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.
So you have a sample of -one- (maybe half a dozen if you include the other happy feminists here).
He has a meta-analysis with sample sizes in the tens of thousands.
Sure that's convincing evidence
Calling poor statistical data and analysis "meta-analysis" does not make it so.
"During a time when women were subjugated by men, women were given permission by their husbands to participate in a study to evaluate their happiness... to male surveyors. Now that women are freely independent, they are reporting less happiness. Must mean we should re-subjugate them."
So I ask again. Please explain how reverting to 19th century gender roles would make me, as a person, happier and better off. I'm all ears.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DC at the Ridge
The meta-analysis he is using doesn't logically connect to the argument he's making.
THIIIISSS.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DC at the Ridge
It works either way. If correlation does not equal causation, then causation does not equal correlation.
Eh. To be fair... a square is a rectangle, but a rectangle is not a square.
Correlation does not imply causation, but causation does imply correlation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DC at the Ridge
And then you tried to negate my remarks by telling me to calm down. Perhaps you should "calm down". Because your arguments on this thread have no foundation.
Isn't it hilarious when men use inherently faulty logic then tell dissenting women to "calm down"?
Isn't it hilarious when men use inherently faulty logic then tell dissenting women to "calm down"?
Same could be said of the flipped scenario.
Most men are not against women, so statements like these alienate those who would otherwise be for your cause. I hesitate to call myself a feminist because I do not wish to be associated with the activists of today (and I find some of the protests that went on this year to be intellectually dishonest), but I believe every man and woman should have equal rights and opportunities.
Anecdotal evidence is valid. It's just not statistical evidence nor is it considered to be as rigorous.
A single anecdotal testimony is sufficient to falsify a universal generalization, or as proof of concept, or to show that an hypothetical claim is merely possible (as it is being used here).
Yes. Anecdotal evidence is valid. It's just not statistical evidence nor is it considered to be as rigorous.
A single anecdotal testimony is insufficient to make any universal generalization. Which is EXACTLY what you are trying to do by using anecdotal evidence to draw conclusions about Amish women in general, and then to extrapolate your conclusions to women in general.
Nothing you have posted, vague happiness surveys and Amish anecdotes and all, has further supported your initial suppositions that gender equality is completely unworkable and all of the other things.
Of course you'll deny this. Given that you're not raising any proper objections aside from shrill accusations in the vein of "you're just wrong", shall we move onto premise 2?
Yes. Anecdotal evidence is valid. It's just not statistical evidence nor is it considered to be as rigorous.
A single anecdotal testimony is insufficient to make any universal generalization. Which is EXACTLY what you are trying to do by using anecdotal evidence to draw conclusions about Amish women in general, and then to extrapolate your conclusions to women in general.
You want to try again?
Some caution here. Let me remind you of what I actually wrote, with a bit of emphasis added in bold:
Quote:
A single anecdotal testimony is sufficient to falsify a universal generalization, or as proof of concept, or to show that an hypothetical claim is merely possible (as it is being used here).
The purpose of my observation of the Amish is merely to show that an hypothetical claim is possible:
Quote:
... Amish women are not the equals of Amish men, yet they [can be] loved, deeply respected and cared for by their husbands.
Of course you'll deny this. Given that you're not raising any proper objections aside from shrill accusations in the vein of "you're just wrong", shall we move onto premise 2?
Ah, so of course I am shrill now, to boot, when I point out how your logic does not pan out for what you are saying. What was your premise 2, again?
Calling poor statistical data and analysis "meta-analysis" does not make it so.
"During a time when women were subjugated by men, women were given permission by their husbands to participate in a study to evaluate their happiness... to male surveyors. Now that women are freely independent, they are reporting less happiness. Must mean we should re-subjugate them."
So I ask again. Please explain how reverting to 19th century gender roles would make me, as a person, happier and better off. I'm all ears.
THIIIISSS.
Eh. To be fair... a square is a rectangle, but a rectangle is not a square.
Correlation does not imply causation, but causation does imply correlation.
Isn't it hilarious when men use inherently faulty logic then tell dissenting women to "calm down"?
To be fair, the argument is a negative argument, rather than a positive argument.
A triangle does not equal a square. A square does not equal a triangle. Correlation shows a relationship, but causation seeks to explain the relationship. They are not the same.
Caution here. Let me remind you of what I actually wrote (emphasis added):
I'm well aware of what you wrote.
Would you like me to remind you of what I wrote? Or would you prefer to ignore it while simultaneously trying to dismiss it?
A single anecdotal testimony is insufficient to making a universal generalization. Which is EXACTLY what you are trying to do by using anecdotal evidence to draw conclusions about the general population of Amish women, and then to extrapolate your conclusions to women in general.
Just that the data on why is inconclusive. How would feminism degrade the happiness of traditional domestic housewives?
I don't fault anyone (male or female) who would prefer to marry within their income bracket or higher.
Perhaps it's because many people see higher income as a sign of intelligence. I mean, I know I sure as heck wouldn't want to marry someone who's dumber than a bag of rocks.
The difference is that, back then, women were seen and treated as intellectually inferior.
If we go on the premise that there is no inherent difference in intellectual capabilities between men and women, it makes sense that someone would want to spend the rest of their lives with someone who was as equally capable as them.
Wroooong. There was actually such a study some years back (4 years ago to be precise). 70% of the women surveyed were supportive of the idea of a stay-at-home dad if the finances allowed.
Though, in the interest of fairness here, that number was definitely less than the 91% of men who supported the idea of a stay-at-home mom.
According to the BLS, it's not as rare as you probably think.
In married households with one spouse working and one non-working, 1 in 4 is the husband.
In married households with children having one working spouse and one non-working spouse, 1 in 8 is the husband.
On a side not, I find it interesting that the comparative rates for men being the stay-at-home are higher when there are no children to be taken care of.
And so is the fact that men with breadwinning wives are 3x more likely to cheat than women with breadwinning husbands.
Your article mostly pointed to women desiring to date/marry men who had relatively equal education or intelligence. If you're correlating that with income, that's your own fault.
For instance, I would rather have my intelligent and creative mechanic of a husband than to be with some millionaire with middle school intelligence.
Psh. Only to men who who would need to step up their game.
Just like the red pill'ers here who pick and choose what suits their agenda to use against women.
Huh. Guess we're equal on that.
What a load of bs this all is. Men with breadwinning wives are 3x more likely to cheat? That's a total crock. The men that are the most likely to cheat are men that have jobs that require travel. 99 percent of the time, those are situations where the man is the breadwinner and has a high paying job.
My point still stands you refuted nothing, and my response here is the same to 2mares.
If feminists weren't hypocrites and modern day feminism wasn't a sham movement there would not be so many women still trying to engage in hypergamy, there would in fact be more stay at home dads....and women in the Bos-Wash corridor would not be whining about a lack of upper class salaried men.
Men dated and married down for 12,000 years. When all of the doctors and lawyers were men a lot of their wives were, and still are, stay at home moms, and they are/was willing to date or marry down.
Career women feminists in the Bos-Wash corridor in 2017 can't do any of that? What's their problem?
Explain the paradox. Or you've got nothing.
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.
