6 ms·

Men Happier as They Get Older, Women Sadder

theoneill 18y ago
Women are built to peak earlier: http://www.livescience.com/health/061003_women_skin.html http://www.livescience.com/health/061003_women_skin.html
YuriNiyazov 18y ago
Awesome line: "The saddest period of the average man's life -- his 20s -- is also the period when he is most likely to be single." This is pretty much a shot across the bow to the vast majority of News.YC's readership.
- ovi256 18y ago
  Note that a "shot across the bow" implies a direct affront. Clearly Reuters Live! writers are not very familiar and _jealous_ of YC hackers.
noonespecial 18y ago
Men find the women they are looking for, so they are happier. Women end up with the men that were looking for them...
vaksel 18y ago
of course women are sadder, most of them spend their 20s-30s getting by solely because of their looks. Then they hit 35-40 bam, looks go down the crapper, which means you no longer get free drinks, noone hits on you and takes you out on dates. Men on the other hand spend 20s/30s on their careers, they mature, start making decent money, and then they get their pick of desperate women...but they no longer want them, instead they want the fit tight 20 year old who is impressed by the bimmer. Basically its a role reversal, at 20 its the guy going after girls, and at 30 its the girls going after the guys.
- etal 18y ago
  Now that you mention it: http://www.slate.com/id/2188684/?from=rss http://www.slate.com/id/2188684/?from=rss Summary: Game theory predicts the phenomenon that decent single men in their 30s and older are so much more scarce than similarly qualified women. Dating is compared to an auction, where women are bidding on men. Surprisingly, "strong bidders" (those with more resources) don't snatch up all the best items; "weak bidders" do. So attractive, confident, motivated hold out during their 20s while lesser women snatch up the best men, leaving single women in their 30s in a situation resembling "Sex and the City".
  - ardit33 18y ago
    I have to say that there is a huge flaw in that article and thinking. Women in their 30s lose their looks really fast. (unless you have plastic surgery, botox, etc.), women just look better on their mid 20s. These great "women", hold on for their perfect partner, but they don't realise that their value is diminishing in time, and in their 30s they are no near as valuable than in their 20s, hence they will Have to setle for somebody less, or stay single forever. Sorry if the above paragraph comes out too callous, comparing women to something with an expiration like milk, but the truth is that looks matter, and that there is a real biological "expiration" date on women, if they want to be mothers. Guys just don't have this limitation.
    - blurry 18y ago
      If only it were true. Yes, biologically speaking, women have an "expiration" date. However, no less biologically speaking, men need women to mate with, and therein lies a problem. If you cannot find a woman to mate with, your ability to have children is zero, and seeing as young ladies do not go for older gentlemen unless said gentlemen are wealthy (a negligibly small percentage of the population) the end result for men and women is zero sum game. Sorry if the above paragraph comes out too callous, comparing men to walking wallets, but the truth is, money does matter, and in the end a man is only as good as his money, if he wants someone to marry him. Women just don't have this limitation. P.S. I hope it's clear that the last paragraph was a parody on the post above. Personally, I think reducing women to their looks and men to their wallets is ridiculous. I was just illustrating a point.
dgabriel 18y ago
Here's a phenomenon I've recently noticed: posts that put down women, or demonstrate ways in which they may be inferior to men, get to the front page. Then the armchair evolutionary biologists post comments of dubious veracity about biological sex disparity. I submitted a link to an article about the lack of differences between genders in mathematics, and it generated no upmods or comments. I initially assumed it was bad timing, or not particularly interesting to hackers. Now this submission which is clearly not hacker news has found its way to the font page & I'm starting to wonder if my gender is simply not welcome here.
- DanielBMarkham 18y ago
  I voted you up because it does seem that this is a younger, testosterone-loaded crowd at times. Some of the comments -- I can't help but picture a pimple-headed nerd spouting something so silly. As far as I know, all genders are welcome here. (They're only 2, also as far as I know, at least until the Trans-Neptunians arrive)
- theoneill 18y ago
  If I were you I wouldn't be so quick to jump to conclusions. There's a lot of randomness in what gets noticed and voted onto the front page, especially on sundays. And we all submit things and wonder why no one votes them up.
  - dgabriel 18y ago
    Of course, it may certainly be sudden onset apophenia, but this in conjunction with some of the responses to Jessica's recent blog entry on female founders, along with a number of other threads that have popped up here... my forlorn submission may have nothing to do with anything, but the pattern is there. Women are viewed as genetically inferior at this hacker stuff, and the prevailing theory is that it might have something to do with a giraffe hunt at the dawn of time, or biological clocks, or the belief that since young women can get laid, they don't have to work as hard at life.
    - ardit33 18y ago
vitaminj 18y ago
This is the link to the actual study: http://www.genet.ac.uk/workpapers/GeNet2008p32.pdf http://www.genet.ac.uk/workpapers/GeNet2008p32.pdf Note that the study title is "Aspirations, Attainments and Satisfaction", not the nebulous and broadly defined "Happiness" as reported in the article. This is significant because the study specifically analyses self-reported survey responses for, as the title suggests, aspirations, attainments and satisfaction. And they are quite particular about the factors that are taken into account in their analysis, for example: happy marriage status, "big ticket" consumer durables, number of kids, etc It would be hard to argue that aspiring for a 7L washing machine (and subsequently attaining it) constitutes the same happiness as a happy marriage, which is what this study asserts (from my cursory read of the paper, they don't normalise or put weights on the factors). Overall the study is dubious, sophomoric at best. I had quite a few of criticisms of the methodology while reading through the paper. If they're not going to be rigorous about it, they should just not bother doing these kinds of studies, presumably only to confirm their own pre-conceived biases. The biases are obviously mainstream too, as is evidenced by all the pop psychology comments here.
olavk 18y ago
Debunking: http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=406 http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=406

Women are built to peak earlier: http://www.livescience.com/health/061003_women_skin.html http://www.livescience.com/health/061003_women_skin.html

YuriNiyazov 18y ago

Awesome line: "The saddest period of the average man's life -- his 20s -- is also the period when he is most likely to be single." This is pretty much a shot across the bow to the vast majority of News.YC's readership.

ovi256 18y ago
Note that a "shot across the bow" implies a direct affront. Clearly Reuters Live! writers are not very familiar and _jealous_ of YC hackers.

noonespecial 18y ago

Men find the women they are looking for, so they are happier. Women end up with the men that were looking for them...

vaksel 18y ago

of course women are sadder, most of them spend their 20s-30s getting by solely because of their looks. Then they hit 35-40 bam, looks go down the crapper, which means you no longer get free drinks, noone hits on you and takes you out on dates. Men on the other hand spend 20s/30s on their careers, they mature, start making decent money, and then they get their pick of desperate women...but they no longer want them, instead they want the fit tight 20 year old who is impressed by the bimmer. Basically its a role reversal, at 20 its the guy going after girls, and at 30 its the girls going after the guys.

etal 18y ago
Now that you mention it: http://www.slate.com/id/2188684/?from=rss http://www.slate.com/id/2188684/?from=rss Summary: Game theory predicts the phenomenon that decent single men in their 30s and older are so much more scarce than similarly qualified women. Dating is compared to an auction, where women are bidding on men. Surprisingly, "strong bidders" (those with more resources) don't snatch up all the best items; "weak bidders" do. So attractive, confident, motivated hold out during their 20s while lesser women snatch up the best men, leaving single women in their 30s in a situation resembling "Sex and the City".
- ardit33 18y ago
  I have to say that there is a huge flaw in that article and thinking. Women in their 30s lose their looks really fast. (unless you have plastic surgery, botox, etc.), women just look better on their mid 20s. These great "women", hold on for their perfect partner, but they don't realise that their value is diminishing in time, and in their 30s they are no near as valuable than in their 20s, hence they will Have to setle for somebody less, or stay single forever. Sorry if the above paragraph comes out too callous, comparing women to something with an expiration like milk, but the truth is that looks matter, and that there is a real biological "expiration" date on women, if they want to be mothers. Guys just don't have this limitation.
  - blurry 18y ago
    If only it were true. Yes, biologically speaking, women have an "expiration" date. However, no less biologically speaking, men need women to mate with, and therein lies a problem. If you cannot find a woman to mate with, your ability to have children is zero, and seeing as young ladies do not go for older gentlemen unless said gentlemen are wealthy (a negligibly small percentage of the population) the end result for men and women is zero sum game. Sorry if the above paragraph comes out too callous, comparing men to walking wallets, but the truth is, money does matter, and in the end a man is only as good as his money, if he wants someone to marry him. Women just don't have this limitation. P.S. I hope it's clear that the last paragraph was a parody on the post above. Personally, I think reducing women to their looks and men to their wallets is ridiculous. I was just illustrating a point.

dgabriel 18y ago

Here's a phenomenon I've recently noticed: posts that put down women, or demonstrate ways in which they may be inferior to men, get to the front page. Then the armchair evolutionary biologists post comments of dubious veracity about biological sex disparity. I submitted a link to an article about the lack of differences between genders in mathematics, and it generated no upmods or comments. I initially assumed it was bad timing, or not particularly interesting to hackers. Now this submission which is clearly not hacker news has found its way to the font page & I'm starting to wonder if my gender is simply not welcome here.

DanielBMarkham 18y ago
I voted you up because it does seem that this is a younger, testosterone-loaded crowd at times. Some of the comments -- I can't help but picture a pimple-headed nerd spouting something so silly. As far as I know, all genders are welcome here. (They're only 2, also as far as I know, at least until the Trans-Neptunians arrive)
theoneill 18y ago
If I were you I wouldn't be so quick to jump to conclusions. There's a lot of randomness in what gets noticed and voted onto the front page, especially on sundays. And we all submit things and wonder why no one votes them up.
- dgabriel 18y ago
  Of course, it may certainly be sudden onset apophenia, but this in conjunction with some of the responses to Jessica's recent blog entry on female founders, along with a number of other threads that have popped up here... my forlorn submission may have nothing to do with anything, but the pattern is there. Women are viewed as genetically inferior at this hacker stuff, and the prevailing theory is that it might have something to do with a giraffe hunt at the dawn of time, or biological clocks, or the belief that since young women can get laid, they don't have to work as hard at life.
  - ardit33 18y ago

vitaminj 18y ago

This is the link to the actual study: http://www.genet.ac.uk/workpapers/GeNet2008p32.pdf http://www.genet.ac.uk/workpapers/GeNet2008p32.pdf Note that the study title is "Aspirations, Attainments and Satisfaction", not the nebulous and broadly defined "Happiness" as reported in the article. This is significant because the study specifically analyses self-reported survey responses for, as the title suggests, aspirations, attainments and satisfaction. And they are quite particular about the factors that are taken into account in their analysis, for example: happy marriage status, "big ticket" consumer durables, number of kids, etc It would be hard to argue that aspiring for a 7L washing machine (and subsequently attaining it) constitutes the same happiness as a happy marriage, which is what this study asserts (from my cursory read of the paper, they don't normalise or put weights on the factors). Overall the study is dubious, sophomoric at best. I had quite a few of criticisms of the methodology while reading through the paper. If they're not going to be rigorous about it, they should just not bother doing these kinds of studies, presumably only to confirm their own pre-conceived biases. The biases are obviously mainstream too, as is evidenced by all the pop psychology comments here.

olavk 18y ago

Debunking: http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=406 http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=406