The world has grown suspicious of anything that looks like a happily married life. ~~ Oscar Wilde

This may turn out to be British newspaper week here on the Pater Blog. I’ve recently found several articles which require a little attention. We’ll start with the good news, the following appeared on October 27th, copied in its entirety because it is short, wonderful, and I just love the British press:

Yes, children DO make you happier... but only if you're married

By Fiona Macrae
Last updated at 8:34 AM on 27th October 2009

It may come as a surprise to those struggling to cope with sleepless nights and mountains of nappies.

But having children really does make you happier, researchers say.

The finding, based on the experiences of tens of thousands of British parents, contradicts a host of other studies which have concluded that having children can ruin even the most blissful of relationships.

Instead, it seems, the patter of tiny feet strengthens a relationship - but only if the parents are married.

Almost 90,000 mothers and fathers were questioned about their circumstances and how happy they were with their lot in life.

The answers revealed that marriages become happier with the arrival of a baby, with three children bringing the most joy, the Journal of Happiness Studies reports.

Women, perhaps not surprisingly, derive more satisfaction from parenthood than men.

However, children bring happiness only to couples who are married. If a pair are simply living together, the birth of a child tends to bring discontent, the Glasgow University study found.

Researcher Dr Luis Angeles said: 'The fact that people who live as a couple but are not married experience lower levels of life satisfaction with children is worthy of notice.

'It dispels the idea that the positive effect on married individuals is due uniquely to the fact that they can pool resources, such as money and time, to raise children.

'What separates married and unmarried couples is arguably not the possibility of pooling resources for the aim of raising children but the willingness to do so in the first place.

'As a rule, the arrival of a child tends to be seen as a blessing to a married couple and as a problem to an unmarried one or to a single mother.'

Dr Angeles concluded that while bringing up children can be hard work, the benefits outweigh the negatives.

'When considering their life as a whole, married individuals with children report themselves as better off than married individuals without children,' he said.

TADAAAA! Jonesy 1, Wide World 0. Everyone loves finding out their views are backed by cold, hard science, even if the researchers wear kilts while conducting their research.

But let’s take a look at a few things. First, the lede, “It may come as a surprise to those struggling to cope with sleepless nights and mountains of nappies.” Dear readers, consider where this sentence is coming from. While I agree that until the babies sleep through the night at three months life is tough, sometimes really, really, tough, it is only three months. You can do anything for three months. It’s not easy, but you take solace in the certain knowledge that whatever the trial is it will be over soon.

Another interesting bit from Dr Luis Angeles, “The fact that people who live as a couple but are not married experience lower levels of life satisfaction…dispels the idea that the positive effect on married individuals is due uniquely to the fact that they can pool resources, such as money and time, to raise children.” Quick, no one say teleology. Also, I think it’s interesting that this statement comes from a reflexively materialist, naturalist perspective – Dr. Angeles is startled that something is affecting these marriages that is not a “resource.” I assume it would be beneficial for a sociologist not to be a materialist but I’ve been wrong before (once).

In conclusion, dear ones, this article give rather pleasant advice for living. Namely, get married, have babies (at least three according to the research), be happy.