These days nutritionists are increasing looking at the diet humans ate in the distant past to understand what is "healthy" and what is not. The human body functions best when it consumes the food it was designed to eat.
As adaptable omnivores, we can survive on many other foods that are less than ideal, but at the cost of being less healthy.
Like the "human" body, the "human" brain can also adapt. In fact, our brains make us perhaps among the most adaptable creatures on the planet as we have used them to modify our climate (air conditioning), our diet (through farming and processing), our habitat (through construction), etc.
But is all this adaptation making us "happier"? Is this adaptation the "most natural" behavior? Or is all this adaptation the result of necessity? In other words, if we look at the more primitive (technologically speaking) people on the planet, who are not struggling to survive or deal with environmental stresses and observe how they behave would we find they are "happier" because they are behaving more "naturally"?
Regardless of how the society was "structured", it is fair to assume that in most cases it was an adaptation to the reality that society faced. Moreover, I think there are two assumptions that are logical. That each society operates on the basis of what works and what works depends on the needs of that society.
However, a third assumption should be thrown into the mix, that what works best, may not be the most natural, but rather the "most" adaptive.
I believe the modern feminist movement was not driven by women, but by society. We simply did not need women having more than 2.1 babies and so society redefined the role of women to fit the new paradigm. And so modern feminism is simply a societal adaptation. As an "adaptation" it works, but it is not necessarily the behavior that generates the greatest amount of personal happiness. Studies confirm that over the last 20 years women have become "less happy".
I am approaching 70 and over the years, I have observed how much women have redefined their roles and aspirations, but it seems to me that society more than the women themselves have been behind this effort. If I look at less technological advanced societies, their societal structures do not mimic modern ones. And yet those structures are more "natural" and thus more likely to make people happier.
Not only has happiness declined among women in modern societies, but divorce rates are much higher. In addition, stress and anxiety related diseases are far higher in modern societies.
When viewing modern feminism as less of a choice and more of a society-imposed value system designed to optimize a women's contribution to society and not her happiness, things make sense. At the same time women are less happy, suffer from greater stress and anxiety, and have less stable relationships, society as a whole is prospering more.
I have four daughters, who are very well educated (two with get their PhDs this year). I have no doubt they have been "raised" to thrive in our modern society and prosper by virtue of the skills they bring "to the party". But I am not convinced our modern society is one that will offer women greater "happiness".
I am approaching 70 and I think many people as they age wake up to the reality that there is something about the traditional extended family and the interactions that feel natural and good. When you talk with older people reflecting on their life, most don't say I wish I could still be at work; most people I talk to say I wish I had spent more time with my family, especially the men and increasingly women.
Nothing in my comments is meant to disparage people that don't have "families", I am simply searching for what is the most "natural" state of human beings versus what is our "adapted" state. I wonder whether this natural state in a manner similar to eating "natural" food causes us to feel happier when we are in it. In other words, what really makes people happy and should parents focus on that or helping their children "adapt" to the demands of society.
