etc. But aside from that, I would tend to agree with you. I think a person needs to find time to do activities that give them pleasure in addition to their obligations to their children. Otherwise their children can start to become a source of resentment.
In terms of less risk taking and in many cases violent behaviors, yes statistically being partnered (not only married) means more domesticated and less wild.
As illustration:
From a research perspective it would involve anything you do for fun. Video games, drinking with friends, sex, a warm bubble bath… Just sort of pursuing things that feel good. Not a bad thing unless it gets out of control and becomes destructive. I know the term hedonism can also mean sensory excess but that’s not really what I mean.
I do think I have enough fun in my life, so I’m not resentful. But a lot of families have higher work demands, less flexibility, less financial security and other factors which make it difficult to get regular fun time. So it can be a radically different experience depending on your situation.
That makes sense.
I think when you are younger and used to doing things for fun whenever you want to do them, it’s a tough sell to give those up for things that are intrinsically “not fun”.
Even relationships in your 20s and 30s that don’t lead to marriage and kids sound like a major chore, with the various game-playing and other nonsense that often goes into them. That is unless you luck out and find someone where you happen to be a good match for each other.
I was one such lucky person who can’t imagine what a hassle it would be to find a mate in this day and age. It seems comparatively easier to find hook-ups, but not relationship material, and a lot of the eligible people are drowned out by the hook-ups on dating apps and such. Not to mention the constant harassment experienced by women on these apps. I would not use them for that reason, so I guess I’d be alone.
My 29 yo nephew recently explained to his mother and me that “girls” his age are all gold diggers and have impossible expectations. I pointed out that we live a pretty affluent( actually I’m only affluent adjacent) area so it’s no surprise that the girls he encounters are, or at least seem to him, entitled. Could the current financial situation be putting a damper on things?
Did you discuss with him what his own expectations are?
When a male says All women want is money, he doesn’t think women are worth spending money on.
I wish dating was like it was way back in the 50s.