Men Are Now Happier Than Women

The Skinny: Two New Studies Point To Growing Contentment Gap Between The Sexes

(CBS)  The Skinny is Keach Hagey's take on the top news of the day and the best of the Internet.

---

Modern times seem to be riddled with growing gaps - the income gap, the achievement gap, the tolerance-of-celebrity-gossip gap. Now here's another one to worry about, according to today's New York Times: the growing happiness gap between men and women.

Two new research papers arrive at this conclusion. One tracked traditional happiness data by asking people how satisfied they are with their lives. It found that women, who in the early 1970s reported being slightly happier than men, are now slightly less happy.

The other analyzed time-use studies over the past four decades to determine how much time men and women spent doing things they found unpleasant. Since the 1960s, men have gradually cut back on tasks they dislike. They now work less and relax more.

Meanwhile, women have replaced housework with paid work (or not replaced as much as added onto), and as a result are spending more time doing things they don't enjoy.

The obvious explanation would seem to be the old "second shift" theory, that women just added their jobs onto their already long and laundry-filled to-do lists. But, according to the Times, this overlooks the fact that women aren't actually working more today than they were 30 or 40 years ago - they're just spending more time on paid work and less on cooking and cleaning.

(In the index, both men and women seemed to dread their jobs. They ranked time at the office above only trips to the doctor and washing dishes in terms of enjoyment. Both would much rather cook or do laundry.)

But the gender happiness gap appears long before working life. As "life has generally gotten better over the last generation" -- the Times boldly asserts, using "less crime, longer-living grandparents and much cooler gadgets" as evidence - male high school seniors have gotten happier. About 25 percent say they are satisfied with their lives, up 16 percent from 1976. Meanwhile, only 22 percent of their female peers say they're happy, about the same in the 70s.

I would posit this may have something to do with how dismally bad men's fashion was in 1976. But the experts who talked to the Times chalk it up to the "hottie theory" - the pressure for high school girls to be hot above all else. Back in the 70s, that's all you had to be. Now you have to be a Harvard-bound, track star, volunteering-at-the-homeless-shelter-on-weekends hottie. That's enough to bum anyone out.

The Clintons' Connection To A Deal Gone Bad

The Wall Street Journal has a labyrinthine tale of how Italian businessman Raffaello Follieri, better known to most of the world as actress Anne Hathaway's boyfriend, used his connections to Bill Clinton's top aide to get introduced to an investor who is now suing him.

At the center of the story is Douglas Band, a 34-year-old former White House intern who once escorted Monica Lewinsky to a ball "at her request" and who remains Bill Clinton's right-hand man.

Two years ago, Band befriended the "handsome and charming" Follieri, who had moved to New York to launch a business buying and redeveloping all the properties that the Catholic Church had to sell to pay off its debts from sex abuse law suits.

Follieri claimed he could help Sen. Hillary Clinton with Catholic voters during her presidential campaign. And, oh yes, and he was also looking for investors.

Band acted as a "gatekeeper to the former president's web of business and charitable enterprises" for Follieri. Clinton even went into business with him. In 2005, Yucaipa Cos., a Los Angeles firm where Clinton has been a partner, agreed to invest $100 million in Follieri's church property development business.

There were lots of other Clinton-related deals for Follieri, but lately the Clinton-Follieri relations are "in tatters."

Yucaipa managing partner Rob Burkle, Clinton's close friend, has sued Follieri for allegedly misappropriating $1.3 million. The suit claims the charming Italian used Yupaica's investment to fund a lavish lifestyle that included "a Manhattan penthouse, five-star meals and private jets for Mr. Follieri and his girlfriend, actress Anne Hathaway."

The story's an interesting look at how money, celebrity and power function, but perhaps more interesting (and telling about the Journal's new owner) is its timing. The time peg appears to be the fact that heads of state, business leaders and other notables are gathering in New York today for the annual meeting of Bubba's do-gooder powerhouse, The Clinton Global Initiative.

The Clinton camp has denied doing anything more than listening politely to Follieri's promises of help with the Catholic vote. Nevertheless, the story dredges up some old ghosts - Monica not the least among them - that no doubt the Clintons would just as soon forget.

Twice As Much To Be Spent On TV Ads This Primary Campaign As Last One

And speaking of millions and Clintons,USA Today reports that candidates, political parties and interest groups will spend at least twice as much on TV ads than they did in the last presidential election before the nominees are chosen.

A record $100 million or more will be likely paid to put candidates and their messages on the air before February, analysts expect. That's so much more than the $45 million spent during the 2003-04 primary race because this campaign is so much more competitive.

Back then, nobody was challenging President Bush for the Republican nomination. This time, both fields are crowded. Plus, there's the Romney factor - Republican Mitt Romney's campaign has spent $7.4 million so far to run ads, by far the most of any candidate.

But spending doesn't always help. Sen. Chris Dodd has spent $900,000 on ads and has not budged from low single digits in Iowa and New Hampshire surveys.



A NOTE TO READERS: The Skinny is available via e-mail. Click here and follow the directions to register to receive it in your inbox each weekday morning.

[jshmks]

New study shows that this has been proven since Adam & Eve.

[tnt1954]

the suffrage movement was started by men, so
men could go free from their duties and responsibilities. good article you wrote there.
hen-pecked husbands united to free women, and
then men would be free too. it costs more to
get to work than many make there. so why work?
just go on welfare. or have a ''disability''.
its called base income. then work under the table
if you like or not. you can only eat so much
food. quintillions may buy you a better quality
steak, nicer clothes or a bigger pad, but most
things that can be done with money are illegal
or immoral, or are fattening or cause cancer.
most people realize the deceptive nature of riches.
can you eat the gold hoard? the glorification
of wealth is a good subject for comedy.

[slim1h2o]

I don''t know how men can be happier than women,..when we are being categorized as racists, knuckle dragging, KKKers, child rapers, and everything else known to mankind. But I''m happy,, none the less:)

[Krazcarl]

Be honest we all have our good days but the older I get there fewer and further between. I can''t believe they even took the time to study this issue plus in this day if your unhappy they try to precribe you something and call you depressed so most folks lie or drink.

[bizzzz-2009]

That''s because fewer of them are getting married.

[bizzzz-2009]

...and more women are having to work

[shanev137]

Most women that I know are miserable and they enjoy making others miserable.

[xlib]

How can anyone believe one blessed word printed by this failing rag?? How?

[billpl-2009]

ya think???

[why_not_nar]

The evening news needs a rating boost. I would recommend a game, "Catching A Couricism", $1,000 to the daily winner who accurately catches the number of Couricism in the night news. Courisms are words used incorrectly, introduction to stories that show bias, and statments that aren''t true. Plagarisms win a daily double bonus.

[slim1h2o]

Hey, tuck, I just saw the T,V. version of this story.

On that, they said that were unhappy cuz the guys wern''t doing the dishes, among others things. But, hey, thats what they wanted. Don''t worry about the kids, they''ll raise themselves. Womens libbers need to go back to the traditional rolls, but they will never admitt it. And thats a shame, and thats whats wrong with america, among other things.

[goddess_inca]

What world do you guys live in? Paying your bills and feeding your family is not a luxury, it''s an expensive neccessity. Homes aren''t prizes given at county fairs, people have to work. Get off the internet, be nice to your wife, and see what you can do to help, if you''re not the solution...you''re part of the problem.

[slim1h2o]

Posted by goddess_inca at 07:08 PM : Sep 26, 2007

I''m going to take heat on this,,,but....Stay home, have kids, take care of them. The system won''t work any other way. Admitt it libers, you ladies messed up.

[mari1963]

Men should be happier. They don''t do anything!
They don''t raise their children - women do that. More men leave their wives than the other way around. And who gets left to raise the children when they do? The wife. Who goes and finds himself a new girlfriend and the bar scene? The man.

Women are the single parents in this country - not men. Women can do it all. Women come through when the going gets tough.

Laugh it up boys, but should stick to what you do best - nothing! Women will take care of the rest.

Women rule!

[choice478]

Men still have all the power and privilege in this country.

There is still a lack of equality, did you know that the equal rights amendment FAILED to pass because several states still consider women second class? Congress said that it wasn''t worth debating and passing, yet they sit now and debate a stupid advertisement wasting their time on censorship rather than working on important things. Thanks conservatives, that''s real "family values" of you.

Women are paid less, they work more. Being a mom and home maker isn''t considered work in this country, and those women who choose to do so (often because they have wealthy husbands) are often looked down upon.

This isn''t women lib''s fault! We wanted CHOICE and recognition that women are equal. We have not recieved either.

Women were allowed to enter the work force because they were seen as a cheap labor force and were exploited after world war 2. LEARN THE HISTORY!

Women should have the CHOICE to work if it works for their family but no one said they should all work outside the home. We have no choices. We are forced to work jobs that pay us less when we often do more and men who control everything keep telling us it''s fine.

Of course women are unhappy. We are still second class citizens and the men want to keep power and privilege.

[godofredo29]

You know, sometimes the mom dies or abandons the family (just reference that true life film The Pursuit of Happiness with Will Smith). There are dads out there who are single parents--and getting a whole lot less support doing it than women in the same spot. But, they''re happy because at least they don''t have the additional burden of a harping spouse.

[diggmediggyou]

Happiness?
If you got money, you''ll be happy. Your wife no need to go for work, your maid will clean the house and taking care of your kids. Perhaps money can buy happiness.

[getloud1]

Actually about 1 year ago they did a study in Europe and they found people that were financially secure (wealthy) were much happier than people who were not. Isn''t it a shame money the Almighty Dollar can have so much effect on our emotions as Human beings. I wish everyone was happy and secure then it would be a better world to live in that is for sure.

[reporter14]

A picture is worth a thousand words.
www.poconocommunitynews.com

[samael2014]

What''s with the grainy black and white closeup of some rapacious, slimy, way-overpaid CEO laughing his *** off? Is that meant to photo-journalistically convey the "slightly happier" man? Was that the best stock photo they could find?

[drivelphobe]

Most working mothers of school-age children shouldn''t be doing anything but taking care of the kids. Most simply have elected to appear to justify their selfish neglect of their children by working. Raising children requires committment and hard work. Many are just too lazy to take on the task and shouldn''t have had any children.

A woman needs to be a home-maker and full-time mother while the children are in school. There is plenty of time later in life to achieve that "personal growth and fulfillment" baloney. Just raise the kids please or don''t have any. There is nothing more valuable in society than the mother who rears her children.

[drivelphobe]

Re: Male happiness....

I have a close friend who has been married for almost 40 years. He has obviously become easier going and happier for the last several years. We discussed his apparent general content with life and he told me that he had decided to leave his wife. He was just waiting for the final nagging comment, "look", order or criticism or demeaning comment. He said he looked forward to it with glee which gave every day more meaning.

He told me that If someone asks me why he left after forty years, I should tell them he couldn''t stand it one more minute. Men are becoming happier than women because, as time goes by, their departure from hell gets closer.

[shanev137]

Hey choice478.....try keeping up with the news and current events.

Women in all the large metropolitan cities make more money than men now.

Nice try at playing the victim though.

[drivelphobe]

Hey sbbm.....

You make a silly assumption that he would even want a date. He is fed up with women and I know he''s too old for romance. He''s just going to be a happy man for the few hears he has left.

[toolmangler-2009]

Doen''t worry, be happy!!! (plus accent)

[nocommnsense]

The first thing(s) I thought of when I heard this were: the "mine space gap" from Dr. Strangelove, and if the teleprompter were to say that there was life on Mars and they wanted immigrant status in the US, Katie would read it as if it made sense. Ye gods.