No matter where I am in the World, I like to explore the national treasures of the land. Whilst in Canada last week, I stumbled across the Canadian national treasure – the Maclean's magazine which was once re-named over 100 years ago as the busy man's magazine. Well anything good enough for a busy man is good enough for me hence the rather heavy suitcase on my return home filled with numerous copies - for the sake of proving a point. Whilst skimming through the articles which aim to inspire readers, I stumbled across an article about "why men are getting happier and women more miserable." Contrary to the aim, I felt a little less inspired and more provoked.

However, I was far from surprised. The gap in gender happiness is something I have been well aware for some time now. I only need to look at examples of couples belonging to family, friends and colleagues. You cannot escape it. The levels of unhappiness amongst women have developed since they began establishing themselves into the workplace in the 70s and 80s.

Women have come a long way since the feminist movement of the 70s. But what is it about attempting to create a gender neutral society that that has led to overall diminishing happiness amongst women? Having spent the past few months mingling in the company of high powered couples I can say with utmost certainty that if you are aspiring to be such a power duo or at least emulate aspects of it that you fully appreciate that this certainly will be the road to men getting happier and women more miserable. You may be wondering at this stage, how can this possibly be a destructive thing? Well it is, when roles and responsibilities begin overlapping and expectations are mismanaged.

Welcome to the era of the alpha female – the new trophy wife. We are currently in the wake of a historic shift. The rules of the mating game are transforming. Men were once good catches because they were high earners. This now also includes women. Amongst the circles of high powered couples I gauged a reoccurring sentiment amongst the men. They were proud of their partners/wives CVs. Most men are not interested in someone who does not have to offer them as much as they have to offer her. Only fair and square especially when considering compatibility. But how has this re-defining of masculinity and femininity played a role in making women unhappy?

Women have made the greatest progress over the last 35 years. Irrational exuberance has perhaps played a part in their declining scale of happiness. The woman's movement promised the moon and the stars but did they not realise that most things would in fact be unattainable. It is the story of the juggling act and chemicals. You do not necessarily have to have a career and kids to be tired. There is an exhaustion felt by women that is distinct to women, proven by the fact that psychiatric data reveals nearly twice as many women as men develop depression-related disorders at least once in their lives.

What has the role of men been in the framework of a high powered relationship that has contributed to female misery? Women have been encouraged to reach perfection – being accomplished, smart, a good mother, to look fashionable all the time. Not realising those expectations can only aggravate the female sadness. Her compulsion to reach perfection for the sake of managing expectations can ultimately lead to bone-numbing fatigue.

There is decreasing trend in the traditional corporate wife who stays at home and an increase in the high powered-wife who has the stresses of her own career. Great in theory, if men could fend for themselves but the modern corporate wife is still desired and partially expected by most men to participate in aspects of entertaining and travel. Do these women possess supernatural qualities? On the surface, these women know how to play the supporting role ever so well. Evolution has mostly played a part in programming it into our psyche. Below the surface is quite possibly a different story.

What if careers overlap in areas and the couples involved are public figures? The expectations can therefore be truly destructive. Take Cherie Blair, one half of the well known power couple for instance. In her recent memoir, ironically entitled: "Speaking for myself," she reveals grief of having to mourn for her un-born child through stage-managed directions by her husband's team of spin doctors – for the sake of managing expectations. Judy Finnagan, part of the Richard and Judy brand also comes to mind. If there is anything apparent about this power duo then it is the fact that Richard has managed to reduce Judy to a mumbling mess. Judy's inability to lead interviews is the result of constant put downs by Richard. Their programme is embarrassing viewing for this reason alone.

My fixation of being able to do anything a man can do perhaps needs to be re-examined. If there is one thing clear, I do not want to end up sad like the increasing female population. I and many others need to realise that men and women are fundamentally different in many aspects. Women have to set the stage for space in order to prevent a loss of their identity, motivation, confidence and energy. Perhaps this is what the woman's movement should have focused on. We may now be living in a 50:50 society as exemplified by most power couples. However, women will forever make the greatest sacrifices by default due to their child rearing abilities – a tradition that will never evolve.