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.
I have to say I am truly touched by all this "concern" about women's happiness, especially since it is expressed by people who have repeatedly demonstrated on this forum that they have nothing but contempt for women. Groping for some justification why half of humanity should be regarded as subhuman and deprived of civil rights, misogynists are retreating into benevolent sexism and falling back on the tired old argument that legal rights and social mobility should mean nothing to women because they do not guarantee personal happiness. In doing so, they either take stuff off the top of their heads or rely on highly biased "studies" (which are actually merely surveys with no scientific value), commissioned by interest groups; or they take legitimate studies and grossly misrepresent their outcomes. Their solution? Reduce women's options, take away their self-sufficiency, and turn them back into glorified household appliances. All in the name of women's happiness, of course.
The idea of combating a historically oppressed group's demand for rights with some nebulous BS about happiness isn't new. Since the 19th century, it has been argued that blacks would be "happier" as property than as people, for example; or that minorities were "happier" when they were treated a lot worse than whites. In countries like Russia, views abound that because democracy hasn't been shown to lead to happiness, everyone should just be ruled by a benevolently psychotic totalitarian government. But in the end, juxtaposing rights and opportunity on the one hand with happiness on the other is comparing apples with oranges.
The purpose of feminism isn't to make individual women happy in their individual lives -- it is to provide women with rights and educational, professional and economic opportunities equal to those of men. That is a concrete and achievable goal. Happiness, on the other hand, is a vague concept and thus beyond the purview of a political movement.
But of course, to claim that women who have more rights than their grandmothers are -- ha-ha! -- supposedly less happy has yet another dimension of contempt for women: the premise that women are solely after superficial satisfaction, not lofty ideas such as equality, intellectual fulfillment and civic participation, which are, of course, reserved for men. This stems from the general conception of women as simple-minded and animalistic. People who adhere to such ideas cannot possibly imagine that women are interested in anything but immediate personal gratification -- not opportunity or respect -- and that's why they claim that because not every woman in the world is happy, feminism has failed women. Making these claims of modern women's supposed unhappiness is (in addition to being factually inaccurate) is merely another way in which misogynists attempt to talk down to women.
I have to say I am truly touched by all this "concern" about women's happiness, especially since it is expressed by people who have repeatedly demonstrated on this forum that they have nothing but contempt for women. Groping for some justification why half of humanity should be regarded as subhuman and deprived of civil rights, misogynists are retreating into benevolent sexism and falling back on the tired old argument that legal rights and social mobility should mean nothing to women because they do not guarantee personal happiness. In doing so, they either take stuff off the top of their heads or rely on highly biased "studies" (which are actually merely surveys with no scientific value), commissioned by interest groups; or they take legitimate studies and grossly misrepresent their outcomes. Their solution? Reduce women's options, take away their self-sufficiency, and turn them back into glorified household appliances. All in the name of women's happiness, of course.
The idea of combating a historically oppressed group's demand for rights with some nebulous BS about happiness isn't new. Since the 19th century, it has been argued that blacks would be "happier" as property than as people, for example; or that minorities were "happier" when they were treated a lot worse than whites. In countries like Russia, views abound that because democracy hasn't been shown to lead to happiness, everyone should just be ruled by a benevolently psychotic totalitarian government. But in the end, juxtaposing rights and opportunity on the one hand with happiness on the other is comparing apples with oranges.
The purpose of feminism isn't to make individual women happy in their individual lives -- it is to provide women with rights and educational, professional and economic opportunities equal to those of men. That is a concrete and achievable goal. Happiness, on the other hand, is a vague concept and thus beyond the purview of a political movement.
But of course, to claim that women who have more rights than their grandmothers are -- ha-ha! -- supposedly less happy has yet another dimension of contempt for women: the premise that women are solely after superficial satisfaction, not lofty ideas such as equality, intellectual fulfillment and civic participation, which are, of course, reserved for men. This stems from the general conception of women as simple-minded and animalistic. People who adhere to such ideas cannot possibly imagine that women are interested in anything but immediate personal gratification -- not opportunity or respect -- and that's why they claim that because not every woman in the world is happy, feminism has failed women. Making these claims of modern women's supposed unhappiness is (in addition to being factually inaccurate) is merely another way in which misogynists attempt to talk down to women.
Excellent post and I volunteer that a few on this forum can shove it right up their derrieres.
I have to say I am truly touched by all this "concern" about women's happiness, especially since it is expressed by people who have repeatedly demonstrated on this forum that they have nothing but contempt for women. Groping for some justification why half of humanity should be regarded as subhuman and deprived of civil rights, misogynists are retreating into benevolent sexism and falling back on the tired old argument that legal rights and social mobility should mean nothing to women because they do not guarantee personal happiness. In doing so, they either take stuff off the top of their heads or rely on highly biased "studies" (which are actually merely surveys with no scientific value), commissioned by interest groups; or they take legitimate studies and grossly misrepresent their outcomes. Their solution? Reduce women's options, take away their self-sufficiency, and turn them back into glorified household appliances. All in the name of women's happiness, of course.
The idea of combating a historically oppressed group's demand for rights with some nebulous BS about happiness isn't new. Since the 19th century, it has been argued that blacks would be "happier" as property than as people, for example; or that minorities were "happier" when they were treated a lot worse than whites. In countries like Russia, views abound that because democracy hasn't been shown to lead to happiness, everyone should just be ruled by a benevolently psychotic totalitarian government. But in the end, juxtaposing rights and opportunity on the one hand with happiness on the other is comparing apples with oranges.
The purpose of feminism isn't to make individual women happy in their individual lives -- it is to provide women with rights and educational, professional and economic opportunities equal to those of men. That is a concrete and achievable goal. Happiness, on the other hand, is a vague concept and thus beyond the purview of a political movement.
But of course, to claim that women who have more rights than their grandmothers are -- ha-ha! -- supposedly less happy has yet another dimension of contempt for women: the premise that women are solely after superficial satisfaction, not lofty ideas such as equality, intellectual fulfillment and civic participation, which are, of course, reserved for men. This stems from the general conception of women as simple-minded and animalistic. People who adhere to such ideas cannot possibly imagine that women are interested in anything but immediate personal gratification -- not opportunity or respect -- and that's why they claim that because not every woman in the world is happy, feminism has failed women. Making these claims of modern women's supposed unhappiness is (in addition to being factually inaccurate) is merely another way in which misogynists attempt to talk down to women.
Sorry that you see it that way--maybe the problem is in how you view things, and not the idea that some women might actually prefer it to be this way! Perhaps it's merely misandry on your part?
By the way, except for the "educational fulfillment" part, mainly done as a self study, and not as part of any institution, I have no interest in the second set of things I've bolded--not for my own self. I don't have to be "equal" to other men. I'm content to be WHO I AM already, I'm not into comparing myself to others to see if I match up to them or not. I'm not interested in participating in society either--society can go kiss off.
Sorry that you see it that way--maybe the problem is in how you view things, and not the idea that some women might actually prefer it to be this way! Perhaps it's merely misandry on your part?
I don't care what other women prefer. All I want is for women to have opportunities to do different things so that they actually have the freedom to prefer one thing over another. I doubt many women, even those who prefer to be housewives, also "prefer" for everyone to be forced into a lifestyle based on their sex. Furthermore, your characterization of a desire for equal rights and equal opportunities as "misandry" only proves my point. So any woman who doesn't want women to be the subordinate sex is a man-hater? Nice.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TKramar
By the way, except for the "educational fulfillment" part, mainly done as a self study, and not as part of any institution, I have no interest in the second set of things I've bolded--not for my own self. I don't have to be "equal" to other men. I'm content to be WHO I AM already, I'm not into comparing myself to others to see if I match up to them or not. I'm not interested in participating in society either--society can go kiss off.
Well, it's obvious to me you haven't done enough self-study to understand the simple difference between being identical to everyone else and having equal rights and equal opportunities. People should be able to choose their path in life based on merit and aptitude, not forced into one on account of their gender. And your preferences should not dictate what others should do with their lives.
Recent studies on the topic have shown women rate their lives less happy today than they did back then. It makes sense when you really think about it. Taking care of the home, sending the kids off to school in the morning, and making dinner isn't exactly rocket science. Between all that you have most of the day to yourself, even with less home automation back in the 50s or 60s as compared to today. Women still do a huge chuck of taking care of the home, so coupled with doing all that AND working a 9-5 job it's a no-brainer women are less happy overall. Ah, the joys of feminism and "having it all". And for the record a few years ago when I was changing jobs I had 2 full weeks off to stay home and do the whole deal. I LOVED IT!!!! I can only hope to ever be "oppressed" like that again.
Anything is fun when you only have to do it for a short while. That's why we like vacations and week long training seminars. A steady diet of having no freedom and just being someone elses house keeper would get to most of us.
As a teacher, I'm off most of the summer. The first few weeks are fun, then it gets boring and tedious. I wish it was as easy to find a summer job as some on these boards think. In this economy, companies just aren't lining up to hire people who can work for 8 weeks out of the year. At least not ones that make it worth putting gas in my tank and arranging for someone else to keep tabs on my kids, to go to .
No-brainer doens't = happy unless you're an idiot who doesn't want to think. For those of us who think for a living, that is a welcome change when we get the chance to do it but few of us would choose it as a permanent lifestyle. I'd rather do rocket science and I would find that on the hard side.
I don't care what other women prefer. All I want is for women to have opportunities to do different things so that they actually have the freedom to prefer one thing over another. I doubt many women, even those who prefer to be housewives, also "prefer" for everyone to be forced into a lifestyle based on their sex. Furthermore, your characterization of a desire for equal rights and equal opportunities as "misandry" only proves my point. So any woman who doesn't want women to be the subordinate sex is a man-hater? Nice.
Well, it's obvious to me you haven't done enough self-study to understand the simple difference between being identical to everyone else and having equal rights and equal opportunities. People should be able to choose their path in life based on merit and aptitude, not forced into one on account of their gender. And your preferences should not dictate what others should do with their lives.
No...but you do come across as bitter, and somewhat hateful of men as a gender.
As far as having equal rights--I KNOW that I don't have equal rights. Some people seem to have more rights than others, that's the way life works though, and I totally accept that.
After all, YOU are the one who characterizes housewives as subhuman and without civil rights. No man has said that, no man has even HINTED at that. Some men actually respect women enough that they want to care for them! Imagine!
Orthodox Jewish men thank God every day for not making them women. I agree with this sentiment. I can not imagine the hell it must be to be a women through all ages of history being mere rape-slaves and playthings for me. To be born a woman must be a terrible punishment for some awful crime in a past life. Women historically have been subhuman in the sense that their entire lives were devoted to being pleasurable toys. Perhaps Aristotle's definition of slave nature is correct, if women were not by nature slaves they would have committed suicide rather than endure such lives of indignity. Not that things have been all that much better for men. Women are but slaves of slaves.
But if men are fine being brutal sadist and women are glad to be braindead masochists, than who am I to interfere with the natural order? But I can not participate in human society. So surely I will wither away and starve.
After all, YOU are the one who characterizes housewives as subhuman and without civil rights. No man has said that, no man has even HINTED at that. Some men actually respect women enough that they want to care for them! Imagine!
Family takes care of family. There is no need to employ control over another and inhibit choices or to inject gender any where. Maybe you have a reading comprehension problem, but the argument that equality doesn't bring happiness (happiness as a proposed deciding variable) is an argument against equality. And it's completey offensive.
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.
