Yet another study that shows the mechanism of scientific study can itself be tenuous without careful interpretation, but in the hands of monkey-men, it's a total disaster.

The British Institute for Social and Economic Research send out a survey to 10,000 working moms and found, not surprisingly, that they defend their current position in life and argue that it's happier.

Clearly someone got a promotion for helping to increase the influence of economics in the lives of proles.

For men, meanwhile, life satisfaction depends on having a full-time job.
...
For men, the presence of children brings no increase in life satisfaction.

And herein is the comedy: we don't see the original study or how it worded its questions. We do know that any man who doesn't want to be impoverished needs a job, and that part-time jobs don't pay the bills. Which means... of course life satisfaction depends on a job.

How many healthy men do you know who find no increased life satisfaction in having children? What this study probably did was to conflate happiness with wealth in its questions, then in the "interpretation" reverse the process and consider wealth to be happiness.

No wonder they get skewed data. Either that, or they interviewed sociopaths. "Hey, you -- put down that axe for a minute, now that your latest victim has stopped screaming -- what's the greatest source of satisfaction for you in evading law enforcement? Oh, the cover job down at the mill... excellent. Have kids? No, of your own, and not in a Biblical sense... none? Well if you had some, would it increase your satisfaction... yes, I can see that. They might get in the way as you stalk prostitutes. Well, those are all my questions. Cheerio!"

The entire study is a sham of the scientific method, but it seems to effectively convince the proles who think they are able to think.

Luckily, the BBC provided a stronger counterpoint:

Other research has not always taken the same point of view.

Another report, conducted by the Centre for Policy Studies in 2003, said nearly half of working mothers would prefer to stay at home with their children if not for money worries.

And a 2006 government survey found that more mothers said the desire to spend more time with their children was stopping them from working longer hours. - BBC news

In fact, if we strip off the blinders that civilization wants us to view reality with, the answer is really clear.

People find satisfaction in a role that lets them do good and help others, excepting sociopaths and the kind of useless modern last man who thinks only of his own TV, his own restaurant meals, his own sexual discharge, u.s.w.

Mothers become mothers because no one else can raise a family. A man can help, and in traditional families, always did, contrary to the media view. Mothers and fathers become mothers and fathers by agreeing that family is one of their goals. One of their goals is also paying for that family, so someone in the group needs a job.

It's not rocket science to note that a traditional family unit serves children best. There are many tiny little life-tasks in survival, and a stay at home parent can do those while raising the kids, at least until the other parent gets home.

A full-time job requires at least 40 hours a week, although that amount is already insane and counterproductive, and sometimes requires late nights. It also requires aggression and so we sent the most aggressive creature in the family out to create income, while putting the more emotionally in touch one at home (in probably 1% of cases, these roles are reversed and should be respected).

Here's Fortune's Anne Fisher on why income goes in a greater proportion to males:

I think that women's unwillingness to "rock the boat" is a big reason why, according to the Economic Policy Institute, the wage gap between college-educated women and their male counterparts has actually gotten bigger since the mid-'90s. A decade ago, women earned 75.7 cents for each dollar paid to a man. Now it's 74.7 cents.
...
Encourage her not to put off dealing with this. At one of her speaking engagements, Stanny says, "I met one woman who tolerated being paid less than the men she worked with for decades, until she was 48. When she finally got around to confronting her boss about it, he said, 'You're right.' This woman said to me, 'Just imagine how different my life would be now if I'd done that 20 years ago.' " - Fortune

This could explain why, among those middle-class and upper-middle class families where delusion is not the norm, one parent works (usually the dad) and one parent stays home or works part-time (usually the mom). This trend is catching on as well:

More mothers say the desire to spend more time with their children is stopping them from working longer hours according to a government survey. BBC

And how do the dads feel?

Fathers of young children are involved in a third of their childcare but would do more if their jobs were flexible, new research shows.

Dads spend much more time with youngsters than a generation ago, the Equal Opportunities Commission (EOC) found.

But Britain's culture of long hours at work prevented men from being more involved in childcare, the EOC said. - BBC

Notice how these studies are based on much more data, and have a much cleaner path from question to interpretation, than the skewed study from the British Economics and Enslavement Advancement Institute, or whatever it was called. This is why you don't trust headlines, and remember that all news is an interpretation of data... not necessarily a correct one.