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.
Even if we are to accept your survey on happiness as proof women are unhappier now(which is a concept that is hard to quantify and there are many reasons that the results could have shaken out as they did) ...it only covered the last 30 years or so. Feminism has had 3 waves and lasted much longer than that.
How can you look at a survey like this and say hmmm...women in the past 30 years aren't happy. Instead of logically thinking about what has happened in that 30 year period, I'll posit that it's feminism period and rolling it all back 200 years or so would be best.
Mmmmm how does that work? It's certainly overkill, at a minimum. It would be like wanting to go back before the Industrial Revolution just because a survey showed workers today were unhappy.
The paradox is only inductive evidence against third wave feminism.
To criticize other aspects of feminism (for example, to fully defend a Mennonite or OOA system of values and ethics on gender) requires a much deeper treatment of the subject matter, going into ontology or typology, which is probably beyond the scope of the thread.
That aspect of the dialectic probably belongs more in the philosophy or great debates forum.
More women than men go to college because quite often women are doing different jobs and many jobs in academia generally lean towards a Master's. Whereas many jobs men do such as in IT and so on don't. They lean a lot on certifications and short term 1 week seminars and so on.
So in your study there are more women in college because women are entering different fields.
The fields of employment women are entering require a higher education while the field men are entering do not.
Therefore there are more educated men than women thus women are finding it difficult meeting educated men.
Quote:
My point is you're still taking "status" and "labels" into account whereas men, before feminism, didn't. So the problem with modern era self proclaimed feminists is they're hypocrites and they want their cake and be able to eat it to.
Back up. Before feminism, pre 1900? Though most women had no status or label then to take into consideration men (those with status and labels) still considered a woman's social standing, even more so than today because it was looked down upon to marry outside of your social standing.
Quote:
Men date down all of the time and many of them have very good jobs. example : the lawyer dates a paralegal in the office down the streeet. If career women want reversed roles they should be doing what men do not trying to work the system and still date or marry like a 1950's woman.
Statistics show people date/marry largely within their own socioeconomic level. There is nothing wrong with marrying your equal or marrying someone who has the ability to increase your financial stability especially if you are a woman because the vast majority of women who have children will be having to break from the workforce and its just smart to know you will have a partner to have your back financially and can allow you to take time with your newborn.
I don't think anyone on here nor most people in general really agreed with him on that and you know what I'm talking about. Now you're trolling as well and trying to suck up to the women and White Knight them or something. I think they've got it covered buddy. No one wants Amish women to be a thing.
And yet that is the conversation I've been having with hightower, and you've been buddying up with the guy who wants women to be second-class citizens. Part of that buddying up with him has been piling on me, trying to dismiss my posts.
The paradox is only inductive evidence against third wave feminism.
To criticize other aspects of feminism (for example, to fully defend a Mennonite or OOA system of values and ethics on gender) requires a much deeper treatment of the subject matter, going into ontology or typology, which is probably beyond the scope of the thread.
That aspect of the dialectic probably belongs more in the philosophy or great debates forum.
So if the paradox only applies to third wave, why is it logical to suggest erasing all waves and not just the third, if that were even possible? Again, your logic says let's remove it all, from what you have presented in this thread, without a basis to show that it's all bad.
The Amish women, if we are to use your anecdote as a proof, shows A way that women can be happy (if they are. I am not convinced they are, but it's hard to know because of their nature. I digress), not the ONLY way women can be happy. Sure, you can suggest life like that as a solution, but it's not the only one.
You're really grasping at straws now. If qualia are not within the domain of empirical knowledge, then entire specialties like psychiatry, psychology or pain therapy would be meaningless and pointless.
Yet they are not pointless. Proof? They have practical benefits.
Originally, there was just one statement.
And I'm not grasping at straws, happiness is subjective. No way around that. Science can and will try to study subjective concepts, but until they can make a subject like happiness less vague and ephemeral, then the study's value is equally vague and ephemeral.
Saying we don't want to be second class is "flailing around like crazy women" Geez. The ideas in this thread have been so far from being radical that it's laughable. We're horrible people for wanting to be considered people and wanting to make choices about our life. Uh huh.
That was one guy, 2 posts, 40 pages ago. Yeah let me go put my vagina hat on he must be starting some sort of a movement or something.
So if the paradox only applies to third wave, why is it logical to suggest erasing all waves and not just the third, if that were even possible? Again, your logic says let's remove it all, from what you have presented in this thread, without a basis to show that it's all bad.
The Amish women, if we are to use your anecdote as a proof, shows A way that women can be happy (if they are. I am not convinced they are, but it's hard to know because of their nature. I digress), not the ONLY way women can be happy. Sure, you can suggest life like that as a solution, but it's not the only one.
Propositional logic allows this kind of thing.
The conclusion of an argument against a subset of P can be used as a premise in an argument against P as a whole.
HighTower, which rights would you want to see your mother no longer have? Just curious.
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.