Türkiye’de Kadınlar mı Erkekler mi Daha Mutlu? Değerlerin ve Sosyal Baskı Hissinin Rolü

Öz

Bu çalışmada, Türkiye sosyo-ekonomik bağlamında kadınların ve erkeklerin mutluluğu arasında belirgin bir fark olup olmadığı araştırılmaktadır. Bu amaçla ile 2004 ile 2022 yılları arasındaki dönemi kapsayan Yaşam Memnuniyeti Anketi’nden (YMA) birey düzeyinde veriler kullanılmaktadır. YMA, 2004 ile 2022 yılları arasındaki 19 yıllık süreyi kapsayarak 344.000’den fazla gözlem içermekte ve ulusal temsil yeteneğine sahip bir ankettir. Bu kapsamlı veriye dayanan sonuçlarımız, birçok arka plan değişkenini kontrol ettikten sonra, kadınların mutluluğunun belirgin şekilde erkeklerden daha yüksek olduğunu göstermektedir. Cinsiyetler arasındaki mutluluk farkının kaynağını anlamak için, hayatta önem verilen değerler de incelenmiştir. Kadınlar ve erkeklerin kendilerini en mutlu ettiğini belirttiği değer incelendiğinde de belirgin farklar görünmektedir. Erkekler başarı, iş ve paraya kadınlardan daha fazla önem verirken, kadınlar sağlık ve sevgiye erkeklerden daha fazla önem vermektedir. Çalışmanın önemli bulgularından biri, her bir anket yılında kadınların yaklaşık %80’inin cinsiyetinden dolayı üzerinde sosyal baskı hissetmediğini belirtmesidir. Bu sonuç, sanılanın aksine Türkiye’nin çok da cinsiyetçi bir ülke olmadığını göstermektedir. Bununla beraber, kadınların cinsiyetleri nedeniyle baskı hissediyor olma ihtimali erkeklerden daha yüksektir. Bu da kadınların mutluluğunun bir miktar sosyal baskıya rağmen daha yüksek olduğunu göstermektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Cinsiyet
• Mutluluk
• İyi oluş hali
• Türkiye

Who is Happier in Türkiye: Women or Men? The Role of Values and the Feelings of Social Pressure

Öz

This article investigates whether there is a significant difference between the happiness of women and the happiness of men within the socio-economic context of Türkiye. For this purpose, individual-level data from the Life Satisfaction Survey (LSS) covering the period between 2004 and 2022 are used. The LSS spans a 19-year period from 2004 to 2022, comprising over 344,000 observations, and is a nationally representative survey. Having controlled various background variables, our results, which are based on this comprehensive dataset, indicate that, women’s happiness is significantly higher than that of men. To understand the source of happiness differences between genders, values that are prioritised in life have also been examined. When the values that men and women indicate bring them the most happiness are examined, significant differences are seen clearly. While men prioritise success, work, and money more than women do, women prioritise health and love more than men do. Another notable finding of the study is that in each survey year approximately 80% of women state that they do not feel social pressure due to their gender. This outcome suggests that, contrary to popular belief, Türkiye may not be a highly gender-biased country. However, the likelihood of women feeling pressure due to their gender is higher than that of men. This also indicates that despite some social pressure, women’s happiness is relatively higher

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Gender
• Happiness
• Well-being
• Türkiye

Kaynakça

1. Alesina, A., Giuliano, P., & Nunn, N. (2013). On the origins of gender roles: Women and the plough. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 128(2), 469-530. google scholar
2. Altunay Aktaş, S. & Burcu, E. (2008). Türkiye’de gelir ve yaşam memnuniyeti ilişkisinin sosyolojik analizi. Sosyoloji Araştırmaları Dergisi, 11(1), 5-27. google scholar
3. Baltes, M. M., Freund, A. M., ve Horgas, A. L. (1999). Men and women in the Berlin Aging Study. In P. B. B. K. U. Mayer (Ed.), The Berlin aging study: Aging from 70 to 100. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. google scholar
4. Bartram, D. (2022). The ‘Gender Life-Satisfaction/Depression Paradox’Is an Artefact of Inappropriate Control Variables. Social Indicators Research, 164(3), 1061-1072. google scholar
5. Becchetti, L. ve Conzo, G. (2022). The gender life satisfaction/depression paradox. Social Indicators Research 160(1), 35-113. google scholar
6. Blanchflower, D. G. ve Oswald, A. J. (2004). Well-being over time in Britain and the USA. Journal of public economics, 88(7-8), 1359-1386. google scholar
7. Bursztyn, L., Fujiwara, T., ve Pallais, A. (2017). ‘Acting wife’: Marriage market incentives and labor market investments. American Economic Review, 107(11), 3288-3319. google scholar
8. Busseri, M. A. ve Sadava, S. W. (2011). A review of the tripartite structure of subjective well-being: Implications for conceptualization, operationalization, analysis, and synthesis. Personality and social psychology review, 15(3), 290-314. google scholar

9. Campbell, A. (1981). The sense of well-being in America: Recent patterns and trends. New York: McGraw-Hill. google scholar
10. Cheng, Z., Mendolia, S., Paloyo, A. R., Savage, D. A., ve Tani, M. (2021). Working parents, financial insecurity, and childcare: mental health in the time of COVID-19 in the UK. Review of Economics of the Household, 19, 123-144. google scholar
11. Connell, R. (2013). Gender and power: Society, the person and sexual politics: Stanford University Press. google scholar
12. Dang, H.-A. H. ve Nguyen, C. V. (2021). Gender inequality during the COVID-19 pandemic: Income, expenditure, savings, and job loss. World Development, 140, 105296. google scholar
13. Diener, E. (1984). Subjective well-being. Psychological bulletin, 95(3), 542. google scholar
14. Diener, E., Lucas, R. E., ve Oishi, S. (2002). Subjective well-being: The science of happiness and life satisfaction. Handbook of positive psychology, 2, 63-73. google scholar
15. Diener, E., Suh, E. M., Lucas, R. E., ve Smith, H. L. (1999). Subjective well-being: Three decades of progress. Psychological bulletin, 125(2), 276. google scholar
16. Eisenegger, C., Naef, M., Snozzi, R., Heinrichs, M., ve Fehr, E. (2010). Prejudice and truth about the effect of testosterone on human bargaining behaviour. Nature, 463(7279), 356-359. google scholar
17. Ermiş-Mert, A. (2020). A Multivariate Investigation of Overall Happiness, Job Satisfaction and Income Satisfaction of Women and Men in Turkey. Sosyoekonomi, 28(44). google scholar
18. Erten, B. ve Keskin, P. (2018). For better or for worse?: Education and the prevalence of domestic violence in turkey. American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, 10(1), 64-105. google scholar
19. Fisman, R., Iyengar, S. S., Kamenica, E., ve Simonson, I. (2006). Gender differences in mate selection: Evidence from a speed dating experiment. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 121(2), 673-697. google scholar
20. Fujita, F., Diener, E., ve Sandvik, E. (1991). Gender differences in negative affect and well-being: the case for emotional intensity. Journal of personality and social psychology, 61(3), 427. google scholar
21. Giurge, L. M., Whillans, A. V., ve Yemiscigil, A. (2021). A multicountry perspective on gender differences in time use during COVID-19. Proceedings of the national academy of sciences, 118(12), e2018494118. google scholar
22. Graham, C. ve Chattopadhyay, S. (2012). Gender and well-being around the world: Some insights from the economics of happiness. google scholar
23. Graham, C. ve Pettinato, S. (2001). Happiness, markets, and democracy: Latin America in comparative perspective. Journal of Happiness Studies, 2, 237-268. google scholar
24. Helliwell, J., Layard, R., ve Sachs, J. E. (2012). World happiness report. New York, USA: The Earth Institute, Columbia University. google scholar
25. Hitsch, G. J., Hortaçsu, A., ve Ariely, D. (2010). Matching and sorting in online dating. American Economic Review, 100(1), 130-163. google scholar
26. Inglehart, R. (2002). Gender, aging, and subjective well-being. International Journal of Comparative Sociology, 43(3-5), 391-408. google scholar
27. Inglehart, R. ve Welzel, C. (2023). The Inglehart-Welzel World Cultural Map https://www.worldvaluessurvey.org/images/Map2023NEW.png google scholar
28. Kahneman, D. (1999). Objective happiness Well-being: The foundations of hedonic psychology. (pp. 3-25). New York, NY, US: Russell Sage Foundation. google scholar
29. Knight, J., Lina, S., ve Gunatilaka, R. (2009). Subjective well-being and its determinants in rural China. China economic review, 20(4), 635-649. google scholar
30. Lucas, R. E. (2018). Reevaluating the Strengths and Weaknesses of Self-Report Measures of Subjective Well-Being. In S. O. E. Diener, & L. Tay (Ed.), Handbook of well-being. Salt Lake City, UT: DEF Publishers. google scholar
31. Lucas, R. E. ve Gohm, C. L. (2000). Age and sex differences in subjective well-being across cultures. Culture and subjective well-being, 3(2), 91-317. google scholar
32. Machado, L., de Oliveira, I. R., Peregrino, A., ve Cantilino, A. (2019). Common mental disorders and subjective well-being: Emotional training among medical students based on positive psychology. PLoS One, 14(2), e0211926. google scholar
33. Meisenberg, G. ve Woodley, M. A. (2015). Gender differences in subjective well-being and their relationships with gender equality. Journal of Happiness Studies, 16, 1539-1555. google scholar
34. Moffitt, T., Caspi, A., Rutter, M., ve Silva, P. (2001). Sex differences in antisocial behavior: Conduct disorder, delinquency, and violence in the Dunedin Longitudinal Study. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. google scholar
35. Noble, R. E. (2005). Depression in women. Metabolism, 54(5), 49-52. google scholar
36. Nolen-Hoeksema, S. ve Rusting, C. L. (1999). Gender differences in well-being. In E. D. D. Kahneman, & N. Schwarz (Ed.), Well-being: The foundations ofhedonicpsychology (pp. 330-350). New York: Russell Sage Foundation. google scholar
37. Pateman, C. (1988). The Patriarchal Welfare State: Women and Democracy. In A. Gutman (Ed.), Democracy and the Welfare State. London, UK.: Princeton University Press. google scholar
38. Pearlstein, T. B. (1995). Hormones and depression: what are the facts about premenstrual syndrome, menopause, and hormone replacement therapy? American Journal of Obstetrics and gynecology, 173(2), 646-653. google scholar
39. Ridgeway, C. L. ve Correll, S. J. (2004). Unpacking the gender system: A theoretical perspective on gender beliefs and social relations. Gender & society, 18(4), 510-531. google scholar
40. Rohan, M. J. (2000). A rose by any name? The values construct. Personality and social psychology review, 4(3), 255-277. google scholar
41. Schroeder, K. M. ve Liben, L. S. (2021). Felt pressure to conform to cultural gender roles: Correlates and consequences. Sex Roles, 84(3), 125-138. google scholar
42. Schwartz, S. H. ve Rubel, T. (2005). Sex differences in value priorities: cross-cultural and multimethod studies. Journal of personality and social psychology, 89(6), 1010. google scholar
43. Schwartz, S. H. ve Sortheix, F. (2018). Values and subjective well-being. In S. O. E. Diener, & L. Tay (Ed.), Handbook of well-being: Noba Scholar. google scholar
44. Seligman, M. E. (2002). Authentic happiness: Using the new positive psychology to realize your potential for lasting fulfillment: Simon and Schuster. google scholar
45. Stevenson, B. ve Wolfers, J. (2009). The paradox of declining female happiness. American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, 1(2), 190-225. google scholar
46. Tesch-Römer, C., Motel-Klingebiel, A., ve Tomasik, M. J. (2008). Gender differences in subjective well-being: Comparing societies with respect to gender equality. Social Indicators Research, 85, 329-349. google scholar
47. TÜİK. (2022). Yaşam Memnuniyeti Araştırması. google scholar
48. TÜİK. (2023). Cinsiyete göre yaşa özel intihar hızı/ İntihar İstatistikleri. https://data.tuik.gov.tr/Kategori/GetKategori?p=nufus-ve-demografi-109&dil=1 google scholar
49. Ugur, Z. ve Durak, A. (2023). The Impact of COVID-19 on Mental Health: Evidence from Suicides Working Paper. google scholar
50. Ugur, Z. B. (2021). Does money buy happiness in Turkey? Applied Research in Quality of Life, 16(3), 1073-1096. google scholar
51. Ugur, Z. B. (2024). The Role of Coping Strategies in Subjective Wellbeing Indicators of Nonprofit Workers. Voluntary Sector Review, 1-23. google scholar
52. Ugur, Z. B., Güç, A., Bakan Kalaycıoğlu, D., Toprak, Ö., Eyerci, C., Yildiz, S., Toprak, M., Demir, Z., Demir, Ö., Yildiz, Ö. F., ve Çelikkaya, R. (2023). The Gendered Toll of COVID-19 on Academics: Increasing Time Allocation Challenges Faced by Female Academics in Turkey. In R. L. Nina Weimann-Sandig (Ed.), Family Dynamics, Gender and Social Inequality During COVID-19. Switzerland: Springer. google scholar
53. Uğur, Z. (2017). Türkiye’de kadın yoksulluğu ve yoksunluğu. KADEM Kadın Araştırmaları Dergisi, 3(2), 168-199. google scholar
54. Veenhoven, R. (2015). Social conditions for human happiness: A review of research. International Journal of Psychology, 50(5), 379-391. google scholar
55. Yıldız, D., Arslan, H., ve Cavlin, A. (2021). Understanding women’s well-being in Turkey. Vienna Yearbook of Population Research, 19, 255-292. google scholar
56. Zuckerman, M., Li, C., ve Diener, E. F. (2017). Societal conditions and the gender difference in well-being: Testing a three-stage model. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 43(3), 329-336. google scholar
57. Zweig, J. S. (2015). Are women happier than men? Evidence from the Gallup World Poll. Journal of Happiness Studies, 16, 515-541. google scholar