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.
Some modern women who are victims of the latest 'feminist movement' like to think that they are empowered and refer to themselves as 'dangerous'. Do you have any idea what they are talking about? I am having a problem figuring this out. If these women are so 'empowered' then why are they so dependent on the system to take care of them?
Do you think maybe the children that they are having, most without steady fathers apparently, will be as dependent as them?
Enlighten me with your feminist wisdom.
The retro feminist movement brought us equal pay and hiring practices. It was a much needed movement and pretty darn great, kudos to them. The latest wave of feminists appear to be confused, I pretty much ignore them.
"The analysis does not conclude why women's happiness has declined, but it doesn't rule out, among other reasons, whether more opportunities to succeed have increased a woman's expectations of herself..."
From your video....not ruled out.
I think we have established that self-report happiness analyses are not reliable. There is plenty problems with these types of surveys and no one in the scientific community takes them seriously although they are something the media likes to exploit. I'm not even sure why there is still a discussion on women's happiness as it relates to how feminism has empowered women.
I think we have established that self-report happiness analyses are not reliable. There is plenty problems with these types of surveys and no one in the scientific community takes them seriously although they are something the media likes to exploit. I'm not even sure why there is still a discussion on women's happiness as it relates to how feminism has empowered women.
See my response just above.
If the Kahneman effect - basically a type of reporting bias - is big enough to skew the results, you'll see it in the data being shown as a variation according to social status.
I think we have established that self-report happiness analyses are not reliable. There is plenty problems with these types of surveys and no one in the scientific community takes them seriously although they are something the media likes to exploit. I'm not even sure why there is still a discussion on women's happiness as it relates to how feminism has empowered women.
It was half of the reasoning presented in this thread as the impetus for returning to 19th century serfdom for women. Maybe if we had the 3rd + premises presented to us, it would make sense (uh huh). Still waiting....
See my response just above.
If the Kahneman effect - basically a type of reporting bias - is big enough to skew the results, you'll see it in the data being shown as a variation according to social status.
Doesn't change anything.
It isnt a matter of skewing results.
It was half of the reasoning presented in this thread as the impetus for returning to 19th century serfdom for women. Maybe if we had the 3rd + premises presented to us, it would make sense (uh huh). Still waiting....
Unsupported reasoning. We will be waiting because it cant be supported other than his opinion.
This would still show up in the same way.
If the Kahneman effect is big enough to skew the data, you'd see some kind of variation according to social status.
Perhaps you are right, but your assertion so far seems a bit breezy. Can you explain this a bit more? Feminism has empowered women, generally, but this doesn't mean that every individual woman is necessarily better off (for the simple reason that individual circumstances can vary wildly and these individual variations probably have nothing to do with feminism). So a woman who is poor today is still not well-off but, thanks to feminism, there is a great deal more potential for her to be well-off, if she can overcome the assorted challenges that confront her as an individual. The question is: Would a poor woman in this situation have a statistical tendency to deflate the self-reported level of her happiness? (Or, would we expect poor women today to keep inflating their self-reported level of happiness as women, generally, may have done in the past?) This seems like an empirical question for which the answer is not obvious. There is, after all, a background social context to consider. Perhaps a poor woman today whose life has not yet directly and tangibly improved via feminism still has an emotional sense of greater opportunities awaiting her if she can somehow overcome whatever idiosyncratic challenges are facing her. In other words, at some deeper emotional level she may still feel better off, thanks to increased potentials, even if those potentials, for her, keep failing to manifest in tangible form.
If you have good evidence for thinking that some women today should not deflate their self-reports of happiness, per Kahneman, then I'd like to hear it. I, frankly, don't know the answers here.
Also, as a side-note of some interest, here is another quote from the article:
"Figure 7 shows that contrary to the subjective well-being trends we document, female suicide rates have been falling, even as male suicide rates have remained roughly constant through most of our sample." (page 28)
In other words, some objective data suggests that the subjective self-reporting-based data is, in fact, not the whole story.
Perhaps you are right, but your assertion so far seems a bit breezy. Can you explain this a bit more? Feminism has empowered women, generally, but this doesn't mean that every individual woman is necessarily better off (for the simple reason that individual circumstances can vary wildly and these individual variations probably have nothing to do with feminism). So a woman who is poor today is still not well-off but, thanks to feminism, there is a great deal more potential for her to be well-off, if she can overcome the assorted challenges that confront her as an individual. The question is: Would a poor woman in this situation have a statistical tendency to deflate the self-reported level of her happiness? (Or, would we expect poor women today to keep inflating their self-reported level of happiness as women, generally, may have done in the past?) This seems like an empirical question for which the answer is not obvious. There is, after all, a background social context to consider. Perhaps a poor woman today whose life has not yet directly and tangibly improved via feminism still has an emotional sense of greater opportunities awaiting her if she can somehow overcome whatever idiosyncratic challenges are facing her. In other words, at some deeper emotional level she may still feel better off, thanks to increased potentials, even if those potentials, for her, keep failing to manifest in tangible form.
If you have good evidence for thinking that some women today should not deflate their self-reports of happiness, per Kahneman, then I'd like to hear it. I, frankly, don't know the answers here.
Largely academic if you see neither trend in the actual data.
If you don't like equality for women, by all means, move to the Middle East. You'll like it.
And some people support bringing in refugees from middle eastern countries that believes women should be treated like slaves, and homosexuals should be executed.
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.
