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.
He did respond to your point several pages ago, before the thread was locked. Though good luck finding it under all the incoherent feminist babble that has since been cluttering the thread.
This thread is not currently locked. Please feel free to display the referenced point.
Which is why I ask the anti-feminists to highlight what they consider to be the key responses that support their position using quotes or, at least, page references. In this case, I did dig down. Is this the response you were referring to?
I see this as a vague hand-wavy response that doesn't really address my point. I've explicitly summarized 3 main phases of feminism, and I've explained why the current/future phase is needed. Your job is to explain, with equal clarity, why the current phase is unworkable or not needed. I've already explained why simply pointing to the study on women's happiness is inadequate. I'm also not sure why my response "lacks explanatory power."
I would also like to see, with clarity, how ALL the waves are rendered unworkable by a study of only 1/7th or so of all of the waves, beyond the generic statement of "subset can (with an emphasis from me on CAN, not DOES in any way) be extrapolated to mean the whole shebang is unworkable". It's largely based on a happiness study which can sorta explore the idea of happiness (an intangible thing) and unhappiness, and even the authors don't specifically try to fully say WHY women are unhappy, but you have somehow gathered enough data in your mind to settle on feminism being the cause, enough so that it fully needs to be rolled back.
Which is why I ask the anti-feminists to highlight what they consider to be the key responses that support their position using quotes or, at least, page references. In this case, I did dig down. Is this the response you were referring to?
I see this as a vague hand-wavy response that doesn't really address my point. I've explicitly summarized 3 main phases of feminism, and I've explained why the current/future phase is needed. Your job is to explain, with equal clarity, why the current phase is unworkable or not needed. I've already explained why simply pointing to the study on women's happiness is inadequate. I'm also not sure why my response "lacks explanatory power."
I'm reading through your post about past and current/future types of feminism, and it's a bit of a mess.
You're basically saying that women are miserable because the third wave of feminism hasn't come to fruition. We're also to believe that despite it being 35 years since the start of the third wave, at least some of the predicted positive effects of that phase aren't bearing fruit? Sorry. It sounds a bit fanciful.
If I understood HT's post, he's basically saying that if the negativity right now is the fruit of second wave feminism, then we can only guess what effects the third wave would have if you think it will have "qualitatively" different effects. I don't know what part of it you're having trouble with.
...and that poster used the words not currently, indicating the current status of the thread and the ability for it to be linked, not disputing that it was ever locked.
I'm reading through your post about past and current/future types of feminism, and it's a bit of a mess.
You're basically saying that women are miserable because the third wave of feminism hasn't come to fruition. We're also to believe that despite it being 35 years since the start of the third wave, at least some of the predicted positive effects of that phase aren't bearing fruit? Sorry. It sounds a bit fanciful.
If I understood HT's post, he's basically saying that if the negativity right now is the fruit of second wave feminism, then we can only guess what effects the third wave would have if you think it will have "qualitatively" different effects. I don't know what part of it you're having trouble with.
From what I saw, he was talking about the third wave, since he used a happiness study that corresponds generally to the beginning of the third wave and now to show that happiness declined a little during that time, but somehow using that data as a subset to postulate that "Nope, it's ALL gotta go", without further evidence that ALL of the changes have resulted in bad results and rendering it completely unworkable.
Scientists can try to measure happiness, but in the end, happiness is subjective. Nothing you've said, no studies you've proffered can change the fact that happiness is subjective.
On this question of subjectivity: I wouldn't want to say that science can't measure subjective states. The problem with the study is that it depend on self-reporting of happiness (as opposed to objective indications of happiness). Nevertheless the core of your complaint still stands. The study simply doesn't do what the anti-feminists want it to do.
BTW: Here is a quote from the report itself that is significant for this thread:
"It has been recognized that an individual's assessment of their well-being may reflect the social desirability of responses and Kahneman (1999) argues that people in good circumstances may be hedonically better off than people in worse circumstances, yet they may require more to declare themselves happy. In the context of the finding presented in this paper, women may now feel more comfortable being honest about their true happiness and have thus deflated their previously inflated responses. Or, as in Kahneman's example, the increased opportunities available to women may have increased what women require to declare themselves happy." (Page 29 of: The Paradox of Declining Female Happiness )
Given this phenomena in human psychology, it could be that (oddly enough) the decline of self-reported happiness could actually be an indication that feminism is succeeding in making women better off.
My hope is that this point (made not just by me, but by the authors of the report we are discussing) will be acknowledged and explicitly addressed, rather than simply ignored and buried under a mountain of hand-waving dismissals.
Last edited by Gaylenwoof; 06-21-2017 at 01:14 PM..
On this question of subjectivity: I wouldn't want to say that science can't measure subjective states. The problem with the study is that it depend on self-reporting of happiness (as opposed to objective indications of happiness). Nevertheless the core of your complaint still stands. The study simply doesn't do what the anti-feminists want it to do.
BTW: Here is a quote from the report itself that is significant for this thread:
"It has been recognized that an individual's assessment of their well-being may reflect the social desirability of responses and Kahneman (1999) argues that people in good circumstances may be hedonically better off than people in worse circumstances, yet they may require more to declare themselves happy. In the context of the finding presented in this paper, women may now feel more comfortable being honest about their true happiness and have thus deflated their previously inflated responses. Or, as in Kahneman's example, the increased opportunities available to women may have increased what women require to declare themselves happy." (Page 29 of: The Paradox of Declining Female Happiness )
Given this phenomena in human psychology, it could be that (oddly enough) the decline of self-reportedhappiness could actually be an indication that feminism has succeed in making women better off.
Part of the substance of that quote (more opportunities and so on may mean that women have more to factor into what makes them happy) was discussed a little earlier in the thread. The response, paraphrased? "See? Women were happier when they didn't have so much, so let's help them be happier by taking it all away again."
...and that poster used the words not currently, indicating the current status of the thread and the ability for it to be linked, not disputing that it was ever locked.
So you believe that he thinks a thread can't be searched when it's locked? (As opposed to asking for a tinestamp when the thread was locked) That's pretty insulting to Ringo.
So you believe that he thinks a thread can't be searched when it's locked? (As opposed to asking for a tinestamp when the thread was locked) That's pretty insulting to Ringo.
It's a 50+ page thread. If one poster wants to make a vague point about another poster's answer being answered (which, it wasn't) in previous pages, it is helpful for them to link up to that answer instead of making people search through a bunch of pages. The only insult is to Ringo's time since it's being wasted without specifics.
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.
