Why aren't women happier these days?
That's the question raised by a thought-provoking study, 'The Paradox of Declining Female Happiness,' released last month. The research showed that over the past 35 years women's happiness has declined, both compared to the past and relative to men even though, by most objective measures, the lives of women in the U.S. have improved in recent decades.
The research, by University of Pennsylvania economists Betsey Stevenson and Justin Wolfers, and released by the National Bureau of Economic Research, found the decline in happiness to be pervasive among women across a variety of demographic groups. The researchers, for instance, measured similar declines in happiness among women who were single parents and married parents, 'casting doubt on the hypothesis that trends in marriage and divorce, single parenthood or work/family balance are at the root of the happiness declines among women,' they wrote.
One theory for the decline in happiness is that expectations for workplace and general advancement were raised too high by the women's movement and women might 'feel inadequate for not 'having it all,'' as a Los Angeles Times columnist recently put it.
The researchers acknowledge that's a possibility:
'If the women's movement raised women's expectations faster than society was able to meet them,' the paper says, 'they would be more likely to be disappointed by their actual experienced lives.' But they add, things could change for the better: 'As women's expectations move into alignment with their experiences, this decline in happiness may reverse.'
Readers, why do you think women are unhappier than in the past? Do you think that if expectations for 'having it all' were lowered to 'move into alignment with experiences,' women might be happier?
ÏÖÔÚÅ®ÐÔµÄÐÒ¸£¸ÐΪʲôϽµÁË£¿
ÎåÔ¹«²¼µÄÒ»Ïî·¢ÈËÉî˼µÄµ÷²é¡¶Å®ÐÔÐÒ¸£¸ÐϽµÖ®¹î±ç¡·£¨The Paradox of Declining Female Happiness£©Ìá³öÁËÉÏÊöÎÊÌâ¡£ÕâÏîÑо¿ÏÔʾ£¬ÔÚ¹ýÈ¥µÄ35ÄêÖУ¬ÎÞÂÛÊÇ×ÝÏòÓë¹ýÈ¥Ïà±È£¬»¹ÊǺáÏòÓëÄÐÐÔÏà±È£¬Å®ÐÔµÄÐÒ¸£¸Ð¶¼Ï½µÁË©¤©¤¾¡¹Ü°´ÕÕ´ó¶àÊý¿Í¹Û±ê×¼¿´£¬¹ýÈ¥¼¸Ê®ÄêÀ´ÃÀ¹úÅ®ÐÔµÄÉú»î¸ÄÉÆÁË¡£
ÕâÏîÑо¿ÓɱöϦ·¨ÄáÑÇ´óѧ¾¼Ãѧ¼ÒÊ·µÙÎÄÉ£¨Betsey Stevenson£©ºÍÎÖ¶û¸¥Ë¹£¨Justin Wolfers£©½øÐУ¬ÓÉÃÀ¹ú¹ú¼Ò¾¼ÃÑо¿¾Ö£¨National Bureau of Economic Research£©¹«²¼¡£Ñо¿·¢ÏÖ£¬ÔÚ¸÷ÀàÅ®ÐÔȺÌåÖУ¬ÐÒ¸£¸Ð¶¼ÆÕ±éϽµ¡£¾ÙÀýÀ´½²£¬Ñо¿ÈËÔ±·¢ÏÖ£¬µ¥ÉíĸÇ׺ÍÒÑ»éĸÇ×ÖÐÐÒ¸£¸ÐµÄϽµ·ù¶ÈÀàËÆ£»ËûÃÇдµÀ£¬Õâ¶ÔÒ»ÖÖ¼Ù˵Ìá³öÁËÖÊÒÉ£¬ÕâÖÖ¼Ù˵ÈÏΪ£¬»éÒö¡¢Àë»é¡¢µ¥ÉíĸÇ×»ò¹¤×÷/¼ÒͥƽºâµÈÎÊÌâÖеķ¢Õ¹Ç÷ÊÆÊǵ¼ÖÂÅ®ÐÔÐÒ¸£¸ÐϽµµÄ¸ùÔ´¡£
ÕýÈç¡¶Âåɼí¶Ê±±¨¡·£¨Los Angeles Times£©Ò»Î»×¨À¸×÷¼Ò×î½üËùдµÄ£¬¹ØÓÚÐÒ¸£¸ÐϽµµÄÒ»¸öÀíÂÛÊÇ£¬¶Ô¹¤×÷ºÍ×ÜÌå·¢Õ¹µÄÆÚÍûÖµ±»¸¾Å®Ô˶¯ÍƵùý¸ß£¬Èç¹ûûÓÐÓµÓÐÒ»ÇУ¬Å®ÐÔ¿ÉÄܾ;õµÃÓÐËùǷȱ¡£
Ñо¿ÈËÔ±³ÐÈÏÕâÊÇÒ»ÖÖ¿ÉÄÜ¡£
Ñо¿±¨¸æËµ£¬Èç¹û¸¾Å®Ô˶¯Ìá¸ßÅ®ÐÔÆÚÍûÖµµÄËٶȸßÓÚÉç»áÂú×ãËýÃÇÆÚÍûÖµµÄËÙ¶È£¬ÄÇôËýÃǽ«¸üÓпÉÄܶÔʵ¼Ê¾ÀúµÄÉú»î¸Ðµ½Ê§Íû¡£²»¹ýÑо¿ÈËԱ˵£¬ÐÎÊÆÒ²¿ÉÄÜ·å»ØÂ·×ª¡£ËûÃÇдµÀ£¬Ëæ×ÅÅ®ÐÔÆÚÍûÖµÓë×ÔÉíµÄ¾Àú¸ü¼ÓÌù½ü£¬ÐÒ¸£¸ÐµÄϽµ¿ÉÄÜ»áÄæ×ª¡£
¶ÁÕßÅóÓÑÃÇ£¬ÄãÈÏΪŮÐÔΪʲôûÓйýÈ¥ÐÒ¸£ÁË£¿ÄãÈÏΪ£¬Èç¹û¶Ô"ÓµÓÐÒ»ÇÐ"µÄÆÚÍûÖµ±»½µµÍµ½Óë¾ÀúÏà·ûµÄ³Ì¶È£¬Å®ÐÔÊÇ·ñ¿ÉÄܸüÐÒ¸££¿