Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Many older Americans are always talking about how the U.S.A. was "number one" and how it was such a wonderful place with "freedom" and all this stuff after WW2 and before the mid 2000's..thing is its hard for me to believe a place that has never had universal Health Insurance, Mandatory Maternity Leave, Mandated paid vacation, walkable cities ( except the Northeast corner and Chicago) among other undesirable facts could have ever been the "IT" place to be.. Any insights into this?
When there are mandated rights for some people, there is someone who is being mandated to pay for it.
How do we know women's psychological health was any better back in the old days? Alot of things were just swept under the rug in those days. Nowadays, women are more willing to voice their unhappiness.
Good morning.
This is a common objection, but is generally regarded to be weak. For you to defend such a claim, you are obliged to carry a burden of proof and the need for a statistical analysis that demonstrates the truth of your claim.
Another problem with your argument is that the trend is too powerful to simply be dismissed as a self-report anomaly or discrepancy. This is why sociologists/psychologists are so concerned by it. It merely confirms what has been glaringly evident to them during the course of their own specialty experiences.
Thirdly, there are a number of ways, beyond self-report questionnaires, to objectively determine mental well-being. That includes rates of self-harm, psychiatric medication and hospital admission at an epidemiological level, as well as the symptom/sign dichotomy in medicine and psychiatry.
I never said I liked competition. I said we have to compete because that is the world we are living in.
No one asks because it's all about money. It's not about how many warheads we have. Money is considered power for many people.
The poster you are responding too has a point. We did choose to compete with China, or our politicians did. They signed the trade agreements with them. We as a nation could have done what we did for hundreds of years to protect our industry, use tarifs against the cheap labor. We cannot compete with China when thier workforce works a fraction of what ours does. Well we can, but only if we want our wage scale to look like thiers. Free trade and the global economy is not something we must take part in, we CHOOSE to take part in it thanks to our politicians. One of the reasons things are worse today then in the past is because of our culture of McJobs that has replaced real careers. Only the over-educated and connected can achieve career success in the world of this global economy. Our fathers and grandfathers finished high school and started good jobs at a very young age. Those politicians that signed those trade agreements are guilty of robbing us of the same opportunity. Ross Perot was right 21 years ago, everything he said would happen did happen regaurding our economy and all this "free trade". We now are a nation built on debt, a nation that builds nothing and is heading for an economic collapse.
Many older Americans are always talking about how the U.S.A. was "number one" and how it was such a wonderful place with "freedom" and all this stuff after WW2 and before the mid 2000's..thing is its hard for me to believe a place that has never had universal Health Insurance, Mandatory Maternity Leave, Mandated paid vacation, walkable cities ( except the Northeast corner and Chicago) among other undesirable facts could have ever been the "IT" place to be.. Any insights into this?
...And Spain has all these things and what, 50% youth unemployment? Man who needs "freedom" when you can live the good life like that?
This is a common objection, but is generally regarded to be weak. For you to defend such a claim, you are obliged to carry a burden of proof and the need for a statistical analysis that demonstrates the truth of your claim.
Another problem with your argument is that the trend is too powerful to simply be dismissed as a self-report anomaly or discrepancy. This is why sociologists/psychologists are so concerned by it. It merely confirms what has been glaringly evident to them during the course of their own specialty experiences.
Thirdly, there are a number of ways, beyond self-report questionnaires, to objectively determine mental well-being. That includes rates of self-harm, psychiatric medication and hospital admission at an epidemiological level, as well as the symptom/sign dichotomy in medicine and psychiatry.
Well,for you to defend your claim, you too would also need to back it up with statistical analysis as well. Were women REALLY happier back in the 50s, or did they simply go along to get along?
Yes, America has plenty of skeletons in the closet, but it did provide opportunities for prosperity to an unprecedented amount of people. Now the prosperity is artificial at best, with many jobs being outsourced and the culture in general in rapid decline. Monopolies and cabals are probably just as bad right now, if not worse, than before the Sherman Antitrust laws were put in place. Entrepreneurs are going the way of the dinosaur.
Well,for you to defend your claim, you too would also need to back it up with statistical analysis as well. Were women REALLY happier back in the 50s, or did they simply go along to get along?
Well I'm sorry if you missed it, but I've provided you with a link to the pivotal study that does exactly that.
If you consider the self report criteria in the study to be inaccurate, despite the fact that they've controlled for random error and bias, you need to provide clear statistical evidence why they are inaccurate. Note that you'd also be arguing against what is generally regarded to be a consensus view in psychiatric medicine, psychology and sociology. So you also need to go into pubmed, click "related articles" and refute everything else that comes up too.
The other major problem with your argument is the sheer strength of the association, as well as the existence of objective criteria beyond self-report questionnaires, such as rates of psychiatric medication in the USA:
This is just part and parcel of the growing view that the main beneficiaries of feminism have been men, particularly those men who avoid social responsibilities such as family and children and wish to reap the benefits of widely available casual sexual relationships ... no emotions attached. Piers Paul Read's "The Misogynist" is very funny topical reading on the backfiring of the feminist movement. Women are happy to let feminists get bashed | Hannah Betts | Comment is free | guardian.co.uk
Quote:
In an appearance on Radio 4's Front Row, the author confessed to "grave misgivings" about the movement: "It's partly this feminist historicism, which I think is false, that women have been somehow oppressed by men throughout the ages. You don't find any evidence of women being dissatisfied with their condition before the 18th century and then it's just a few spoilt bluestockings and servants who get bored… I think women saw it as the natural order that the man should be head of the family – it's also Christian teaching – and that they played this domestic role. And I think the feminists stirred up a sense of resentment against men that persists today."
Well I'm sorry if you missed it, but I've provided you with a link to the pivotal study that does exactly that.
If you consider the self report criteria in the study to be inaccurate, despite the fact that they've controlled for random error and bias, you need to provide clear statistical evidence why they are inaccurate. Note that you'd also be arguing against what is generally regarded to be a consensus view in psychiatric medicine, psychology and sociology. So you also need to go into pubmed, click "related articles" and refute everything else that comes up too.
The other major problem with your argument is the sheer strength of the association, as well as the existence of objective criteria beyond self-report questionnaires, such as rates of psychiatric medication in the USA:
There is something else to consider. There are more medicines for mental disorders these days. And consider alot of events that have transpired between 2001-2010.
There were many women who felt there was something missing from their lives in the 1950s. My theory is that alot of women just didn't talk about it as much back then.
The 1960s were merely a time when issues of the 1950s were finally coming to the light.
There is something else to consider. There are more medicines for mental disorders these days. And consider alot of events that have transpired between 2001-2010.
Read the chart.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
