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.
It was probably more a look of disbelief. That you would callously and directly tell a woman that she is inferior to you in general conversation. But I personally find it quite interesting how you immediately assume that a woman who disagrees with you must be "upset".
If you remember, the premise here is that feminism has not achieved its objective of improving women's quality of life. If anything, in many ways it has made it worse, as the sociological evidence implies.
In that context, to be critical of feminism can't really be called callousness.
If these points are made very clear, yet you still interpret it as callous or cruel, then that is basically a type of coping response. Someone who behaves like this might deny that they're upset, but their behavior suggests otherwise.
I'm not the one you asked but I would guess that the additional responsibilities of being able to support oneself have added an increased burden on the everyday woman's life. In the past, a woman would only have to worry about taking care of children and the house. Her husband would be the one to worry about money, food, medicine, and other things outside the house. Now, those stresses are part of a woman's daily struggle and naturally they are not as happy on average. But that is the price of freedom and knowledge.
Personally, I think women should make their own choice. If they'd rather have a guy take care of them, go for it. If they want to strive for independence, that should also be encouraged. But no one should be forced to do something they don't want to. However, by gaining additional freedoms, women should also gain the responsibilities that come with it, and the societal norms that were born out of outdated ideals should be abolished.
These are obviously one of the causes that the authors of the report speculate about. The problem with it is that it doesn't explain why women outside of this socioeconomic group are also affected by the paradox.
There is nothing wrong with freedom of choice. The problem arises when you attempt to socially engineer parity between men and women based upon an assumption that all differences in performance between the two stem from discrimination. Then you set the stage for socioeconomically destructive policies, the decline of family, and of scholastic standards in higher academia, and so on.
Her skills are obvious given her managing a team of 20 people. Feminism didn't give her the skills...she always had them but feminism allowed her to use those skills. And that is most definitely implied in the original statement.
Makes you wonder why certain people go out of their way to be perceived as dense.
Because prior to feminism she would have been laughed out of the office if a five foot two inch, 20-something woman with a foreign accent wanted to manage a bunch of engineer guys.
Without feminism she would be a second class citizen serving them coffee. Even 30 years ago it would he highly unlikely she would be managing this team.
Harvard didn't start admitting women until 1977 (prior to that they had to go to second-class Radcliffe). The other Ivies didn't admit women until even later.
The advent of women as equals is still a really recent thing.
Nice to have a "straight man" to give a platform to expanding the point!
And humorous when they do not even see the role they play.
Your response to the video demonstrates a fairly classic problem. The study being cited does not address why women are less happy. The title of the video blames feminism, but until the "why" question is answered, we don't know that feminism, per se, is the reason. We also don't know that this unhappiness has anything to do with "biological difference" let alone "immutable" biological differences. There are many possibilities. Suggesting the feminism and/or immutable biological differences are to blame is simply jumping to conclusions.
Exactly. And should some measure of "happiness" even be a reason to deny equality to anyone?
And those who fought with the Allies in WW II may not have been "happy", but that does not diminish the value of their efforts. Or make their goal any less valid.
If you remember, the premise here is that feminism has not achieved its objective of improving women's quality of life. If anything, in many ways it has made it worse, as the sociological evidence implies.
In that context, to be critical of feminism can't really be called callousness.
If these points are made very clear, yet you still interpret it as callous or cruel, then that is basically a type of coping response. Someone who behaves like this might deny that they're upset, but their behavior suggests otherwise.
Was that the objective? Are implications truths? Is the battle completely over and it is time to assess the final results?
This. Is. Your. Theory. We. Are. Discussing. The burden is upon you to show why it's so great, and not using a study with questionable interpretations of something as ethereal as "happiness"
A word of caution here. All I've done so far is to show that the evidence in the meta-analysis is sound and that the phenomenon is real. My burden of proof remains fulfilled as long as I can support the study in this way.
I don't purport to explain what the paradox is. That is an explanatory burden you chose to take on for yourself, when you took to explaining away the phenomenon as an artifact or triviality. In that sense, you've not really been able to disprove it.
What other objectives can you think of, other than to improve the quality of life of women?
Freedom and equality do not necessarily equal happiness. And quality of life is simply subjective.
If there are 10 slaves and six are happy being slaves, should majority rule?
Moreso, can anyone address all the factors that go into "happiness" that might have changed in 50 or 100 years and filter for them?
I'd like to see a survey that asks women if they want to go back to the way things were before woman's suffrage.
I doubt you will get the result you are inferring, but who knows.
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.
