Dreamers and poets have long known that money alone does not buy happiness, and now economists working with psychologists are finding statistical correlation that proves the adage.
Two articles on yesmagazine.org discuss new approaches to increasing social cohesion and happiness, not by raising income, but by distributing income more equitably.
Equality and the Good Life by Brooke Jarvis, interviews British epidemiologist Richard Wilkinson. "For decades, Wilkinson has studied why some societies are healthier than others. He found that what the healthiest societies have in common is not that they have more—more income, more education, or more wealth—but that what they have is more equitably shared. "
The American Dream vs. the Gospel of Wealth by James Gustave Speth discusses the conflict of individual happiness versus civic virtue. "Is America meant to be a land of opportunity or inequality? Civic virtue or consumerism? Gus Speth explores three deep contradictions in the American identity, asking: What’s next for the American dream?"
Here's also a nice summary of scholarly research, and I encourage you to read it if you have the time.
It's interesting to me that two major social issues are coming to a head at the same time. I've discussed income inequity and the stubborn refusal of the highest earners in the United States to pay their fair share of taxes. I haven't yet discussed the return of anti-woman sentiment as illustrated by defunding organizations like Planned Parenthood, and the extremely disturbing rise of murder charges against women who miscarry.
I'd like to read more science about gender equality and happiness, especially happiness in men. Does living in a gender-equal (and gender-preference equal) society affect happiness in men? This article from the University of Michigan Population Studies Center certainly suggests so.
Social tolerance is another important factor in how happy a country rates itself. Over the last quarter-century, growing gender equality and acceptance of minorities and homosexuals has played a major role in those European countries found to be the most content. No. 7-ranked Switzerland, for instance, has elected two women as head of state in the last 10 years, while No. 4-ranked Iceland has recently passed laws guaranteeing virtually all the same rights to gay couples that married couples enjoy. "The less threatened people feel, the more tolerant they are," says Inglehart. Tolerance simply has a rippling effect that makes people happier.
The reality is, women are smaller, weaker, slower, more vulnerable. That's why we reward men who support and help us, with more satisfying society, than those barbarians who just bash in and take what they want. We may be the same physiologically, or should I say YOU may be the same, but I believe the cultural, cognitive, interior difference between a man who sees women as his equal and a man who sees her as his subject, is as great as the difference between humans and other apes. And I believe that this attitude makes him suffer as much as she does. I'd like to see the data.
Our species developed culture when our bodies couldn't adapt fast enough. We invented tools and social structures when our claws, fangs, and hide were insufficient to protect us and provide the life we wanted. We are still fighting a thousands-of-years-old battle to socialize men versus being subject to them, like animals. And the thing is, it's a battle that the civilized men have to participate in. In fact, it is men's fight to socialize themselves that is the battle itself. And they'll be happier and healthier for it. Men must support women AS women, co-equal while different, BECAUSE the rewards of civilization are superior to barbarity.
It's NOT a battle of the sexes. It's a battle FOR the sexes. And it's your fight, too, guys. We know you can do it.