The happiest day of your life . . .

>> It's probably also true that in a pure state of nature rape is fun

For both parties? Damn those lies society told me. I'm missing out!

Posted by ClockworkOrange | July 18, 2008 8:49 AM

I think you're both right and wrong about the gendered benefits of marriage. You are right about what makes marriage of greater benefit to women, but society is right about marriage being of greater benefit to them because it has made it so. But granting that society has that power, you also raise the question of what society does to make marriage so great for men.

So really, the conclusion of your argument seems to not be that marriage is better for women than it is for men, but that the benefits are about the same for both (in aggregate) but come from potentially different factors (women get to avoid stigma, men get some unspecified benefit).

Posted by Josh Lyle | July 18, 2008 8:54 AM

I find suspect a study that claims to be able to meaningfully differentiate Happiness, Purpose and Meaning, and the Value of Love. These are all abstract concepts that are in many ways tightly coupled and I'm not sure how I would answer questions about them. After all, how happy can you be if you feel your life lacks purpose? Is that peak happiness the same as for someone with kids?

E.g. on a 1-10 scale I'm sure I'm less happy now than I was in college, because of stress, responsibilities, medical issues, etc. However, I've far more understanding of my life and the future, and while I appreciate the costs of the world more, I also appreciate the benefits. I would not trade the me of today for the me of 15 years ago, because my current peaks of happiness far exceed those I could have reached then. And yes, in large part, this is due to having kids.

Not to mention, what is the NPV of knowing that when you are old you will have kids to spend time with you and grandchildren to spoil? On a day by day basis does this make me feel 'happy'? Probably not. But, judging by the elderly I've known, even discounted by 50 years I bet that it should.

Posted by Lou | July 18, 2008 9:08 AM

Just had a bouncing baby boy, and can say honestly, I've never been happier. Of course, it does depend what you want out of life, a career, wealth, whatever... FWIW I've always wanted a family, so it's unsurprising baby Will has been such a joy.

Posted by TDE | July 18, 2008 9:19 AM

You know how food always tastes better when you make it yourself? I wonder if it tastes just as good if you steal it. I could definitely see taking a bite of a big steak that you smuggled out of the back of a Ponderosa, and even if it's not top sirloin, and it was pre-cooked and frozen and all you did was heat it up to prepare it, you might wind up saying to yourself "ah, stolen steak....free steak. That's as good as anything you'll get at Ruth's Chris."

I might have to test this theory out.

Posted by Jeff | July 18, 2008 9:24 AM

> hitting other people in the head is a
> pleasurable activity

I doubt it, heads are hardened targets. Bottoms, on the other hand, are popular to THIS DAY.

> stolen food tastes just as sweet

Instead of SWEETER?

> rape is fun

Hard to really figure out whether it would have had any meaning in a "pure state of nature". Would "no" even be a consideration if there weren't anything better to do? My guess, and uninformed guess it is, the "pure women's" attitude would have been "Hey, if my main guy isn't around to keep these other guys away - and they want it badly enough to ignore these severed heads he impaled on those stakes around our doorway, why argue?"

Posted by Jens Fiederer | July 18, 2008 9:25 AM

I am with others that belive that "Happiness" or fun are not the only things people value in life.

Some times doing something tough and suceeding is very rewarding, but would you call it happiness?

Raising a child that you love is not always fun, but it is very rewarding.

I don't have much experience yet, Baby Rosalind is only 17 mo. But for me having a child has also given me tons of happiness. Just watching her smile, laugh, learn about things, run to give me a hug, and cuddle on my lap gives me a huge sense of happiness. The occasional temper tantrum and sleepless night are less fun, but for me the net is definitely on the happy side.

Posted by eccdogg | July 18, 2008 9:31 AM

To echo Lou, I've got an 11 month old girl (first child) and this study seems extremely short sighted to me. Yes, I've given up more in terms of time and now have enormous amounts of responsibility. The trade off has been easy both in the short term (with things like her first steps) and also in hope of the long term as she grows. The idea seems to be that delayed gratification or any kind of near term sacrifice for greater goals causes unhappiness. That's very true when walking a baby at 3am. But the idea that people can't see the bigger picture is ridiculous.

Posted by Peder | July 18, 2008 9:36 AM

Doesn't it seem likely that parenting is very happy these days because parenting is much more difficult than it once was? You know, for a long time parents lived in an extended family, so raising babies wasn't a 2 man job, more like 4 or maybe even 6. Many hands lighten loads, yada yada yada.

Posted by freddiemac | July 18, 2008 9:42 AM

I think Ms. McArdle's analysis is a little off. I would suggest that the social benefits of marriage exceed the private benefits (for both sexes). If it were simply a case of benefits to men exceeding those to women, we would find men pressuring women to get married, which isn't exactly the way it works.

The reason that society puts more pressure on women than men to get married is that women are more susceptible to social pressure than women. (There aren't any girls' stories called "Lone Wolf.") It's a common tactic of reformers to put pressure on women, who are then supposed to put pressure on the individual men they know. ("We don't smoke, we don't chew, we don't go with boys who do.") And it works: the woman who feels stigmatized by her family and friends for not being married puts pressure on her boyfriend, and the wedding bells chime.

Posted by y81 | July 18, 2008 9:47 AM

I've got a six year old boy and a two year old girl. Mostly, I spend my time at home being annoyed and bothered. But, as cheesy as this sounds, there is nothing in the world like cuddling with your own baby first thing in the morning, or seeing them squeal with joy when you get back from work; it pretty much makes it all worth it -- at least for those few minutes. Having a cat or dog doesn't compare.

Posted by Amitava Mazumdar | July 18, 2008 10:01 AM

Sorry, I put the comment above in the wrong thread. Feel free to delete.

Posted by Amitava Mazumdar | July 18, 2008 10:02 AM

I could definitely see how the study could show the result that it does. If someone is looking for a external source of happiness, then a child would be tempting choice. However, once you combine the endless (at least in the first 3 months) responsibility with the realization that some life-choices are now permanently closed to you, it could seem like a raw deal. Plus, you are now bonded to at least two people (the child and the parent) for life. A small child will stress a strong relationship and will expose weaknesses in a fragile one. If you look at arrival of a child as a big injection of happiness, you will be disappointed.

However, if you accept the drawbacks, the rewards of childrearing are huge. Examining only the most self-centered pleasures; you get a huge ego boost knowing that an autonomous human being quite literally thinks the world of you. Also, there is a real sense of accomplishment as you see the results of your effort (while knowing you were only a part of the process).

Posted by scottstev | July 18, 2008 10:04 AM

I know literally dozens of people who, back in college, swore they'd never marry or have children. Nearly all of them are, yep, married with children, and they seem happy. All a bunch of deluded suckers, I'm sure...

Posted by RMc | July 18, 2008 10:33 AM

From Jens:

From Megan: "hitting other people in the head is a pleasurable activity"
From Jens: I doubt it, heads are hardened targets. Bottoms, on the other hand, are popular to THIS DAY.

Just so I can beat the Megan-Haters to it, that is why we have 2x4s.

Posted by Yancey Ward | July 18, 2008 10:37 AM

Actually the principals of natural selection apply to societies as well as to individuals. Societies that actively encourage/require women to have babies and encourage/require that the father of the child support the family survive; there are no societies, older than 5 centuries, that do the opposite.

Survival of a society requires that it does its own reproduction.

Now some people might point to the Cisterians but today's Cistercians are not Bernard of Clairvaux's Cistercians. They have wandered from the path and some have even taken up reproduction.

Posted by sol vason | July 18, 2008 10:38 AM

Most of the "marriage bonus" comes from men.

Children get a pretty big marriage bonus, too.

Posted by oldlineyankee | July 18, 2008 10:42 AM

The empirical value of such studies is suspect, in that they are attemptong to measure a very complex phenomena, human happiness, with extremely crude tools.

Lemme know when the finely calibrated happyometer is ready for shipping, and then I'll start giving such studies some attention.

Posted by Will Allen | July 18, 2008 10:57 AM

Happyometer For Will

That will be $99.95. Please send it to me via Paypal.

Posted by Yancey Ward | July 18, 2008 11:03 AM

Not tremendously surprising to me either once I thought about it, although the study seems like its mostly comparing apples and oranges.

Think about it for a moment. Considering the social pressure to have kids and the availability of fertility drugs and adoption, childless couples these days probably really don't want kids. They're really happy without kids and they know it in there core.

The group of parents, meanwhile, probably includes lots of people pressured into parenthood by either society or biology.

Moreover -- and the big apple/orange issue -- is that we're mostly comparing the happiness of "people who want children and have them" to "people who don't want children and don't." One could easily surmise that both groups would be miserable if they switched places. In fact, that's really all you conclude from this study: If you don't want children, you'll probably be happier without them.

If you do want children, this study means nothing because you could easily be miserable without them.

Posted by AE | July 18, 2008 11:11 AM

Parenting was probably more fun when there weren't nanny-bots to tell parents UR DOIN IT WRONG! at every turn. (Seriously. My mom let my brother and me climb trees. She would (sometimes) buy Hostess cakes for us to eat. We didn't have a "quota" of how much television we could watch. All of these things would bring down shame on her were she to have done them in this day and age).

I don't have kids (nor am I married) but it seems there's a whole segment of the self-help industry devoted to making people second-guess their instincts and worry that they're hopelessly screwing up their kids. (As much as I am hopelessly screwed up, it was at the hands of my peers once I got to school. My parents were good parents.)

And when you hear that constant drumbeat of "things are so bad today" or "the ten things you don't realize you're doing that are TOXIC!!!" it's pretty hard to be happy.

Posted by ricki | July 18, 2008 11:22 AM

I don't plan on having kids to make me happier, I plan on doing it to make the world a better place and to have someone feed me applesauce in my dotage.

Posted by Llywelyn | July 18, 2008 11:22 AM

I don't have children, and a couple of years ago my father asked me who was going to take care of me when I was old. I laughed and asked him the same question, but I can see his point.

Posted by Yancey Ward | July 18, 2008 11:32 AM

It's a common tactic of reformers to put pressure on women, who are then supposed to put pressure on the individual men they know. ("We don't smoke, we don't chew, we don't go with boys who do.") And it works: the woman who feels stigmatized by her family and friends for not being married puts pressure on her boyfriend, and the wedding bells chime.

Someone else is starting to figure out how society works, eh?

Society manipulates women who manipulate men.

Who in society manipulates women? Older women.

Men are the manipulated slave-labor of society. Always have been, likely always will be.

Now, as for children? Anyone having children to make them happy will be sorely disappointed. Children do not make one happy. In fact, I would venture that they make one seeking happiness even less happy.

Pursuing happiness is the most assured way to never obtain it.

Posted by Demonspawn | July 18, 2008 11:32 AM

Having kids has been a happiness wash for me - some of parenting is great, some is not. So I'm not surprised to hear studies confirm that people seem equally happy whether they parent or don't.

But Megan's suggestion that society pressures women to marry because they wouldn't want to otherwise seems flat-out wrong to me. My three-year-old girl has been into weddings ever since she served as a flower girl in May: asking her uncles why they aren't married, asking if she can marry Mr. Rogers, etc. The ring bearer in the same wedding: not so much. Women put lots more energy into thinking about relationships than do men, and THAT is probably why "society" focuses its marriage messages on women.

Posted by Joe Magarac | July 18, 2008 11:41 AM

I dissected this nonsense on my own blog.

1) Children are an investment in happiness. Saying people with kids aren't as happy as people without is like saying people who save for their future aren't as happy as those who spend every penny. Suicide rates peak for people in their 70's and 80's and loneliness is the principle motivation. For my parents, their grandkids and their kids bring them a lot of happiness in their 60's and 70's.

I'm sure that the integral of happiness for parents isn't greater than the instantaneous value.

2) Yes, you tradeoff a little happiness when you have kids. You also get a lot of satisfaction, hope in the future, sense of continuity, etc.

3) And I call BS on these happines studies anyway. Why don't we give everyone the same size clothes while we're at it?

Posted by Mike | July 18, 2008 11:59 AM

I'm not okay with the human race dying out in a single generation, so I'd say it's a noble lie.

On the big list of "stuff likely to wipe out the human race in a generation", I don't think "not enough new people being born" figures that high.

You might want to get started on some noble lies about nuclear proliferation or something.

Posted by Pete Tiarks | July 18, 2008 12:03 PM

Having kids is full of costs on the front end. I think it might be wise to ask people who are grandparents how happy they were to have kids, versus the parenting years (when they were dealing with physical exhaustion the first decade of parenting, followed by emotional exhaustion the second decade, plus all the expenditures on the kids).

Posted by caveat bettor | July 18, 2008 12:10 PM

The problem with studies like this is that they don't control for the fact that people usually do what they think will make them happy.

So people without kids are most likely that way by choice and those with kids-wanted kids. I would be interested in a study which compares couples who have tried and failed to have kids with couples who came into children accidently. Or parents who tried to have kids v. ones who had them by accident.

My suspicion is that people who want children, but cannot get them are less happy than couples who have an unplanned child.

On a personal level, my three children have provided far more joy than turmoil--but I could just be saying that to trick you into joining the parent club misery...

Posted by David | July 18, 2008 12:12 PM

Must be a typically modern, narcissistic definition of happiness - whatever happened to "under every grief and pine/ Runs a joy with silken twine"?

Posted by Nanonymous | July 18, 2008 12:24 PM

First of all, I don't think Will is at all surprised by the results of this research. He's being saying for months now that people vastly underestimate the negatives of parenthood.

My suspicion is that people who want children, but cannot get them are less happy than couples who have an unplanned child.

Will's contention, which would be my own as well, is that people who have an unplanned child are pretty much unable to express regret because of social and/or evolutionary pressures that you must love your child no matter what and never say you wish you hadn't had it. For mothers, especially, there is an enormous stigma involved in saying, "yes, this baby was a mistake, I kept it anyway, and I don't really care for it." How would society judge such a woman?

Posted by nicole | July 18, 2008 12:38 PM

Hello Megan,

Very articulate and very good.
Women do get stigmatized for not living up to expectaions. Expectations that are nothing more than biases and prejudices dressed up as morals and ethics.
In a mans' world, he is expected to flip the bird at someone that tries to control him - heaven forbid a female would do that.

Posted by circus watcher | July 18, 2008 12:45 PM

> Just so I can beat the Megan-Haters to it, that
> is why we have 2x4s.

No, that is why we have Malclom Gladwell.

Posted by Jens Fiederer | July 18, 2008 12:46 PM

"For mothers, especially, there is an enormous stigma involved in saying, "yes, this baby was a mistake, I kept it anyway, and I don't really care for it." How would society judge such a woman?"

I think you are right that such a woman would be harshly judged. Nonetheless, I think there is every reason to expect people to be honest in surveys. We really should be able to determine who is less happy: Unwilling non-parents or unwilling parents.

Posted by David | July 18, 2008 12:52 PM

Wife and kid went to Grandma's house for 40 days. First week seemed like heaven. But now I am missing them, so I don't think "subtracting" my kids from my life would make me happier.

Posted by Aaron | July 18, 2008 1:01 PM

I think you are right that such a woman would be harshly judged. Nonetheless, I think there is every reason to expect people to be honest in surveys. We really should be able to determine who is less happy: Unwilling non-parents or unwilling parents.

Self-reporting is actually pretty unreliable (c.f. http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/06/23/why-do-you-lie-the-perils-of-self-reporting/), but beyond that, I'm not necessarily saying people are lying. Between evolution and the fact that these moms have spent their whole lives in a society that expects women not to regret their children, they have been conditioned to believe that children really do increase happiness, so of course they must be happy.

Posted by nicole | July 18, 2008 1:23 PM

For mothers, especially, there is an enormous stigma involved in saying, "yes, this baby was a mistake, I kept it anyway, and I don't really care for it." How would society judge such a woman?

Harshly, considering our society gives such a woman every opportunity to absolve herself of parenthood if she should choose not to be a parent. Therefore, she has choice, and should be judge harshly if she chose a path she didn't want.

Men, on the other hand, have no choice, and yet are judged even more harshly.

Posted by Demonspawn | July 18, 2008 1:30 PM

y81 writes "I think Ms. McArdle's analysis is a little off. I would suggest that the social benefits of marriage exceed the private benefits (for both sexes). If it were simply a case of benefits to men exceeding those to women, we would find men pressuring women to get married, which isn't exactly the way it works."

Yep, it's pretty conspicuous that that's not how it works. Possibly Ms. McArdle's Chicago schoolery deserted her here. What about revealed preference? Huh? Huh?

However, note that the divorce rate is high. Thus, stable marriage happiness needn't be a close approximation to expected marriage happiness. What about an average between expected happiness in a stable marriage and expected happiness as a single parent under current family law?

E.g., imagine a model where women expect 1.0 happyons from reaching menopause with no children, 1.0 plus-or-minus 0.5 from reaching menopause as a never-wed mother, 2.0 from reaching menopause as a divorced mother, and 3.0 from reaching menopause as a stably-married mother. Then even if men expect merely 1.0 happyons from dying never-married, and a whopping 4.0 happyons from a stable family, if men also expect -2.0 happyons from being a noncustodial parent and all that, men could be less enthusiastic about getting married than women are.

Posted by William Newman | July 18, 2008 1:38 PM

Maybe the lie is that no one tells you how hard marriage and parenting is going to be. And maybe there is a reason that nature makes us forget the pain of childbirth so we will repeat the process. But whatever the reason, this whole happiness thing misses the mark. I feel very differently now at 50 with teens than I did at 40 with toddlers. I didn't appreciate 'having a family' when it felt like sacrifice was the name of the game. But now knowing that I am part of a family--today and for the rest of my life--is joyful and comforting. The hard part for me is over and I am very very happy to be a mom and a wife. But truth be told that was not always the case.

Posted by heather | July 18, 2008 2:00 PM

Some things are difficult to measure. Like the huge grin I had on my face a half hour ago when I heard my 2 year old daughter down stairs, playing with her toys and discovering new ways to pretend while playing with them -- narrating her thoughts out loud in simple 3 word sentences as she played.

Posted by sam | July 18, 2008 2:04 PM

nicole, it strikes me as impossible to measure happiness in a way that discounts the sort of false consciousness belief in happiness that you're describing. If people think they're happy, then for all intents and purposes they are - happiness doesn't have an objective underlying reality.

Now it may be true that extensive social pressure is required to make such women happy - and that might be a good or bad use of society's capacity to pressure its members. But those women are still "happy" insofar as the term has meaning.

Posted by Alex | July 18, 2008 2:08 PM

...men actually must do much better out of marriage than women do.

Well, once you have a) a sufficiently civilized society that brute force no longer is a primary determinant of who gets to eat, and b) you have access to fertility control technology, so the woman is not automatically stuck getting pregnant whether she want to or not. Then maybe men are getting more out of marriage. But until that era rolls around, marriage (however a particular society defines it) is what forces men to exert the effort to provide for the children they engender and the women who bear and raise them.

It's all too easy to assume (if only subconsciously) that the way the world works today and in one's own society is the way it always has been. But it just ain't so. The reason that every society has some form of marriage is that, in those which didn't, the men went off and left the women to try to provide for the children as well as themselves. And those societies died off.

Yeah, today there are alternatives. And we can be very thankful for them. But that's a very recent development.

Posted by wj | July 18, 2008 2:09 PM

Is your BFF Ta-Nahesi less happy because he has a child? Have you aksed him?

Posted by Juan | July 18, 2008 2:10 PM

I am the father of two, and I can tell you, without hesitation that raising those two children is the most fulfilling thing I have ever done in my life.

Posted by JFPIV | July 18, 2008 2:12 PM

Happiness as a fleeting emotion isn't so important; what matters to most people is pride, honor, respect, and self-respect.

Parenting involves long stretches of tedium and misery interrupted by brief periods of overwhelming joy. Does the one outweight the other? Who knows.

It's the pride etc. that makes the difference.

Posted by lampwick | July 18, 2008 2:23 PM

There is a difference between happy, joy, fun, pleasure. Some people are consistently confused by this, so it's no doubt that when a society confuses fun and pleasure with happiness and joy that people go off in search of the wrong things.

If you get the underlying foundation wrong, you'll naturally end up in a place that isn't too happy, not matter how much fun you try to have.

Of course, if you want to live for the short term and get as much short term fun and pleasure as you can, that's one way of going after life. But a literal take on eat sleep and be merry for tomorrow we die isn't the wisest course of action.

Posted by sam | July 18, 2008 2:23 PM

Children are a lot of work and expense. Sure, they're also rewarding, but unlike any other hobby that can be set aside for a while when it requires more time or more money than you can afford right now, the children are still there and any effort must be made to accommodate their needs before all else.

Anyone looking for happiness in child-raising will only find it if they are committed to it. Anyone looking for happiness in marriage will only find it if they are commited to it. Ditto for any hobby or sport one might take up. Almost any endeavour one might undertake for the long term will have some rough patches; no commitment means crash-and-burn in lieu of character building.

Problem is, we live in a society that has become wealthy enough to live under the delusion that life should be a a continuous orgy of hedonistic sensualism, without effort or consequences. Or at least, that's the thematic trend, and enough people get their ideas of happiness tainted by it that disillusionment arises instead.

Posted by aMouseforallSeasons | July 18, 2008 2:34 PM

The above link says parents still report having more sense of purpose in their lives.

Is having a sense of purpose happiness? What does it mean to say you are less happy, but have more purpose, or vice versa?

I dunno. Isn't a sense of happiness temporal, so that if you interview a young, harried mother you might get a different response than if you interview her years later?

How do you study the up and downs, the rhythm of a whole life? I say phooey on this study if it doesn't track down each person it studied at 10 year intervals (impossible, I know :)). Maybe the person who is happy without kids today would be unhappy without them when they are twenty, thirty, even forty years older? How do you know? We regret, or are grateful for, different things at different times of our lives. I mean, I was very unsettled, and sometimes quite unhappy, during much of my medical residency, and, yet, upon reflection today, it's one of the best things I've done.

Hmmm, glad I don't do this sort of research. I'd find it impossible to feel comfortable with the data.

Posted by MD | July 18, 2008 4:36 PM

When I read studies like this, it makes me want to kick somebody's whiney ass.

OF COURSE being married and/or a parent results in discomfort, folks!!! To be a loving and responsible spouse/parent means you actually give a damn about them, and so you can't live like a self-centered YUPPIE anymore! WAAAAAAAAA!

It's not comfortable to live with someone who interrupts your sleep, your sex life and your cash flow. Or who cuts into your time hanging out after work at the local martini bar because you have to go home and cook dinner. Your week long pick-up adventures at a Sandals resort end up going down the drain so you can afford braces for the kiddo. The spouse has a bad day at work, just when YOU want a massage--totally sucks. It's definitely un-fun to have to think about the needs and best interests of someone other than yourself.

Of course, in the process, you may actually find that all those things you are "missing" brought you nothing spiritually or emotionally anyway, because in general, they are fleeting, shallow, and meaningless. In making a lifetime commitment to a spouse and children, you end up being a far, far better human being who has a bigger sense of self-esteem and wisdom than you would EVER have accomplished had you not done so. I know that's tough to understand for a generation raised to believe that being happy is about self indulgence and saying positive affirmations in the mirror.

And as for whom marriage 'benefits" more, men or women, that's just an intellectual exercise in, once again, self-centeredness. If there is a genuine commitment to a deep, enduring and meaningful life on the part of both, and they prioritize their marriage and their family above materialism and selfishness, over time marriage benefits both equally.

Posted by Ella in NM | July 18, 2008 4:44 PM

Your first premise is wrong: life is not about your happiness. It's about being good; not feeling good. And here's the paradox: if you think the latter results in the former, you'll never get the former. But if you aim towards the former, happiness is likely to follow.

Narcissus is a jealous God.

Posted by Francis Beckwith | July 18, 2008 5:01 PM

Narcissus is a jealous God.

Really? I thought he was history's first recorded metrosexual.

Posted by Rob Lyman | July 18, 2008 5:05 PM

I am a male with 2 children, now 26 and 22, and I have to say that looking back over the time since they have been around, nothing has made me happier than the two of them. I wish I could set up a family compound, so they would always be nearby.

Posted by Bob | July 18, 2008 5:17 PM

I think the answer is that people used to get more happiness out of children, but don't any more, due to changes in our society.

For a long time, children were able to bring material benefits to the family - they would work the fields, milk the cows, whatever. Later in life, children cared for their parents in the childrens' own homes. People with children were just a lot better off than people without.

Those material benefits have disappeared. Now, the only thing children give back to us is emotionally - we get very little material benefit out of children. Meanwhile, the cost of raising children has increased, since a lot more is expected out of parents now than in the past.

So, if you reduce the benefits children bring you and increase the costs of having children, it is perfectly consistent that in the past children used to bring happiness to people (thereby creating the societal expectation that children should be beneficial to people) while people with children are less happy now.

Posted by Al | July 18, 2008 6:16 PM

I assume that contrary to the popular stereotype, men actually must do much better out of marriage than women do, because society expends so much energy on telling women that they cannot be happy unless they marry

Society also spends time claiming that women will not enjoy unemployment, jail, illness or death. These things are generally not good for society as a whole. Should I assume that they cannot be as bad as they are painted?

Posted by ad | July 18, 2008 6:42 PM

And the intuition is backed up by the research--married men are healthier and happier, while the effect is more ambiguous for women. Most of the "marriage bonus" comes from men.

If your husband makes you unhappy, you are unfortunate.

If your wife makes you unhappy, you are pathetic.

Which claim would you expect to see most often?

Posted by ad | July 18, 2008 6:45 PM

Well, fellows, you heard the lady: No matter how you beg and plead with her, she'll never consent to be your blushing bride.

That splashing sound you hear, Miss McArdle, is the sound of your legions of heartsick admirers throwing themselves off bridges.

Posted by Robert Stacy McCain | July 18, 2008 6:49 PM

A quick vocabulary lesson in how women use words in intellectual discourse:

They say "society" when they mean "other women." They say "men" when they mean "men."

Posted by Steve Sailer | July 18, 2008 6:52 PM

Happiness is highly volatile.

I imagine if you interviewed fifty parents as they stepped out of a grocery store on a hot day, with the kid tired and fussy and the shopping cart threatening to head into traffic, you'd get a much different answer than if they interviewed that same parent a couple hours later, right after they tucked their child into bed, kissed them good night, and heard "Daddy? I love you".

Posted by Jimmie | July 18, 2008 7:37 PM

On the big list of "stuff likely to wipe out the human race in a generation", I don't think "not enough new people being born" figures that high.

I agree, but I also wonder where on earth Megan pulled that from. I did not see anything in Wilkinson's post that could have elicited such a reaction, even from an unreasonable person. I don't get it.
What was Megan reacting to in that post?

Posted by Kathy | July 18, 2008 10:51 PM

Happiness is overrated. Some of the biggest jerks in the world are happy. There's been moments in my life where I was quite happy and also believed I probably had no right to live. Contentment and fulfillment is more important in my mind's eye.

Which is not to say having kids necessarily makes a person more contented and fulfilled. I don't have kids and I don't intend to. I think a person can have a very fulfilling and content life without children. However I've certainly known people who are better off with kids and want them very much. My older sister is even happier with a son than she ever was without one. It gave her some stability, and something outside herself, which I think she needed. I don't think this is because society told her it would as my little sister is childless and perfectly fine.

I think you're a bit like me or my little sister, except you're taking it a bit too far. We don't need children to be happy or fulfilled or whatever. However we are not necessarily typical and I avoid assuming I am. For some people having kids certainly is worth it and makes them happier. I think it depends on what kind of person you are and what you need. My little sister and I are mostly consumed with our interests or careers. This doesn't even have to be selfish. If you're consumed with feeding the homeless or saving endangered species kids may also not work with your personality. However my older sister was the type who liked animals, taking care of things, and social situations. If that's your personality I think having kids may just be for you or worth considering anyway.

Posted by Thomas R | July 18, 2008 11:15 PM

From http://www-rcf.usc.edu/~easterl/papers/ZimmermannEasterlin.pdf :

"The implication appears to be that the crucial element of life satisfaction is finding a compatible partner, whereas the formalization of a union via marriage adds nothing to life satisfaction in terms of longterm well-being."

Posted by steven | July 19, 2008 12:01 AM

yawn. another yuppie assuming one study proves everything and they will now rearrange their lives accordingly because one university told it was so. And then next week changing back when another study proves the opposite is true.

hooray for predictability.

Posted by Jack M. | July 19, 2008 12:03 AM

yawn. another yuppie assuming one study proves everything and they will now rearrange their lives accordingly because one university told it was so. And then next week changing back when another study proves the opposite is true.

hooray for predictability.

Posted by Jack M. | July 19, 2008 12:03 AM

AMouseforallSeasons:

Problem is, we live in a society that has become wealthy enough to live under the delusion that life should be a a continuous orgy of hedonistic sensualism, without effort or consequences.

Dude, do you know how hard it is to throw a good orgy? At least with kids' birthdays you don't have to worry about fat, ugly people eating all the edible massage oil.

Posted by Immoralist | July 19, 2008 4:01 AM

Re: . However, once you combine the endless (at least in the first 3 months) responsibility with the realization that some life-choices are now permanently closed to you, it could seem like a raw deal.

Permanently closed? Children do grow up and cease to be an immediate burden and factor in your life. I;ve known people wo had kids fairly young and when the kids were grown and out of the house, resumed their former lifestyle, with allowances for maturity.

Re: there are no societies, older than 5 centuries, that do the opposite.

Does any society not encourage people to have children? Most (all?) societies provide all sorts of benefits and support to parents. This has been true even of some of the world's most illiberal and regressive regimes.

Re: Society also spends time claiming that women will not enjoy unemployment, jail, illness or death.

Being single is not the equivalent of any of those things. Good grief.

Posted by JonF | July 19, 2008 8:17 AM

Permanently closed?

Yes, I think - for example - your odds of becoming pope have dropped near enough to zero to be considered that.

Posted by Jens Fiederer | July 19, 2008 8:25 AM

"[I]n a pure state of nature rape is fun."

Gee, thanks for a calling me a repulsive animal Megan. Great way to start the morning.

The thing is, with that "pure state of nature" preface, I can't immediately refute your statement. I can't do so referring to my personal intuitions and psychology, because those - according to Megan - have been shaped (perhaps down to the neurological level), by societal institutions.

I can say one thing. If "rape is fun" in a state of nature, where to we humans - including men - get the resources to develop moral theories and societal institutions that condemn rape? Unless you think aliens from another planet helped us out centuries ago, there must be something constitutionally in our minds and hearts that causes an aversion to rape (and murder, battery, etc.), and that in turn causes us to develop practices and institutions that enforce that aversion.

So we're not all that bad in a state of nature, after all.

Posted by Brian | July 19, 2008 8:28 AM

"[I]n a pure state of nature rape is fun."

Could it be that there are two distinct "pure" states of nature?

Within an "in" group, things like rape, murder, etc. are abhorred.

But between other groups "outsiders", war, and organized violence including group/tribe/clan/state/etc. sanctioned murder and rape is regarded as normal?

Posted by D | July 19, 2008 10:36 AM

"Rape" is one of these words that really combines a lot of activities under one umbrella.

Currently, it is really either
(a) a form of violent assault
(b) seduction by unfair means (drugs, fraud)
(c) violation of legal age/competence standards

It is hard to place (c) on a moral level with (a) or (b)....especially considering that the standards of age of consent vary SO widely among states and countries. (b) can be rather ambivalent, from fairly clear cases where sedatives render the victim incapable of resistance to cases where inhibitions might be lowered just enough...

In previous eras - or maybe other countries still - rape might not have been an offense against the "rape victim" (who might have been completely willing) at all, but against her family - since she herself was not considered to have the right to choose her partners in the first place.

As I mentioned before, it is possible to imagine - although I can find no examples of this in OUR species, outside of the precepts of Islamic law, which presupposes that IF a man and woman were together alone, they had sex - situations where "rape" would not be a concept at all, since refusal would be inconceivable.

Posted by Jens Fiederer | July 19, 2008 11:27 AM

... a continuous orgy of hedonistic sensualism, without effort or consequences . . .

Like the most recent Reason Happy Hour.

Posted by Robert Stacy McCain | July 19, 2008 11:40 AM

Isn't the obvious problem the assumption that we are (or should be) out to do what makes us happy?

As opposed to what is worthy, important, meaningful, necessary, brave, moral, life enhancing?

This isn't a new debate in philosophy.

What is (newish) is the mindless assumption that happiness is what there is to life. Economists have made a handy assumption, and somehow it has come to be the be all and end all of our understanding of the purpose of life.

And of course what is very old is the understanding that happiness is not achieved by experiencing pleasure, but by pursuing things which are worth, moral, important, meaningful, necessary, essential, brave and uplifting.

Happiness comes from a life lived well. Children may (or may not) be a part of that. They are undoubtedly very hard, and often unrewarding work.

Megan, if you ever do have children (and I hope you do), then I predict that it will be the hardest thing you ever did, and one of the toughest. I don't know if it will make you happy, but I believe you will think it was one of your life's great accomplishments.

Children seldom appreciate how hard work until you are either dead, or very late in life-- I'm just beginning to appreciate how tough it was for my folks.

A last thought from Khalil Gibran

http://leb.net/~mira/works/prophet/prophet4.html

Your children are not your children.

They are the sons and daughters of Life's longing for itself.

They come through you but not from you,

And though they are with you, yet they belong not to you.

You may give them your love but not your thoughts.

For they have their own thoughts.

You may house their bodies but not their souls,

For their souls dwell in the house of tomorrow, which you cannot visit, not even in your dreams.

-- Khalil Gibran, "The Prophet"

Posted by Valuethinker | July 19, 2008 1:22 PM

Parenting is fun initially but as children grows up ,parents grow down...understanding is must to combat this change

Posted by Sumit | July 19, 2008 1:31 PM

Where in that post does Wilkinson ever say the findings are "surprising"?

Seems to me that he thinks they make perfect sense.

Posted by jaltcoh.blogspot.com | July 19, 2008 4:25 PM

--children don't make you happy, even though society tells you it does.

which society does this?

I spent my 20s in San Francisco. I was constantly told what a burden marriage was, what a burden children were, and how miserable life was if you had them. Friends of mine with children, esp. with more than 2, were spoken to rudely by strangers for having "too many" children, were stopped on the street and told stories of how bad birth was, how bad marriage was after children, etc. Pregnant ladies were routinely told things like "get used to never sleeping again", "get used to having no sex life", "marriage is so hard after you have kids."

the message was clear: delay marriage, delay commitment, delay childbirth, and delay or outsource child rearing. not exactly "children will make you happy." quite the opposite.

I left in my 30s. I moved somewhere child friendly: St. Paul, MN. But still, when I was pregnant, I heard a great number of "your life is over" stories.

I have never been happier in my life than since children. I have no idea how my husband and I passed our time before children, but it was foolishly compared to the joy we have now. Of course, they are young now. It will get more difficult. But less joyful? I doubt it. Life before was meaninglesss in comparison.

Posted by Allison | July 19, 2008 6:15 PM

The key concept here is opportunity cost. The difficulties in understanding the opportunity cost of child-rearing are time scale and (gulp!) asymmetrical information.

We are talking about an activity that is measured in lifetimes - children, grandchildren, and maybe great-grandchildren - an activity that mostly begins before age 40 and continues until death. Many decades of commitment - intense at first but later on not so much.

The opportunity cost issue is that there is no readily substitutable activity over an equivalent time scale that can make you say, "oh yes, this one is clearly better than that one."

Instead, there is the opportunity to substitute a series of shorter-term options - more time to devote to one's career, one's avocations, etc. Absent kids, one has a wider choice of where to live and how to live in one's early years.

And there is no question that in the midst of diapers, ear infections, adolescent outbursts, and college costs, most parents secretly wish from time to time that they were free from the shackles.

As for asymmetrical information, those with kids perfectly well know what they are missing. They know they can't take the extended vacation, they can't drop everything and go to a show, they can't live in the urban high-rise surrounded by terrible schools.

But those without kids don't know what they are missing and how the value grows as the years go by. How could they?

Posted by Mercer Chow | July 19, 2008 8:08 PM

"But those without kids don't know what they are missing and how the value grows as the years go by. How could they?" MC

TR: In a similar vein I used to feel people would be happier without the burden of walking places. Any joy in walking is out of my world so I don't miss it. I do have the joy of speeding down ramps in my electric wheelchair. Also the knowledge that I'm spared from having to climb flights of stairs or help people move.

Still I am getting a bit fat of late. Also you people standing and walking don't seem to view it as a burden. (Well you do complain about sore feet, but mostly only little children are willing to agree with me that I'm lucky)

Posted by Thomas R | July 20, 2008 12:43 AM

People who were born blind can be just as happy as sighted folks, but they would likely be much happier if they gained sight than a person with sight would be going blind.

I don't know how the study could have captured this, but most parents will tell you that their sense of happiness got re-calibrated after they had a child. I would argue that most, though not all, of those who haven't had children have no idea what they are missing, and the research would miss that.

Posted by M. Hodak | July 20, 2008 1:30 AM

First, I think the original studies tell us a lot more about the very primitive and imperfect state of happiness measurements than it does about the very complex emotional differences between parents and nonparents. Will goes into this a little more in his latest post. We all know there are different pleasures with each lifestyle and anyone who is familiar with art and popular culture from Shakespeare to Erma Bombeck should have a vague idea about what they are. The tools psychologists and sociologists use to measure happiness turn up bigger numbers for the childless. Interesting, but don't expect me to get excited. Anyone who takes these studies at face value would probably take commercials for hand lotion or Disney vacations as scientific facts.

Second, I think Megan's theories about the relative benefits of marriage and children are way off base and terribly argued. She confuses pressure to have children with pressure to get married. A far more likely (and admittedly conventional) explanation for the social pressures she sees is that society sees the childless as free riders. In times that valued muscle and aggression far more than we do now, childless women were the biggest free riders of all, and the institutions and traditions that put pressure on them to have children are ancient. The pressure usually trnslates into a pressure to get married since marriage has been a good deal for women who have children. The relative advantages of marriage for men and women may be reversed in the (by historical standards) small and incredibly wealthy social class that she sometimes has difficulty seeing beyond. (Though see might compare the lives of divorced men and women in her social circle to see if this idea holds up.) But throughout history and in most social classes today marriage has big benefits for childbearing women compared to their husbands. Women have not often been forced to marry with a shotgun in their back. Men abandon marriages in far greater numbers than women.

Posted by Bob_R | July 20, 2008 8:42 AM

I spent my 20s in San Francisco. I was constantly told what a burden marriage was, what a burden children were

Don't be silly. There are no children in San Francisco, and no married people, either. (Well, no straight married people, anyway.)

Posted by RMc | July 20, 2008 9:31 AM

Just some thoughts which come to mind.

How many parents actually say they are sorry they ever had children? The willfully childless seem to think there is a conspiracy of silence here, but, they are just fooling themselves. The vast majority of parents never regret having children. Having children is the highpoint of most people lives.

Well, since you can't really measure happiness, what is the big deal of silly studies like these?

Ask grandparents how happy their grandkids make them.

You don't grow up until you have children.

Children teach you that there is more to the world than just you, yourself.

Having children is an extremely educational process. Anybody who hasn't raised kids just doesn't know.

The love of and for a child is so intense that if you haven't felt it, you just wouldn't understand it.

I have been happy and sad. My happiest moments are those where I make other people happy. Giving life is one of those moments.

I have never felt joy in a solitary activity. Contentment, yes, feeling of accomplishment, yes, but joy, no.

People who have never had children who talk about why having children is a bad thing appear pathetic to parents. People with children who badmouth having children (I have yet to meet one), would appear to be monsters to most parents. They would be likely clinically insane.

Anyway, my childless relatives seem "happy". They spend their time doing things like hanging out and going golfing. They have nothing to look forward to like grandchildren, grade school plays, soccer, birthdays, etc. They don't have pictures on their desks of their grown children from when they were infants. They don't have sons-in-law and daughters-in-law. Or grandchildren. All the small things that make life joyful.

Well, people make choices and then have to live with them. It would be interesting to visit willfully childless people in their 70's and find out what they think now. They are likely quite a few of them now, since feminism has been a round long enough.

Posted by joel | July 20, 2008 10:18 AM

I, like others, feel like happiness can not be reduced down to happiness, or its pursuit.

What was pleasant this fine morning was reading the comments of the many parents here; that brought me some happiness.

I lay here a bit off my feet reading via blackberry and imagine that having a wife and child, or merely someone to love, must be deeply satisfying.

Posted by Finn | July 20, 2008 1:09 PM

"How many parents actually say they are sorry they ever had children?" joel

TR: This isn't really a good measure. If you say you're sorry you had children you are, in essence, saying you're sorry your child exists. Few people are willing to say something so cruel even if they know the kid will never know.

My older sister used to take in foster kids and I imagine she has seen women who'd say they're sorry they kept their children as they long as they did. They were not equipped to raise children or they were just too screwed up to even take care of themselves.

"I have never felt joy in a solitary activity. Contentment, yes, feeling of accomplishment, yes, but joy, no." joel

TR: Having children sounds right for you and clearly is as you find it a joy. I think for some people it is a wonderful thing that does bring more joy and fulfillment than childlessness.

For me I really doubt I'm going to regre

The happiest day of your life . . .

Comments (95)